So about that election...

The election wasn't the problem.  It was the symptom.  This election was the result of 50 years of crappy catechesis in the Church here in America. 


We have an administration that essentially put its boot on the Church, all its members, all its institutions, saying to it, "You know those things that you've been saying for 2,000 years are intrinsically wrong?  Yeah, well, not only do you have to be OK with it, but we're going to force you to be complicit in it and even pay for it or else face stiff penalties."  And half the Catholics who voted said, "Yeah, I'm OK with that."  Whatever one's opinion of abortion, contraception, or even of the Church, this was an opportunity to assert that religious liberty still means something in this country.  It is clear that in this country, religious liberty is a dead sentiment.

Who would support compulsory measures to force vegans to butcher, sell and eat meat?  How about forcing the Amish to fight in war?  No one would.  Because we recognize that religious freedom is sacred.  But in this day and age, all must be sacrificed to the "Sacrament of Abortion." 

I've been told many times that I can be very diplomatic.  I can be very pleasant and patient with people that I disagree with (especially when they extend the same courtesy to me).  While I disagree with all people that are pro-choice, I have a certain amount of patience for them, especially those of no faith.  Their view on abortion is not necessarily inconsistent with their (un)beliefs.  But I have no more patience for self-proclaimed "pro-choice Catholics."  There is no such animal.  One can be pro-choice, one can be Catholic, one can be neither.  But one cannot be both. 

I'm done dancing around that.  Intrinsically evil acts are always and everywhere wrong.  There is no prudential judgment.  The intentional killing of an innocent human being is always wrong.  Those who support it, always fall into one of two general categories: 1. those who deny the personhood of the baby in the womb or 2. those who have the audacity to take upon themselves the authority to declare that some lives are not worth living. 

Catholics who support intrinsically evil acts are committing mortal sin.  Mortal sin endangers one's soul to hell.  This is no longer the time for trying to lead people by persuasion, reason and fact.  Though we must never give that up entirely, we are immersed in a society that cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion, between reason and emotion, between history and bias. 

This is now the time to engage with, as Subvet said, lines clearly drawn.  Barak Obama was reelected because half the Catholics in this country are OK with intrinsic evil.  And no amount of volunteering at soup kitchens mitigates the intrinsic evil of murdering innocent babies in the womb to the tune of 55,000,000 since 1973.  No improvements in welfare programs erases the fact that we are killing the vulnerable. 

No appeals to the authority of Fr. Whitewash change the teaching authority of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church on faith and morals. 

You can't be Catholic and pro-choice.  One cancels out the other.  So if you think you are one, this is the time to choose.  Pick one.  But stop saying you're both.  And God help you to make the right decision before it is too late.

Thinking and praying today...

...not only for the repose of the soul of my cousin's son Max, and the comfort of his family and friends,

but also for the hundreds of thousands walking today in the bitter cold in Washington to give witness to the sanctity of life from the moment of conception until the moment of natural death.

May the slaughter stop, please God.

I blog today for LIFE!

I blog today for life, on this anniversary of Roe v. Wade. When people say that they are for "choice," what does that word mean except the ability to kill innocent babies?

Wow.

Wow.

That's all I can say about that.

If you read nothing else today, read this.


H/T Mark Shea



Oh, and this video is sure to get your attention.

A parent's responsibility...

...is first and foremost the formation of their children. Not how nice their clothes are, not how nice of a car they drive, not how expensive their toys are. While nice clothes and a nice car and expensive toys are all good things to try and provide, it is disproportionate to treat having those items as the essential mission of a good parent.

The formation of a child's character, the education of their minds, and the sanctity of their souls are the most important things a parent has to be concerned with.

In this vein, please check out this short article by Peter Bauer, which I found via the ever-helpful Catholic Dads online.

I find more and more parents, including those who attend church weekly, introducing their children to contraceptives because they’ve decided it’s an easier battle to teach their kids to sin without consequence then to not sin at all.

Our jobs as parents is to know the faith, live the faith, lead by example and teach that faith to our children. We are tasked, by Jesus himself, to protect our children from sin, to be the guardians of their innocence.

