Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2009 May
2007 July
2007 May
2007 April
2007 January
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 June
2006 May
2006 February
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
My Links
EWTN
Dayton Right to Life Org.
Just the Facts.Org
My Yahoo Group
Toys for Tots 2004
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
|
|
|
There are currently sites in this ring. |
|
|
| Is it Time to Abandon the United Nations? |
| 01.30.04 (10:42 am) [edit] |
The future of the United Nations is far from secure as it becomes more bloated, corrupt and centered on its own desire to dictate to the world.
In 1942, FDR spoke of a “United Nations” and the hope it could bring to a world torn apart by war.
The dream was a good one.
The reality has become a nightmare.
The future of the United Nations is far from secure as it becomes more bloated, corrupt and centered on its own desire to dictate to the world.
Does the UN do the job it was formed to do?
From its own charter on Human Rights: Article 4: “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.” Article 5: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
As Secretary-General Kofi Annan is wined and dined all over the world, his own country is poor. It has one of the highest numbers of abandoned children in the world. His own African continent is in constant turmoil.
As to the rules against slavery, it is flourishing in Mauritania and Sudan. In Mauritania it is estimated that between 80 and 90 thousand people are owned and live in slavery, according to Human Rights Watch/Africa and the U.S. State Department. Does the United Nations do anything about it?
In the Sudan, truckloads of children sold into slavery can be seen traveling to meet their fate on any given day. Those who try to escape face branding, castration, beatings and rape. It is common knowledge and the U.N. does nothing.
Arabs in the Sudan kill those who refuse to convert to Islam. The Organization of African Unity refuses to “interfere” with any country’s internal problems. The people in those countries get no help from the almighty U.N to end their bondage.
On April 6, 1994 the Rwandan and Burundian Presidents were killed when their plane was shot down. The genocide started immediately. Thousands died each day. The U.N. peacekeeping force, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda, stood by and watched, forbidden to violate their monitoring mandate. Ten foolish Belgian members of UNAMIR surrendered their weapons. They were tortured and killed.
President Clinton, a supporter of the U.N., expressed his dismay over the genocide. Americans were airlifted out to safety, leaving their native staffs behind to meet their fates. Nothing more was done by the U.S.
By April 11, tens of thousands were dead. The U.N. troops were ordered to abandon their post and retreat to the airport. The 2000 people that had sought refuge within the compound the U.N. deserted were hacked to death.
On April 21st the U.N voted to abandon Rwanda and removed all U.N. forces. The Red Cross believed that hundreds of thousands of people had already died.
As the U.N. did what it does best, cut and run, the U.S. tried to justify its own inaction by splitting hairs on what the word “genocide” means. The U.N. followed Clinton’s lead to relieve itself of any responsibility. They passed a resolution condemning the acts of murder but refused to call it genocide. If they had called it what is was they would have been obligated to stop it. In one day alone a quarter of a million people fled the country, burdening their neighbors to the breaking point.
Kofi Annan, then head of the Peacekeeping forces, had this to say,“…here we are watching people being deprived of the most fundamental of rights, the right to life, and yet we seem a bit helpless ..." The understatement of the century. Perhaps they should pass another resolution. It’s the only thing they do well.
May 13, 1994 -- the U.N. wanted to vote to send in troops to stop the massacres. U.S. Representative Madeline Albright held up the vote for four days. Finally, on May 17, the vote passed, but no action was taken because of infighting over who would foot the bill. Ms. Albright says the fate of Rwanda ultimately rests with the people of Rwanda, thus washing her hands of any blood. By mid-May, as the U.N. continued to fight over cost, half a million people died.
In 100 days, over 800,000 people were dead and the U.N. still had not deployed any troops.
Four years later, now Secretary-General Annan expresses his regrets. The nearly million dead, however, can no longer hear him.
Nor can the estimated million dead in Iraq hear the U.N. spokesman as he condemns the U.S. for taking action to stop the killing.
The Food for Oil program was very profitable for the U.N. Days after saying boldly that the terrorists would not drive the U.N. from Iraq, he ordered his people out of Iraq. He is now threatening to do the same in Afghanistan.
The genocide in the Balkans was carried out as U.N. peacekeepers watched.
The U.N. and Europe preferred to wait and let the U.S. led NATO step in and stop the killing.
We eventually did with the unorthodox method of carpet bombing. This brought death and misery to the civilians they were supposed to be saving.
Now under U.N. control, the killing continues in the Balkans and Kosovo, just on a smaller, unreported scale.
The U.N. repeatedly condemns Israel but refuses to condemn the terrorist acts committed against the tiny Jewish state.
One has to ask, what good is this body?
As they go around the world promoting forced abortions and condemning the U.S. at every turn they ignore violation after violation of their own laws.
They are a fat lion with no teeth. They cower at the first shot and abandon those they are there to protect.
They demand their collective blessing but have no real vision of the world except one that is totally under their incompetent control.
The U.N. has delusions of grandeur with imagined visions of importance. Like most visions, it is far from reality.
|
|
1 Comments
|
| |
| A TREATISE ON HUMAN LIFE: An Unalienable Right |
| 01.30.04 (10:33 am) [edit] |
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…..”
The American Declaration of Independence, 1776
In his introduction to this well-documented book, A Treatise on Human Life by Dr. Harold Kletschka, Dave Racer states that “when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision it wiped clean multiple centuries of legal precedent. From universal condemnation of abortion to the Court’s sanctioning of legal abortions, the Court had rendered stare decisis moot. Instead, by the whim of seven justices, the foolishness of interest-group politics was substituted for the wisdom of the ages. As tragic is the loss of millions of human lives through abortion, the Court’s substitution of man’s will for immutable law has wreaked an even more far-ranging devastation on freedom and liberty; it has rendered futile a predictable future.”
Dr. Kletschka’s book is divided into three sections. He begins Section I by stating that “When the sperm and ovum unite in conception a zygote – a unicell – is formed. This unicell has life, but it also carries the Homo sapiens genetic code. Thus, it is human
life.” (p I-3) He then proceeds to discuss the difference between a human being and property. He quotes a Dr. J. Lejeune: “Property can be discarded….a human being (zygote/embryo) needs custody” (paraphrased from Testimony in Davis v. Davis, et al., Cir.Ct.Blount Co.,Tenn.,Equity Div. (Div. I), No. E. 14496, 1989. (p I – 7)
In Section II Dr. Kletschka discusses ancient and common law governing abortion. Through his extensive research into primary documents he is able to state: “In the historical and apocryphal works, dating back thousands of years B.C., we find that human life was considered to be sacred from the moment of conception, and that prevention of that life or its destruction in utero was continuously condemned in an unbroken chain of laws and precedents comprising the common law inherited by America. Even in pagan, uncivilized, and barbaric societies this sacredness of human life was recognized.”