Yes, our kids will have to live in this real, broken world and our job is to do our best to prepare them for it. Yes, we should help them to be successful financially, scholastically and socially. However, our first and primary responsibility is to prepare them spiritually for the battle for their souls that awaits them.

Let's call it Godwin's Law of Abortion...

Invariably, in any discussion of the ethics of abortion, the pro-life person will affirm the humanity of the "fetus" and the pro-choice person will say that it is only a clump of cells.

Such, of course, happened in this conversation I was in recently. Of course, it's a well-based scientific fact that human life begins at conception, and here is a compendium of quotes from different biology texts that state exactly that. Please note that many of the quotes originate from abortion supporters, notably included: Alan Guttmacher.

Maybe I'm imagining it

...but I swear I've heard this theory before.

Sorry, judge. Marriage is between one man and one woman.

I said that yesterday on Facebook and started a firestorm of comments, many from people who rarely comment. That's cool, I like dialogue. I find it more fruitful than the monologue format of blogging. I'm moving the conversation here, though, because it was getting a little too lengthy for Facebook, and I think that it would make good fodder for public discussion here.

Most of the commentary in disagreement with me was sincere, but predictable. We can't judge others, we're all God's children, it's not fair to deny homosexuals happiness, etc. I was accused not only of being judgmental and insensitive, but also of repeating dusty arguments without putting any thought into it.

The truth is, I have thought about this, a lot. Well, this in particular somewhat, sexual ethics moreso, but the whole ethical dilemma in general a lot.

I have to reject moral relativism because it denies the existence of truth; the push for gay marriage, as well as all the comments I got yesterday, were examples of moral relativism. Moral relativism says that what is right always depends on the circumstances, what is right (or wrong) for one is not necessarily right (or wrong) for others. Consequently, all debate about morality breaks down into shouting matches of "Yeah-huh!" vs. "Nuh-uh!" because there is no basis for measurement. Without any foundation for morals, we all become our own emperors. The problem with this is that some emperors are stronger than others, and some emperors become tyrants while others become slaves. Moral relativism leads to the gas chambers.

As a Catholic, I reject moral relativism because it rejects the existence of truth. We believe in Natural Law, the moral law that governs all people in all places. It is the inborn conscience universal to mankind. Natural Law informs mankind that murder is wrong, that child abuse is wrong, that theft is wrong. Natural Law causes mankind throughout history to revere courage, honesty, valor, devotion, commitment. Natural Law is not only universal, but universally binding. It is wrong to murder. It was wrong to murder 100 years ago. It was wrong to murder 1000 years ago, just as it was wrong for Cain to murder Abel in the beginning of humanity. Individuals may nonetheless murder, but the mere fact that they committed the act of murder does not make it morally licit.

Natural Law recognizes also that there is "a nature" to creation. This holds true to the sexual act as well. Our bodies are created male and female and as such, they are complementary. The sexual act, while pleasurable, is aimed at a specific purpose: the procreation of mankind. In that act, man and woman take part in an action that is unitive and procreative. Man and woman, in an intimate act, find an expression so strong that it has the potential to bring into being a whole new person. The biological explanation of how is empty in its understanding of why. That new person has constant needs: nurture, food, education, support. The most stable and effective environment for meeting those needs are in a family.

Because of this understanding of human sexuality, it is only appropriate to engage in the sexual act in a way that mirrors the open-ness to new life. Hence masturbation, artificial contraception, and homosexual acts are not appropriate in the scheme of the nature of our bodies' dignity. Because of the needs of the offspring brought into being through the sexual act, the institution of marriage has been necessary throughout history to safeguard the environment of children, and to form the building blocks of society as a whole.

Marriage, properly understood, is an institution of a life-long commitment between one man and one woman, who share intimate union, and if their union be fruitful, to protect, nurture and educate their children through adulthood.

Homosexuality is a disordered sexuality, in that it by definition, cannot express itself in a life-giving way. This is not the same as a man and woman marrying past child-bearing years, as their union still gives expression to the complementarity of their being. The homosexual act is by nature not open to life, therefore homosexual unions are not marriage.