It is well-known that the Catholic religion has steadfastly opposed abortion. Less well-known is the fact that the Catholic religion “formed the basis of the common law developed by the kings of England in governing abortion……England lived under these laws in communion with the Catholic Church for almost 1500 years…… Even after Henry VIII broke from allegiance to the Catholic faith during his reign from 1509 to 1547, the common law remained in place as the common law of that nation.” (II – 70)
Legal scholars Bracton and Coke also confirm that “the very earliest controlling precedents regarding abortion had been continuously recognized without change, save for reducing the degree and type of punishment meted out for commission of the crime. But the seriousness of the crime was never disputed, always being considered as murder or as barely less than murder, depending on the circumstances.” (II – 70)
Dr. Kletschka next establishes the connection of the common law precedents concerning abortion to the establishment of similar laws in America. He also thoroughly discusses the Otis-Henry doctrine in which “the supremacy and permanency of common law precedents became recognized and firmly entrenched in development of the law of the newly formed country.” (p II – 67)
Section III is Dr. Kletschka’s analysis of Roe v. Wade. He particularly shows how the justices not only departed from previous case law (stare desisis), the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence in their infamous decision, but especially documents
the Court’s egregious departure from Common Law precedents. He further documents actual errors in scholarship and research which the justices had used to justify their decision.
Dr. Kletschka concludes: “For the courts to continuously find a legal basis for abortion, in the face of the clear established common law prohibiting such practice, amounts to misbehavior by failing to enforce the law and to uphold the constitutional guarantees protecting the rights of the unborn.. Unless the established law is enforced as recited in this treatise it means we will have become a nation of men instead of laws… It will mean we are in a state of anarchy which will, if not arrested now, promise to spread in scope along with its venal consequences. Ultimately, tyranny can be expected to surface because all rights find their foundation in the right to life. Preservation of the sacred right to life is the prime barrier against tyranny. If that right disappears then all other rights can be expected to eventually vanish as well.” (III – 68)
Dr. Kletschka’s book is a valuable addition to the libraries of those seeking to understand the underlying issues involved with Roe v. Wade. Even though there is extensive quoting of primary sources, which should prove invaluable to legal scholars, Dr. Kletschka provides helpful commentary so that even the most uneducated reader can easily understand the legal, historical and moral issues involved.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Right to Life - Two of a Kind |
| 01.30.04 (9:32 am) [edit] |
Maybe it just runs in the family–a strong support for unborn children, that is.
First, there’s pro-life President George W. Bush, who has been a faithful champion not only in his first term in the Oval Office, but also when he was governor of Texas. The Abortion Establishment loathes him for the very same reason our Movement adores him: President Bush is helping to change the culture of death into a culture of life.
Then there is his brother, Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. Reading the local Florida papers online, it strikes me that they are even more vicious in their cutting denunciations of Jeb Bush than the national press is of his brother, President Bush.
Gov. Bush is absolutely fearless. As most of you know, he has been under unrelenting assault from the Usual Suspects for his role in the case of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, who suffered severe brain damage in 1990. Her husband wishes to remove the tube through which her nourishment is administered, according to the Associated Press. Her parents vigorously disagree and have fought the husband in court for years.
A few months ago, Terri’s feeding tube was removed by court order. She was within days of a death by starvation and dehydration.
Gov. Bush saw that a grievous wrong was being committed and worked with the Florida legislature to pass legislation to allow Terri’s feeding tube to be reinserted. Had he not, Terri would now be dead. Against all odds, “Terri’s Law” was passed at the eleventh hour.
Since that time Gov. Bush’s office has vigorously defended Terri’s Law and has creatively attempted to persuade various courts that her parents are correct in wanting their daughter to be fed and in insisting that Terri be given vigorous physical therapy. The case–and therefore Terri–is still very much alive.
As many Today's News & Views readers will remember, last summer Gov. Bush again showed his compassion, concern, and conviction in the case of a young severely mentally disabled woman known in proceedings only as “J.D.S.” Then 22 years old, tragically, she had been raped while living in a group home and became pregnant.
Circuit Judge Lawrence R. Kirkwood appointed a guardian in June to help make medical decisions for the mother, including what would happen to her unborn baby. There were inklings that an abortion might be performed and calls arose for the appointment of a separate guardian for the child. An Orlando-area woman, Jennifer Wixtrom, asked to be appointed but was rebuffed.
Gov. Bush joined in Wixtrom’s appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeals. Just after a three-judge panel heard arguments, JDS gave birth to a healthy 6-pound, 7-ounce girl known as “Baby S.”
Earlier this month, the court of appeals panel rejected Wixtrom and Bush, 2-1. Undeterred, Gov. Bush is already lining up key supporters, including State Rep. Sandra Murman, to secure legislation to allow “legal guardians to be appointed for fetuses whose mothers are incapacitated,” according to the Tallahassee Democrat.
"”It's an important issue," Murman, who plans to sponsor the bill, told the Democrat. Murman (who, according to the newspaper “also was in the middle of the Schiavo fight”) said, "It's the right thing to do...Terri Schiavo could have benefitted from a guardian early on. I haven't taken the temperature of our members, but I think it's a critical issue."
Not unexpectedly, State Senate President King opposes the legislation. "I think the courts have already decided that," he said. "I don't see any reason to run into that, nor do I want to." King added that he would not rule out allowing such legislation, but warned, "I would be a very reluctant participant,” according to the Democrat.
However King’s opposition has not dampened the governor’s enthusiasm, a Bush aide said Tuesday.
"The governor thinks this is a very important issue," press secretary Alia Faraj told the Democrat. "The governor is seeking a legislative solution so there is clarity in this matter. This legislation would only apply to very unique cases where a mom can't make a decision about the unborn.”
We’ll take a look at the panel’s legal reasoning in a day or two. Its arguments, presumably, will help shape support for and opposition to Gov. Bush’s proposed measure.
Stay tuned! This is an important fight.
|
|
1 Comments
|
| |
| Fathers Protest Unjust Custody Laws |
| 01.29.04 (4:04 pm) [edit] |
36-year-old David Chick donned a Spider-Man costume and spent five days atop a crane next to the Tower Bridge in London to protest unjust child custody laws. His actions should be applauded.
Last month, Spider-Man was arrested in London after spending five days atop a cloud-kissing crane next to the historic Tower Bridge.
In donning the costume of his daughter's favorite cartoon character, 36-year-old David Chick tried to draw attention to the misery of estranged fathers who have been denied access to their children by a family court system he believes is anti-male.
Was Spiderman fighting the forces of evil? Or, by snarling London traffic, did Chick's "frivolity" damage the serious complaints of an internationally surging father's rights movement?
I vote for Spiderman. The mayor of London disagrees, comparing Chick and his tactics to Osama bin Laden.
Between these diametrically opposed responses lies a question: at what point do you give up working within "the system" and step outside of it to achieve change...to demand justice?
That question haunts the most passionate issues of our time. For example, abortion: some pro-life advocates go so far outside the system as to advocate violence against clinics and doctors who provide a legal procedure. For example, protecting molested children: some mothers go so far as to kidnap their own children and live "on the run" rather than return them to abusive situations. At what point do you give up on the possibility of the law providing justice?
People who go outside the system usually do so in the belief that the system has become part of the problem. In other words, the system -- whether you are speaking of family courts, the Child Protective Services, or some other bureaucracy -- is acting to perpetuate the injustice rather than to solve it.
This belief creates a Spiderman who looks at the family court system and perceives no chance of seeing the two year-old daughter from whom he has been estranged for close a year.
Most of those who agree that "the system" is severely broken do not sit on 150-foot cranes in the middle of London. To a large degree, Spiderman's decision was determined by the issue he was confronting. For Chick, there was and is no possibility of compromise or of avoiding conflict.
Other rebels are luckier. They are able to withdraw from the system and provide for their own needs.
Homeschooling parents remove their children from what they view as a hopeless educational system even though they are forced to continue paying for it in taxes. Those approaching retirement privately fund their own futures even though they are forced to pay into Social Security.
Spiderman can't similarly withdraw. Withdrawal means abandoning his daughter. Given the high stakes, confrontation becomes inevitable.
Chick could have confronted the system through letters to the editor, petitions to lawmakers, and appeals to the court. But estranged fathers in the UK and North America have been pursuing those strategies for decades now and they are still estranged.
According to the English Lord Chancellor's Department, mothers are granted custody about four-fifths of the time. Moreover, English courts have become infamous for failing to enforce visitation rights for fathers. In commenting on Spiderman, Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips observed, "some senior judges recently acknowledged that with so many...[visitation] orders being flouted by mothers, the law is being brought into disrepute."
The absurdity of Spiderman is nothing compared to the obscenity of a system that deprives fathers of their children and children of parental love. In the same vein as theatre of the absurd, politics of the absurd is emerging on the issue of child custody.
It should be applauded as a benign alternative to the open violence that could easily replace it.
Politics of the absurd began on Dec. 17, 2002 when 200 men in Santa Claus outfits descended on the Lord Chancellor's offices in London to dramatize the plight of "father" Christmas: that is, of fathers who would not see their children over the holidays. Then, last Valentine's Day, fathers dressed as Elvis Presley crowded "Heartbreak Hotel" -- the London family court -- in an attempt to present officials with a 20-foot inflatable heart.
This Oct. 22, hundreds marched to London's Royal Courts of Justice where family law decisions are handed down; the crowd discovered two men, dressed as Batman and Robin, perched atop the structure.
And, yet, the message is far from absurd. Competent fathers want and deserve access to their children.
The message has attracted support from celebrities such as Pierce Brosnan, who recently directed and starred in an Irish film, "Evelyn," in which a father loses custody of his three young children after his wife leaves with another man: the movie is based on a true story.
Rock star Sir Bob Geldof has pleaded for mothers and fathers to share equal custody. Speaking from bitter experience after his wife left him for another man, Geldof declared, "I was handed a piece of paper saying 'you may see your children on this day and every second weekend.' Why? What had I done? I saw them every day, I took them to school, I bathed them, fed them, cooked for them...Why now was the State and all its instruments of justice...aimed at me?"
Commenting on the law restricting a divorced father's access to his children, Geldof added, "This law ridiculed me."
Now divorced fathers are going outside the system to ridicule the law. They should be applauded. Of all possible responses, laughing with scorn in the face of injustice is one of the best. And infinitely preferable to violence.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Abraham Lincoln, Statesperson & Liberal Activist |
| 01.29.04 (12:31 pm) [edit] |
The video at the Lincoln Memorial includes signs reading 'Gay & Lesbian Sexual Rights,' 'National Organization for Women,' 'Keep Abortion Legal,' and a Vietnam era video clip of a woman asking, "President Nixon where are our men?"
Marc Morano of CNSNews has reported that tours of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. aren't what they used to be.
I can remember my first visit to D.C. way back when and my parents telling me about the Lincoln Memorial, and walking up the huge steps, and seeing the great man seated and looking majestic.
I can even remember seeing his words etched in the stone all around me as I stood at his feet. It was striking, it was awe-inspiring. I thought I had learned a good deal about Lincoln in school and felt like I knew him. I guess I was wrong.
Now, according to the Discovery Channel, Abraham Lincoln, Republican, and the 16th President of the United States was in reality, a Liberal Democrat.
Moreover, not just any Liberal Democrat, he was slightly to the left of the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone.
The Discovery Channel produced a video that is displayed in the Lincoln Legacy Room at the Memorial. The video is for all who come to the Memorial to get a better understanding of what Mr. Lincoln stood for.
According to CNSNews, the video at the Lincoln Memorial "includes signs reading
"Gay & Lesbian Sexual Rights,"
"Council of Churches Lesbian Rights,"
"National Organization for Women" (NOW),
"Reagan's Wrongs Equal Women's Rights,"
"ERA Yes," "Ratify the Era,"
"I had an illegal abortion in 1967 - Never Again,"
"Keep Abortion Legal,"
"I am pro-choice America,"
a Vietnam-era video clip of a woman asking:
"President Nixon where are our men?"
and a sign reading,
"Who will Decide?" NARAL (National Abortion Rights & Reproductive Action League)
"In Opposition to King Richard [Nixon],"
"U.S. out Now,"
"Equal Opportunity for All,"
"Peace,"
"Hell No We Won't Go,"
"No More Lies, Sign the Treaty Now Coalition,"
and marchers chanting
"U.S. Out Now"
There was no showing of any opposing or contrary demonstrations except to show pro-life activists tangling with pro-abortionists.
All to the tune of "We Shall Overcome,"
There was a tendency among the young and impressionable to accept what they learn in school about our former Presidents.
Whether it was the honesty of George Washington, the bravery of Teddy Roosevelt or the wit and wisdom of John F. Kennedy.
It's not that we received a "complete" picture of the men, uh people, we just got what we needed. And what we got was based upon historical fact.
Now, using the "What would Jesus Drive?" mentality, the folks on the Left have decided to extrapolate Abe Lincoln's views from the 1800's to their present day agenda's.
Whether it is abortion on demand, Gay Rights, Gun Control, or not fighting communism, Honest Abe may not be with them in body, but he is in spirit.
The Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. is part of the National Park Service and does not charge an entrance fee. In 2001, there were 4,115,139 visitors to the memorial and cost the taxpayers a little over 2 million dollars per year to maintain.
Nowadays it may be politically correct for students to question our government about everything they do, and to find nefarious motives present in any endeavor undertaken by the present Administration.
It has gotten so bad that President Bush is viewed by some to be a greater danger than Saddam Hussein of Iraq, or Kim Jung Il of North Korea.
Students don't learn to dislike their government innately; they have to be taught.
It isn't clear when it became trendy to teach Americans not just what was known by historical record, but to teach by opinion.
We all know or at least have heard of other governments, those that lack self-esteem or are just plain paranoid, indoctrinating their citizens, both young and old to the party line.
It looks like the Left, knowing that their ideology cannot withstand being scrutinized or even questioned has undertaken the last policy of all totalitarians; they program their message to an audience without fear of being challenged during the indoctrination.
No one can know for a fact how Mr. Lincoln would feel today about any of the things the Left claims are part of his 19th century struggle against injustice.
What we do know is that he was willing to go to war to keep America united.
The Left, with their penchant to claim allegiance to a free and just land while they stifle any opposing views, can do little but divide America, not along the Mason-Dixon line, but rather our consciousness.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Anti-Life Dean Won't be Outdone by Anti-Life Kerry |
| 01.29.04 (12:14 pm) [edit] |
My initial plans for today were to write about Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. The President’s brother is reportedly going to propose legislation that would provide for the appointment of guardians for unborn babies whose mothers are legally incompetent.
The question was brought to the fore last spring when a developmentally disabled woman was raped. Given the mother’s inability to make decisions for her unborn baby, Gov. Bush wanted a separate guardian appointed for the child in addition to the guardian appointed for the mom. The usual suspects–Planned Parenthood and the ACLU–were adamantly opposed.
Unfortunately, Bush was rebuffed by various courts. Fortunately, the guardian appointed for the mother decided not to recommend an abortion.