And this brings us to the point of yesterday's post. Judge Walker in California declared that gender has nothing to do with the institution of marriage. And he is wrong.

Now, I accept that there are homosexuals. I accept that there are homosexuals living together in a committed relationship even. But it is not marriage. Accuse me of engaging in semantics, but it is not rightly called a marriage. Similarly, a cohabitating heterosexual couple is not rightly called a marriage. Both arrangements have some aspects in common with marriage, but they do not fit the requirements of definition.

So is that all I'm fighting for? A definition? Well in some ways yes, and in some ways no. Yes, I am fighting for a definition, as it is imperative that we live according to truth. If the judge had declared that 2 + 2 = 5, that would not make it so, any more than it was so when an earlier court ruling once declared that black people were property. Declarations that are falsehoods must be rejected, otherwise words, relationships, laws, lose their meaning. If marriage can be redefined, what about love? What about war? Peace? If words can, by fiat, be made to mean the opposite of their meaning, communication quickly loses its meaning.

And also, I'm standing up against more than a definition. Catholic blogger Mark Shea has posted numerous stories to illustrate the point that the modern movement to legalize gay marriage is not merely to allow homosexual couples legal options, which they have already achieved, or to be tolerated in society, which they also have already achieved, but that the end goal is approval. Tolerance is not enough; you must approve.

Now to turn to the Catholic faith, by which I order my life.

Some of the comments that I received were aimed at my religious sensibilities in an attempt to convince me that I was wrong in this matter. They said that God is love, only God can judge, and that if God made homosexuals the way they are, who is the Church to deny them happiness? I'll try to address that here.

God is love. Love is not a feature of God, that He may have at one time and not at another, but is His essence. Not all that He does is love, but all that He is is love. His love is strong so as to give Himself up in bloody agony and torment to buy back his beloved (that's you and me) from the claws of death. His will is for our eternal happiness, which finds its fulfillment in Him. But God does not force His love upon us. Man can, and often does, reject God. For one cannot accept God, yet reject His commandments. Love is an act of the will which seeks the good of the beloved in accord with truth. Love must be based on truth, and truth cannot contradict truth, just as God cannot contradict Himself. So we must live in accord with truth to live in God's love. We must live as God has revealed Himself, in imitation of Christ, in all ways possible.

Now to the question of judgment. Not to pick on the ones who made the comment (because I've heard the statement countless times from countless people), but of course we are to judge, as long as we understand in what way we mean to judge (for judgment already has more than one meaning). Let me pose it this way: Is there anyone reading this who doesn't reject the actions of sinful priests? Is there anyone who doesn't judge them to be wrong? When the priest abuse scandal broke, did anyone reading this say, "Well, it's not for me to judge how others live their lives"? Or another example: If you have children, would you allow your children to engage in sexual acts at the age of 6? or 10? Or would you judge that to be wrong, inappropriate, even -gasp- sinful? Do you judge the actions of politicians? Do you judge the actions of criminals? Of course you would! The point is that every one of us makes all sorts of value judgments all the time. So to choose this particular instance of "gay marriage" and declare that it's not for us to judge is frankly, a copout. Either one doesn't want to think it through to the logical consequences, or what that statement really means is "I judge it to be morally acceptable, and just don't want to say it."

The other meaning of judgment is that of the state of one's soul. That judgment is left to God alone. Neither you nor I can judge another person's soul and declare their damnation. By the grace of God we all aim at eternal life, though the choice is up to us.

As to the last comment, that God made homosexuals gay and to deny them marriage is unfair, let me just say this. It is not known why some people have an attraction to members of the same sex. I do know, however, that opponents of gay marriage are criticized for suggesting that homosexuality is genetic, and conversely, also criticized for suggesting that homosexuality is learned. No one really knows why, though in the end, I don't see that the question of why it is to be the important question. The important question is "What now?"