The child was born healthy. I just found out last night that the case had made its way to the Fifth District Court of Appeals and that a decision had been rendered. We’ll talk about this tomorrow.
But a word is in order on another topic today, following pro-abortion Sen. John Kerry’s convincing victory last night in the New Hampshire presidential primary. In case you missed it, trolling for votes last week, Kerry “called himself the only Democrat in the race who hasn't ‘played games’ on the abortion issue,” according to the Associated Press.
"I'm the only candidate running for president who hasn't played games, fudged around," said Kerry. "If you believe that choice is a constitutional right, and I do, and if you believe that Roe v. Wade is the embodiment of that right ... I will not appoint a justice to the Supreme Court of the United States who will undo that right.”
Which, when you think about it, is a remarkable statement. None of the Democrats running for their party's presidential nomination could even imagine nominating a justice to the Supreme Court who did not pledge his or her undying loyalty to abortion on demand. You can look it up.
Moreover, Senators Joseph Lieberman and John Edwards are so far out in left field that they even voted against the ban on partial-birth abortions. (Roger Salazar, a spokesman for Edwards, boasted to Fox News that the North Carolina senator has a " ‘100 percent record supporting a woman's right to choose,’ including late-term abortions.”)
Retired General Wesley Clark inadvertently let the cat out of the bag when he declared that life begins “with the mother’s decision”–which is the practical effect of the position taken by all the candidates on abortion. After being coached, Clark rhetorically retreated, mumbling that he also supported the 1992 Casey decision which allows for certain minimal limitations such as informed consent legislation.
Told of Kerry’s remarks, former Gov. Howard Dean, offered a very revealing rebuttal. “In response, Dean noted that he once sat on the board of Planned Parenthood in northern New England,” according to Fox News.
Got that? What possible better qualifications could an abortion supporter offer than serving on the board of Planned Parenthood? After all, Planned Parenthood operates the largest chain of abortion clinics in the United States.
Its international arm uses its financial muscle to try to strong-arm those who try to defend protective abortion laws. If you’re going to compare pro-abortion credentials, Dean is saying, this is as good as it gets.
One final thought. Several Dean apologists, including one gentleman in particular, emailed me to say that I had misrepresented/mischaract erized Dean’s position on abortion in a previous edition of Today’s News & Views. I hadn’t, and pointed out as well that a physician and a Planned Parenthood board member ought to be able to say what he means about the flashpoint social issue of our time in a manner that is not open to dispute as to its meaning.
But for our purposes, it is something else that matters. People get caught up in candidacies all the time. It is one of the blessings of living in a democracy and is to be encouraged and congratulated.
I, for example, fell in love with politics years and years ago. My latest swoons were for pro-life President George W. Bush, and his brother, Jeb, both of whom I admire enormously.
The gentleman who emailed me with the most passionate objections described himself as against abortion. I take him at his word. He is able to oppose abortion yet defend a rabid supporter of abortion such as Gov. Dean.
But countless millions of Americans can find a given candidate attractive for any of a hundred reasons, yet still vote against him or her IF they support the slaughter of unborn children. Properly, they have made the moral calculus that a candidate may be good on a host of issues but still fail the test if they fail the unborn.
And it is this resolute determination to put first things first that put a pro-lifer in the White House and is changing the climate on abortion.
|
|
1 Comments
|
| |
| Abortion - Looking Back and Looking Ahead |
| 01.28.04 (1:23 pm) [edit] |
When future generations look back at us, what will they see?
They will see a society that prided itself on being humane and concerned for human rights, but one that also engaged in the practice of killing small children by dismemberment or poisoning/burning.
It did not do this to all its children, just certain ones, who were still in the first phase of their lives. It was a practice called abortion.
One would think that such a practice, with its ghastly methods, would be outlawed. It was not; it was perfectly legal. In fact the individual states were forbidden by the Supreme Court to outlaw it and protect these children.
Many in the society welcomed this, for they wanted to keep the practice "safe" and legal. Didn't they find it odd to refer to a practice that destroys little children as "safe"?
It was a society that held up very high standards in condemning discrimination against people merely because they were in some way different from those who happened to be the majority, such as in skin color.
But it was also a society that treated some of its members very differently from others because they were different: much smaller, much more dependent than the majority, and not in a familiar environment. They were treated differently in that they could be killed if they did not fit into others' plans.
Perhaps that was part of the explanation why a practice that kills a child was called safe: the child doesn't count as a real person because she is different (too small, etc.).
In other cases such an attitude would be vigorously condemned as discrimination. Here it was approved, and often strongly supported.
Laws that allowed people to murder babies were called liberal, while in other contexts that term referred (among other things) to the protection of those who could not protect themselves.
The child was not taken seriously as a real person. Perhaps that explains how those who favored this practice would vigorously defend "a woman's right to choose." They called themselves "Pro-Choice," thus conveniently avoiding any reference to the killing of the child. They would ordinarily defend choice only in personal matters that did not adversely affect others. They would never defend a right to choose to kill a person, or to discriminate against a person.
It was a society that itself looked back on a horror scene, a holocaust where some six million people were exterminated. It was aghast at what it saw, and kept saying "Never again!" It did not see that essentially the same thing was going on in its own neighborhoods.
This is what they will see.
What will they say?
Probably many things. One of them being, "Why didn't those people who did see abortion for what it is do something?"
That brings us back to the present, where we can look ahead to the future. For us the question is: what must we do now to end the mass abortion killings? Let me suggest the following Call to Action.
We must awaken the American people to what is happening. Two things should be stressed: the reality of the child and how abortion kills the child, the ghastly methods and their results.
A major part of this education campaign should be pictures of the child. In so many cases, seeing is believing. If a woman sees her child, she may change her mind about having an abortion. Dr. Bernard Nathanson discusses an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, which reported an interview:
[T]wo women in the early part of pregnancy ... were privileged to watch their infants on an ultrasound screen. The women were asked if they would still entertain the thought of abortion after having seen their babies move, breathe, and do all those inexpressibly endearing things that all babies do, born or unborn. Both women categorically rejected the abortion option, one stating: "I feel that it is human. It belongs to me. I couldn't have an abortion now."
We must stress that abortion is not a private matter. Joseph Scheidler urges us to "develop an educational program that concentrates on the unborn child as an unseen victim. It is essential that this victim becomes a real person in the mind of the community. The more the unborn is acknowledged, the less tolerant the community will be of taking that person's life."
Why do those who support abortion not see its victim as a real person?
I think a major factor is prejudice. We must work to overcome this prejudice where it exists, and a good first step is to understand it. Germain Grisez, in his excellent treatise, "Abortion and Prejudice against the Unborn" explains: "Prejudice takes advantage of a difference" between "those who are prejudiced" and "those against whom there is prejudice." Those who are prejudiced are so for "an intelligible motive" that explains the "development and persistence" of the prejudice. For abortion there is an obvious motive: the desire to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
While prejudiced people are not simply dishonest, they act as if they suspected the truth and were trying to avoid facing it.
People who are racially prejudiced do not like to be shown facts and have a hard time following arguments that might dislodge their prejudice.
This resistance is always surprising, especially when it is encountered (as often happens) in persons who are extremely perceptive and logical in other matters.
The same applies to prejudice against the unborn.
Further, "a system built on prejudice is never consistent." People who are pro-abortion are generally very strongly opposed to racial prejudice. Perhaps that helps to assure them that they themselves can't be prejudiced. But, in fact, prejudice is a universal human danger, which any of us can fall into.
To speak of prejudice here is not to level a charge against persons who favor abortion; it is simply a way of trying to understand an aspect of the pro-abortion mentality.
How can people favor allowing babies to be killed?
The viewpoint of prejudice helps to provide an answer.
There is also, I think, the fact that many people do not support abortion as a conclusion from a process of reasoning. Rather, they first decide that abortion is necessary or desirable, then find reasons to support this view. One such reason is the so-called unreality of the "fetus" as a person. That, in turn, is a prejudice against the unborn.
In addition to those who explicitly favor abortion, there is a large majority who are complacent. They are in between, neither actively pro-abortion nor filled with outrage at this horror. They must be awakened to a response of outrage, and inspired to form a movement to end this mass killing. They must come to see abortion in a new way. According to Brennan:
As long as abortion remains at the psychologically-remote and abstract level of removing insignificant tissue or contents from the womb, not that many people are likely to get upset. The holocaust perspective, on the other hand, possesses a tremendous potential for breaking through this facade and revealing the harsh realities of large-scale killing, whatever the historical period of their perpetration, and whether the victims be born or unborn. Only when people are allowed access to the concrete, emotionally repugnant facts of unborn baby killing will they be filled with outrage and motivated to demand an end to the destruction .
One of the most important tasks is devising ways of reaching the American people with a message to awaken them to the reality of the child-killing that is politely referred to as abortion.
Perhaps a mass mailing can be arranged. A vital part of this message is a call to action: "If you are outraged at abortion, then ________," specifying what a person should do.
We must prepare a program of political action for ending the mass killing. We must prepare bills to be introduced in Congress. We must devise strategies for reversing court decisions that protect the alleged right to kill instead of the rights of the victim. We can then focus people's energy into specific programs: support this bill, call this government official, etc.
In pursuing the first two steps, our objective must be clear: full membership of preborn children in the community (full status as persons and full protection under the law). There can be no compromise on this. The child can never be killed to benefit the woman or others, any more than the woman or others could be killed to benefit the child.
It is essential that legal protection for preborn persons be written into the Constitution, so that no future court or legislature can ever deprive them of it again.
There must be a Constitutional amendment that specifically states that preborn children are persons and entitled to full legal protection.
Three elements are essential:
One, the amendment must restore personhood to the unborn child.
Two, it must clearly apply from the beginning of life, conception-fertilization.
Three, its prohibition of abortion-killing must contain no exceptions.
It will be said that this objective cannot be achieved all at once. If this is so, we should work in stages, doing what we can at each stage and continuing until our task is complete. It is important to be clear on the difference between this approach and one that accepts compromises. We might, for example, start out with a law that bans saline abortions: they are so horrible that it is hard to believe they are used, and even sanctioned by law.
Someone who is unclear whether or not the "fetus" is a person could still see the horror of doing this to any living creature, for whom the evidence (presence of nerve endings, etc.) is overwhelming that it feels excruciating pain, and for a considerable time. A law banning the saline method would not condone other abortions; it would simply not mention them.
Once this is accomplished, we must work in stages to forbid other types of abortion as well.
Working for such a law does not constitute a compromise on principle. It means climbing the first rung of a ladder before climbing the second.
If abortions that cause more pain are greater evils than those that cause less pain (or no pain), we should outlaw the greater evil if we cannot outlaw both evils. Incomplete laws are better than no law at all.
However, we must not compromise, allowing an incomplete law that would eliminate or seriously reduce the chances of a complete law later. We must never say that a little bit of murder is acceptable. No murder is acceptable. We must constantly work towards eliminating all abortions.
People who do not understand that a very early abortion is wrong will usually see the wrongness of a late abortion. There are parallel examples in which the wrongness of some abortions is easier to see than that of others. Thus, if we can convince people that certain abortions should be prohibited, we should do so; and then continue our efforts to extend this to all other abortions as well.
Keeping in mind, then, the temporary character of these stages, let me suggest some examples of them.
A law, or court ruling, that allows protection for the child; then one that requires it.
A ban on all third trimester abortions, then second then first; or, a ban on killing a viable child, then a previable child.
A ban on abortions that cause the worst pain or are more likely to cause pain; then, a ban on others.
A ban on all surgical abortions and abortion pills (e.g., RU486); then, one on abortifacients.
A denial that there is any right to an abortion. This would mean prohibiting all abortions other than the hard cases (rape, incest, health and life of the woman); then, prohibiting these as well.
The first stage would eliminate about ninety-seven percent of all abortions, a great first step, but only a first step.
These five items refer to eliminating all abortions, stage by stage. The remaining nine concern abortions that remain at any stage short of the final stage. They are aimed at reducing the harm done to the child, to the woman, and to the family; at curtailing the number of abortions; and at lessening the inherent evil of abortion (e.g., by banning government funding).
There should be no abortions at all, at least no legal abortions, but as long as it is impossible to ban all legal abortions, those that occur must include:
Anesthesia for the child in all cases where there is even a slight chance of pain for the child.
An informed consent requirement. Any person considering a medical procedure has a right to a full disclosure concerning what that procedure involves and what its possible consequences are. It can be expected that this requirement will significantly reduce the number of abortions.
The full disclosure should include all relevant information about the effects of the abortion:
(A) What the child looks like, her status of development.
(B) What abortion does to the child, the methods of abortion, the high probability of terrible pain for the child, and the length of time of the procedure. (
C) What abortion can do to the woman, short term and long term, physically, psychologically, and in regard to future pregnancies: how it can effect her relationships with others.
(D) Where applicable, the hazards of eugenic abortions (for eliminating handicapped babies), especially amniocentesis.
(E) Alternatives to abortion.
(F) Support groups ready to help the woman continue a difficult pregnancy, especially by supporting her in the face of pressure by others to abort.
It is of the greatest importance that the woman be given this information honestly and objectively, that she be encouraged to ask questions. Any kind of pressure in the direction of abortion must be prohibited.
A forty-eight-hour waiting period before an abortion can be performed, so that the woman has time to change her mind. Many do. It is a tragedy when a woman is rushed into an abortion, one she may regret bitterly.
A requirement that in all live births, the child be given complete medical treatment to maximize his chances for survival and health.
Parental consent for minors, something required for all other medical treatments. Making an exception for abortion is outrageous.
Spousal consent for married women. Excluding the father is a terrible injustice. The father has obligations of child support; he should also have corresponding rights. For unmarried women, the right of legal intervention for the father of the child.
A ban on all government funding of abortion.
A ban on all other government participation in abortion.
This includes a ban on: offering abortions at government facilities such as military bases, granting tax exempt status to organizations that promote or perform abortions, funding such organizations, promoting abortion in government-sponsored programs, such as family planning.
Other measures, such as a ban on all advertising for so-called abortion services, and excluding abortion from health insurance plans.
As many of these proposals as possible should be enacted concurrently, and coordinated with one another.
While working towards this objective, we must continue our efforts to save babies and their mothers from abortion.