I believe, as I posted in my comment, that what is important is to encourage all people, homosexual and heterosexual, the importance of chastity. Chastity recognizes the gift of human sexuality (and the sexual act) and that the dignity and worth of a person far exceeds their sexual actions. People need to hear that abuse of their sexuality is an abuse of their dignity. The dignity of each person is to be respected, first and foremost by one's self. Such self-respect demands self-control. (Remember, I'm not letting heterosexual people off the hook here, either.)

I'm not an advocate of "fixing" gay people to make them straight. I'm cynical of such attempts. What I do respect is the effort to support homosexuals in carrying the cross that they bear in having a sexuality that cannot find a life-giving expression. Groups like Courage are an example of such support.

The Church doesn't seek to deny anyone happiness. To the contrary, the Church recognizes that the fullness of happiness lies in union with God. Such union, as we saw before, must realize truth and live in accord with that truth. Gay marriage does not accord with the truth of God's plan for the human family. That may sound painful, but sometimes the truth is painful.

I, like many other people of the current generation, grew up with a deficiency. Our culture has denied the validity of the Ten Commandments for the absolute sovereignty of the One Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Offend Anyone. You can't stand for what you believe in, for it might hurt someone's feelings. Well, if hurting someone's feelings leads them to truth, so be it. I'm not out trying to crush people, in fact, many times I'm still a coward who keeps my head in the sand. But like C.S. Lewis described, sometimes on an arduous journey that one is frightened to undertake, the most important first step is to throw one's bag over the wall. Then, one convinces himself that he is not undertaking the journey, but merely climbing the wall to retrieve one's bag. After that, one has already climbed the wall and might as well keep going.

I'm not trying in this discussion to crush anyone, nor to deny anyone happiness. But sin never leads to happiness. It may lead to pleasure, it may lead to good feelings for a while, but it is far short of the true happiness that we seek in our eternal union with God.

For more reading (as if this post wasn't long enough!) consider these three posts:

http://vocatum.blogspot.com/2010/08/bishop-jaime-sotos-2008-address-on.html

http://youngevangelicalandcatholic.blogspot.com/2010/07/guestpost-hidden-option.html

http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/2010/08/real-agenda-is-out-of-closet.html

The Story of Baby Gianna

...is very important to read. Sometimes we can be overwhelmed by the sheer number of abortions that occur every day and even pro-lifers can fail to grasp the humanity of each and every individual baby. The story of baby Gianna reminds us of the love and care every baby deserves.

(Since I'm not free to link everyday to the multi-part series at CMR, click on the sonogram on my sidebar to follow the whole story.)

God bless.

Exultet joins onto CatholicVoteAction.org

Well, I'm no Thomas Peters, but I do get to be in the same room with him (and Josh Mercer, Brian Burch, and a number of other great Catholic bloggers). Check out my first post at CatholicVoteAction.org.

It's my first post there, so go easy on me in the combox? Merci!

Champions for Life

Tim Tebow isn't the first football player to speak out about the atrocity of the abortion holocaust in the U.S. Players from the 1986 Suberbowl champion NY Giants speak out here: (I'm sorry, am I allowed to say Superbowl?)



H/T Newsbusters via CMR

Help out a Regular Guy

Fellow blogger and Catholic Dad Paul Mitchell is taking a stand to change things for the better. He's a strong pro-life conservative running for State Representative in the 62nd district in Illinois. Please help him out any way you can, either by prayer, money, or real estate on your blog. Thanks, Paul!

March for Life video

Well, as of yet, The Day hasn't printed my letter. They usually hold my pro-life submission off until Saturday, when fewer people read the paper. And I do have some videos and interviews that my wife and I did with a few people we met on the March. This video below, however, is a great indication of the magnitude of the March for Life, both in numbers and its importance. I've gotta say, the line at the end is especially significant.



Thanks to Leticia for posting it.

Letter to Editor, March for Life 2010

With no ill will toward Elissa Bass or the Algiere family, I find it interesting that the Day ran a 500 word, front-page article with large pictures about a missing goat, yet this story doesn't even get mentioned:

Hundreds of area residents joined hundreds of thousands of Americans from across the country to join the largest, longest-running grassroots march on Washington to stand in defiance of the Roe v. Wade decision which enabled approximately 50 million state-sanctioned deaths since 1973.