An excellent guide to this is Joseph Scheidler's book, Closed: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion. His first way is sidewalk counseling, in which pro-lifers go to abortion clinics "to intercede for the baby's life":
Sidewalk counseling is a method of saving babies by talking to their parents in front of the abortion clinic. It is probably the single most valuable activity that a pro-life person can engage in. When pro-lifers counsel in front of an abortion clinic, they are coming between the woman and the doctor, between the baby who is scheduled to be killed and the doctor who will do the killing.
These efforts can be highly successful:
Women can be turned back. In Chicago, in one thirty day period, half a dozen sidewalk counselors at only a few clinics were able to stop ninety women from having abortions. Seventeen were stopped in a single morning at a clinic on Michigan Avenue. While a few of these women may have gone back to have their abortions later, more than ninety percent did not return and they kept in touch with the pro-life counseling center.
As the title indicates, there are many things one can do to fight the evil of abortion. A sample of these include: The Counter-Demonstration, How to Get on Talk Shows, Aids to Effective Lobbying, Call their Bluff: the Legal Threat, and Warn the Garbage Man, "You're Hauling Corpses." All of these ways are non-violent, and there is a chapter, "Violence: Why It Won't Work."
Besides Scheidler's suggestions, especially direct intervention on the sidewalk, there are several other specific things we should do:
We should support women with problem pregnancies. We should encourage them to keep their babies. If they are being pressured by others to kill their babies, we should offer them a haven of support and encouragement. In all these things there should be both spiritual and material assistance.
We should work to encourage adoption as an alternative to abortion for cases where the woman is unable to raise the child.
We should be concerned with women who have had abortions.
If you or someone you love is suffering from the emotional or physical aftereffects Of abortion, you can find compassionate help and support from women who have been through the same experience by contacting any of the WEBA chapters in your state, or any of the other post-abortion counseling groups which are being formed. If WEBA is not listed in your phone directory, call one of your local or state right-to-life organizations and they will be able to give you a phone number for the post-abortion support group nearest you. Most of these groups have a hot-line that you can call to talk to a sympathetic, non-judgmental member at any time, whenever you need them.
There is also a nationwide toll-free crisis hot line: 1-800-848-5683.
Abortion can be devastating to women, in many ways, as we have seen. We should continue our research into this: How many women suffer? From which problems? For how long? How severely? We should carefully examine the challenges of abortion defenders. Our aim must always be to find the truth.
We must warn women of the hazards of abortion. I see this as a task of the greatest importance. We must protect not only the child, but also the mother. This protection can come from the law, and from an awakened public that realizes the evil of abortion and condemns it. It can also come from an awareness of the terrible things abortion can do to women. The myth of "safe abortions" must be exposed for what it is. We must work towards a general awareness of the threat of abortion to women. "Having an abortion can be hazardous to your health" must become a household phrase.
Saving babies, supporting women before their decision and after it, these are our present tasks. Many organizations exist for these purposes; let us join them, or start new ones where there are none. We cannot merely be against abortion; we must be for the woman and her child, and we should translate this commitment into action. In fact, we are against abortion only because we are for the child and his mother.
Through all this, we must see ourselves as advocates of the preborn child: voices for those who cannot speak for themselves, who are forgotten because they are unseen. Equally, we must be advocates of women, supporting and encouraging them. For both the child and the woman, we must promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.
These commitments must continue after we achieve our objective of fully recognized personhood for the child. That will be a major step, but it will not be the end of the road. The temptation to succumb to abortion will remain after it has been made illegal. The struggle for justice is an ongoing one.
Finally, I would like to suggest that we work to heal the wounds in our society resulting from the bitter struggle over abortion. If we affirm the personhood of the preborn child and the woman, we must also affirm the personhood of all those who advocate abortion. We must try to help them see abortion in a new way.
|
|
4 Comments
|
| |
| Abortion - Public Funding |
| 01.28.04 (1:02 pm) [edit] |
It is argued that the government should fund abortions for poor women.
"Not to do so is discrimination. The rich can still get abortions while the poor are denied them."
Again, it is said, "Abortion is cheaper than welfare. Poor women who want abortions should be encouraged to get them, and supported financially, to ease the welfare burden. Supporting a child on welfare is expensive over many years."
It is clear that government should not fund abortions. Funding abortion means paying for the killing of a small, defenseless child, a child who is singled out for death because he is in the way, and sometimes because it costs too much to support him.
Abortion funding is a triple evil. First, there is the moral evil of abortion itself, as the murder of a small child.
Second, there is the additional evil that the government gives this killing its blessing by allowing it under the law.
Third, the government even participates in the crime by paying for it.
In reply to the objection that refusal to fund abortions for poor women is a form of discrimination: it is true that there should be no discrimination. But this must be achieved in precisely the opposite direction: neither the rich nor the poor should be allowed, or encouraged, to kill their preborn babies. If poor women are not able to destroy their preborn infants, that is good. Rich women should be in the same position. The law must protect all preborn babies, of rich and poor mothers alike.
"Abortion is cheaper than welfare." Indeed it is. So is killing the handicapped, the aged who are unable to take care of themselves. Killing is always cheaper than caring. The Nazis realized this, and put it into practice in their program of mass extermination of handicapped children, the aged, and others who were "useless eaters." Let us not follow that path.
|
|
3 Comments
|
| |
| Abortion - Exceptions? |
| 01.28.04 (12:59 pm) [edit] |
Should the law prohibiting abortion allow for exceptions? Specifically, to save the life of the woman and in cases of pregnancy due to rape or incest? A law incorporating such exceptions is advocated either because its proponents feel that such exceptions are justified and called for, or because they believe no other law is possible, that a law that mandates an exceptionless prohibition stands no chance of passage. They then argue that it is better to have a law that bans almost all abortions, and saves many lives, than the present situation (in the United States, and in much of the rest of the world) in which there is, in effect, abortion on demand. "Better to save most babies and allow a few to be killed, than to allow the number of abortions we have today."
The motives of such people are noble. They want to save as many lives as possible. And surely it is better to save some than none at all. If a thousand innocent people are about to be exterminated by the Nazis, and we can rescue only some, we should, of course, do so: better to save some than none at all. But is an abortion prohibition with an exception clause parallel to this?
In analyzing the question of exceptions. I will begin with the rape/incest case, then discuss the "life of the mother" case, and finally the question of exceptions regarding the IUD and other abortifacients.
A law is enacted that says, in effect: Abortion is wrong; it is prohibited, except if the woman is pregnant due to rape or incest. Then abortion is permitted. What it says is that it is wrong to kill almost all babies in the womb, but all right to kill a few. For a child conceived in rape or incest, the law says, "You may kill this child for the benefit of his mother."
Even in the case of rape or incest, there is a child present, a real person, essentially like the rest of us. Abortion is murder, and remains murder when the victim is conceived in rape (or incest). The child is absolutely innocent, completely her own person, not a part of her father's character, just as she is not a part of her mother's body. Even assuming abortion benefits the woman, we cannot kill one innocent person to benefit another. The child has no duty to give up her life to try to benefit her mother, and we may therefore not force her to do so by killing her. If we do not kill the rapist for his crime, still less should we kill the child who has committed no crime. Abortion for rape is not a solution because it is an assault on the woman, a cure that aggravates the disease, and because it does not address the real problem of rape pregnancies (the social stigma against the woman and her child). And finally, abortion in the case of rape is more of the same: first a horrible violence against the woman, then a horrible violence against the child. For all these reasons, abortion in the case of rape (and incest) is not justified.
The child in the womb conceived in rape or incest has the same right to have her life protected by law as anyone else has. This means there can be no exception in the law for rape or incest. There are two fundamental reasons for this, one concerning the principle at stake, the other, the practical effects. The second follows naturally from the first.
First, the question of principle. A law that incorporates the rape/incest exception means that murder is given the blessing of law in certain cases. "Yes, go ahead, you can murder this child, since his conception was due to rape." The law can never allow murder. A law that does so is not only a gross injustice in itself but also a contradiction to the very meaning of law, the upholding of what is right and just in the public domain. That is, the whole law prohibiting abortion would be fatally flawed by this exception clause. Such a law could never be a genuine prohibition of murder of the child when it makes an about face and says, "Yes, you can murder this child." The exception clause would mean the breakdown of the entire law. It would no longer have a foundation to stand on. It would not be like the removal of one checker from a board of checkers, leaving the rest intact. It would be like removing the foundation of a building: the whole building would collapse. For the foundation of the law banning abortion is that abortion is murder. If the law allows murder, it has destroyed itself.
Such a law admits that abortion can be justified under certain circumstances, namely rape or incest. But if in these circumstances, why not also others? The question is surely a reasonable one. And with it we come to the second part: the practical effects of a law that allows the rape/incest exception. There are six specific points:
Such a law will be challenged. On what basis is abortion to be prohibited in all other cases? Is it because there is a child there, and abortion is murdering that child, and the law may not allow murder? But that applies equally to the child conceived in rape. If abortion in such a case is allowed, the reason just given can't be the basis of the prohibition. By allowing murder, the law defeats itself. It invites a challenge that is not only perfectly reasonable, but cannot be met by those who agree with the exception law.
That is, in proposing or agreeing to an exception law, we would surrender everything that is essential to protecting any infant in the womb. We would forfeit our chance to enact any legal protection for preborn infants. We would grant our opponents who favor allowing abortion the idea that the child may be killed for the benefit of another. Granted, we would be conceding this in only one area, but it would be the crack in the door.
If the exception for rape or incest is granted, should we then have another exception based upon pain and trauma from other causes? To deny such a request at this point would be impossible. If trauma and pain due to one cause are to serve as a reason for permitting abortion, then the similar trauma and pain for another cause must be given the same privilege.
There is a further, very serious problem. How much pain and trauma are to be counted as sufficient? How are they to be measured? Who is to decide? The decision will be left to a psychiatrist and other doctors. In practical terms, it will mean that a woman seeking an abortion has only to find a doctor willing to certify, in his professional judgment, that she needs an abortion for psychological reasons. When she does, no one will be able to dispute this doctor's claim. We will no longer be able to appeal to the state for protection for the innocent. We will have surrendered that element in the law that allows for exceptions.
The first of the two fundamental reasons for rejecting a law with exceptions, namely, that it violates principle, is no idle or stubborn clinging to the abstract, in disregard for practical consequences in the real world. On the contrary, the principle that all persons must be respected, that all murder must be condemned by state law, is needed for practical reasons. Abandoning the principle has disastrous consequences in the real world, consequences which flow directly from the surrender of the principle.
It may be claimed that abortion for rape is essentially different from all other abortions to benefit the woman, because in rape she was unjustly coerced. The presence of the child in her represents an injustice, and therefore she may remove him. Two wrongs, however, do not make a right; I cannot try to undo a wrong done against me by doing another wrong - e.1 2ially murder - against another person. The woman cannot try to undo the wrong done by killing the rapist, or the innocent child. Allowing such killing in the name of undoing a wrong is a violation of the principle that all innocent persons must be respected and protected. Holding fast to this principle is not only important in itself but also essential for practical reasons.
Will a rape exception law require proof that the woman was actually raped? If the answer is yes, there are insuperable objections and difficulties. She may be unable to prove it for lack of witnesses. The rapist might not get caught; and even if he is, it is her word against his, with no proof. Forcing her to go through court proceedings is wrong and unrealistic. Even if it were expected, and the woman were forced to submit to it before she could get the abortion, it would take too long. The baby would be far along in development and suffer a late-term abortion. The proceedings might even take longer than the pregnancy itself, thus nullifying the whole intent of the law.
It is clear from this that no requirement for proof could be written into the exception law. This means that a woman could legally claim an abortion on the basis of rape without proof. The mere claim of rape would suffice. It is easy to predict what will happen. Women who feel they need an abortion could claim rape and get their abortions. Family members and others who feel the woman needs an abortion could pressure her into claiming rape. We would be back to where we are now: abortion on demand.
It may be charged that I take a cynical view here, saying that women will lie in order to get an abortion. Those women who claim abortion as a right will understandably see in the restriction to rape clause an unwarranted intrusion into their privacy, a provision in the law put there in order to appease those who want to forbid abortion. They will feel justified in trying to evade this restriction. "If a woman who has been raped can get an abortion, why can't I?" The same applies if it is others who pressure her into an abortion. If we surrender the principle that abortion must be prohibited as murder, that every child in the womb is entitled to the same protection of law that we are entitled to, we really have no answer to this question. In comparison with the horror of abortion itself, and the terrible violation of justice of allowing some preborn persons to be killed with the blessing of the law, a woman lying in order to obtain an abortion is very insignificant indeed.
We are now in a good position to see the essential difference between a genuine concern to save as many people as possible rather than none at all, and a law prohibiting abortion that allows exceptions for rape and incest. A thousand innocent people are condemned to die by the Nazis. We have several trucks, that together hold two hundred people. We can make only one trip. We take two hundred, saving them. We are unable to save the rest. But we do not compromise those eight hundred that we cannot save. We do not say to the Nazis, "It's all right, you can kill these people." But that is precisely what the exception clause in an abortion law would say. A law containing such a clause does not merely fail to save, as in the case of the shortage of trucks, it gives a positive sanction to killing. It enshrines it in the law. That is what is so objectionable, first as a violation of principle, then in its practical consequences, which are essentially the unfolding of the violation of the principle. The exception law must be rejected because written into it is the idea that some persons may be murdered.
It is sometimes said that a law need not, often cannot, include all that should be prohibited. Granted. But the crucial thing, in the present context, is that the law cannot incorporate an immoral principle, such as "You may kill the child if he was conceived under certain conditions." The very purpose and meaning of a law prohibiting abortion is to protect every child, to prohibit murder. An exception for rape is a contradiction to this, a negation of the very essence of the law.
An exception law delivers the message that it's all right to have an abortion under certain circumstances. With this the whole edifice of state protection for preborn persons collapses. "This must mean that abortion isn't really murder, else it wouldn't be allowed in some cases." These are the thoughts that will naturally suggest themselves to people if the law to protect preborn persons contains exceptions.
The practical effects of such a climate of opinion are easily predictable. An exception law will not be respected. It is a law that contains an inherent contradiction, for it is a law that both wants to prohibit murder (in most cases) and also to allow it (for rape and incest). And the exceptions will be widened. Why shouldn't they be, once the idea is accepted, and enshrined in the law, that a benefit for the woman can justify abortion? The exception law would not save most babies as its advocates expect. It would leave us where we are, with a legal system that sanctions murder.
"A law containing a rape and incest exception is all we can get. There seems to be a consensus for that, but not for an absolute prohibition on abortion. Most Americans oppose abortion on demand, but only a minority supports an absolute prohibition."