This is an especially shocking journalistic oversight considering: 1. Current health care legislation dominating news this year has been effectively derailed in part by objections over abortion and other right-to-life issues. 2. Recent polls show that the majority of Americans for the first time since 1973 consider themselves "pro-life" and 3. A federal study released in the April 2009 issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention confirmed a strong link between breast cancer and both abortion and oral contraceptives.

Is there a reason for the Day's oversight? If staff funding is a problem, I would be happy to give a reporter a ride to next year's March for Life. Until then, wait for the call when my cat goes missing.

One more thing the Brown win in MA means...

...people like David Marciniak have one less over-reaching incompetent statist nitwit to worry about in Washington.

Live Action has a new publication...

... called The Advocate.

you can read it here.

Just in case you think eugenics is cool...

go check out this article at Causa Nostrae Laetitiae.

The Manhattan Declaration

If you haven't signed it, get to it! It's double-plus good!

The Dog That Didn't Bark Finally Barks

President Obama said to a joint session of Congress that his plan for health care reform would not use Federal dollars to pay for abortions. Yet we knew even at the time that he was lying.

When he announced in his plan to make the Federal government the biggest health insurance provider in the nation that it wouldn't pay for abortions, do you remember the giant uproar it caused among abortion providers and their supporters? Remember the hand-wringing that went on by those worried that abortions would be underfunded and the abortion industry would be left out in the cold unable to offer their necessary services to women who need them? Oh, wait, that's right. There was no uproar. In fact, they didn't say "boo." No rants by Maureen Dowd, no e-mail campaign by Planned Parenthood, no released statements by Naral. Nothing. Not even a wimper by Pseudo-Catholics for Free Choice.

Apparently, they had reason to think that President Obama either didn't mean what he said or there was a giant loophole in his meaning. Well, Congressman Stupak provided the answer to that riddle. Obama was talking about a bill that didn't exist while the bills that existed in reality did and still do cover abortions with Federal (taxpayer-supplied) dollars, despite numerous attempts to amend the bills otherwise.

But even when pro-life amendments to the House and Senate bills were proposed, there was still no uproar from the abortion industry; that is, until now. Planned Parenthood is attacking the Catholic Church.

It is now perfectly clear that abortion will be covered under the plans that President Obama, Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi are pushing. And the Catholic Church is pushing back. In the last couple of weeks, the USCCB declared that unless abortion is taken out of the federal coverage and meaningful conscience protections are put in place, it will be forced to oppose the single reform that the Catholic bishops have been hoping for since the 1950's.

The only problem is, I don't know if they'll keep pushing or if they'll cave. History is not on our side. The Plan B "contraceptive" debacle that embroiled the State of CT and the CT Catholic Conference a few years back paints a disheartening picture: the bishops loudly declare that they'll fight to the end, then timidly release a statement on page A9 at the last hour admitting that the abortifacient would be allowed in Catholic hospitals.

I believed then that the bishops had a much stronger position than they either imagined or were willing to put on the table. If the Church had threatened to close its hospitals in the state--and I don't mean sell them to another health care company-- I mean, lay off the staff, demolish the buildings and set the land as a nature preserve, the state would have backed off in a heartbeat.

But that's not what happened. Instead, we got a half-hearted hope that the pill which was known to have abortifacient properties might not actually be acting as such. Sigh.

I fear that the bulletin-insert campaign (which, btw, many readers at CMR report didn't happen in their parishes this past weekend) is a little too little, too late.

Maybe I'm being naive, and if someone can help me understand this, please do. Why can't the bishops threaten to close Catholic hospitals if the health care proposal covers abortion with taxpayer dollars? Why can't they threaten it now unless a pro-life amendment is passed? What government body is going to find the funding to rebuild hundreds of hospitals throughout the country? And what politician is going to want that on his resume-- (I forced Catholic hospitals to close)?

I'm not afraid to say it...

I cried. Like. A. Girl.


h/t: CMR