First, there is every reason to be confident that if the American people fully realize what an abortion is, they will demand an absolute prohibition on abortion, no exceptions. We must make clear the reality of the child in the womb. We must publicize pictures of the child that show he is one of us and may not be destroyed for any reason. We must publicize pictures of the results of abortion. The full impact of the horror of abortion should silence any thought of exceptions. How can one stare abortion in the face and still suggest exceptions?
Second, a law with exceptions is not only a violation of fundamental principles, it is also useless; its practical consequences will be abortion on demand. If we settle for an exception law, we may not get another chance to enact a real prohibition on abortion. We will have compromised ourselves to ultimate defeat. We cannot let this happen. Therefore an exception law is not only useless; much worse, it is something that may close the door to any real protection for preborn persons.
Should the law allow an exception to save the life of the mother? This question has, in effect, already been answered. Abortion is murder, and murder can never be sanctioned by the law. We cannot kill the woman to save the child. Equally, we cannot kill the child to save the woman. We may not be able to save both, we may have to withhold treatment from one if it cannot be given to both, but we may never deliberately kill the one to save the other.
The law should incorporate the three principles discussed earlier, in chapter 10. I propose it include the following section:
If complications arise, all reasonable efforts must be made to save both the woman and the child. Each must be respected and treated equally as a person. Neither may be killed for the benefit of the other, or in an attempt to save the life of the other.
Let us turn finally to the question of exceptions regarding the IUD and other abortifacients. The same principle applies here too: there can be no exceptions, all preborn persons must be given legal protection.
Suppose, however, that a law prohibiting abortion that includes a ban on all abortifacients cannot be passed, that only a law prohibiting surgical abortions, including prostaglandins, can be enacted. Isn't it better to save most of the vast number of babies being killed by these methods, and forego legal protection for tiny infants who would be killed by abortifacients, than to have nothing at all? In addition, enforcement of a ban on abortifacients would pose great difficulties.
This is a difficult question. Let me suggest the following points:
Any law that is passed must be free from all the objectionable compromises discussed above in regard to exceptions for rape and incest. It cannot be a law that contains an expandable loophole.
Specifically, it cannot be a law that explicitly allows early abortions (abortifacients). It could only be a law that omits mention of abortifacients and focuses on outlawing the savagery of surgical abortions. It would have to be a law that represented a real parallel to the example above, of saving some potential victims of Nazi extermination while failing to save others because it is impossible to do so.
If such a limited law could be formulated and enacted, it would have to be seen as a temporary measure. We would have to work vigorously to extend its prohibition to all preborn persons.
We should not, however, assume too readily that a law including a ban on abortifacients cannot be enacted. We must make full use of all the arguments and evidence available to us, primarily all that which makes it clear that a person begins his existence at conception-fertilization, that the zygote-embryo-fetus is a person all the way through and does not become one gradually. We should supplement these arguments with the probability argument (if there is any significant chance that the zygote is a human being essentially like the rest of us - and surely there is - we may not destroy him.); as well as with the "no difference" argument (if the child is to be killed, what difference does it make whether he is killed earlier or later? Either way he is deprived of his entire future life). All of these provide an abundance of reasons to help people realize that a tiny human being near the beginning of his existence is a person too, essentially like the rest of us, and therefore entitled to the same protection of law.
We cannot compromise on this. The most we might do is work in stages, first enacting a law that recognizes the personhood of the victim of surgical abortions, then also the personhood of the victim of abortifacients. There is some parallel to this in the case of slavery in America. The first stage was freeing the slaves from their bondage, the second stage was granting them equal status as persons in society and under the law. Necessary as this second stage is, it was wise to begin with the first stage if the two could not be accomplished together. Just as it was better that blacks be freed from slavery, but without full civil rights, than continuing to be slaves, which is an even greater violation of their civil rights and their dignity as persons. So too it is better to save many babies by giving them legal protection, than to continue the present horror in which no preborn babies are given any protection of law.
But it must be stressed that in such cases legal recognition and protection of blacks and preborn persons - there can only be stages, and not compromises of principles. We could never concede that a black person is not fully a person, or that a tiny infant is not fully a person. If it takes time to awaken people to the full impact of the evil in both cases, we must work in stages. The first stage must be accomplished in such a way that it naturally leads to the second. Abortion by D & C, saline, etc. means killing a small child and must therefore be outlawed. Abortifacients also mean killing a child, merely a smaller child, and must therefore also be outlawed.
There is a difference between a rape exception law and the two-stage procedure tentatively suggested here. A two-stage procedure with no compromises on principle goes in the right direction. A rape exception law goes in the wrong direction. The two-stage procedure affirms that any being who is a person must be given equal protection of law; it only leaves open whether a zygote is such a being. The rape exception law must be condemned precisely because it denies the principle that any being who is a person must be given equal protection of law. The two-stage procedure is thus open to full recognition of preborn persons from the very beginning of their existence at conception. The rape exception law, by its exception clause, closes the door to any genuine and effective legal protection for preborn persons.
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Abortion - Penalties |
| 01.28.04 (12:51 pm) [edit] |
If abortion is made a criminal act under the law, should it be declared murder? Should the penalties be the same as for other cases of murder? How should they apply to the doctor? How should they apply to the woman?
Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. It is a case of murder. It must be called by its proper name, both in the moral and legal order. Anything less is an injustice to the child. The seriousness of the charge of murder is a reflection of the seriousness with which we take the reality of the victim of the killing. Preborn babies are not lesser persons - they are our equals. Killing a child before birth is as much murder as killing that child, or anyone else, after birth. The law must reflect and express this. It must call abortion by its proper term: murder.
A doctor deliberately kills a sick five-year old child. A second doctor kills a newborn baby. A third doctor deliberately kills a preborn baby. Surely the first doctor commits murder. And the second? Of course. There is no morally relevant difference. And the third? Again it is murder, there is no morally relevant difference. The only difference between the three is that the child is a bit younger and smaller in each succeeding case, and in a different environment in the third case. But the horror of the deed, the gravity of the offense is the same in all three cases. The third has a different name, abortion, and perhaps a different psychological appearance, but it is of the same nature as the other two.
Doctors who perform abortions are hired killers, paid professional killers. They should be indicted for first-degree murder just as in all other cases of deliberate, premeditated murder. The penalties for doctors for killing preborn babies should be the same as the penalties for killing born persons. Only in this way do we grant the preborn child the equal treatment he or she deserves.
Does this judgment sound harsh? If so, is it because we do not seriously consider the child to be a person? If we do, does it still seem harsh? If we recognize that the doctor is deliberately killing a small child who cannot defend herself, who is ruthlessly crushed because the doctor has the power to destroy her, how can we say that the doctor's deed is anything but murder?
Recall the horror of abortion, how the child is cut to pieces, dismembered by suction, or subjected to being burned all over her body for one to two hours, and then ask: Where is the harshness? In the judgment on the doctor, or in what the doctor does to the child?
It goes without saying that any doctor who kills a preborn child should immediately be suspended from the medical community and barred from any further medical practice. He has violated his professional trust and obligation in the most fundamental way. Medicine exists to heal and save people, not to kill them. A greater contradiction to the spirit and essence of that noble profession can hardly be imagined.
A doctor who performs an abortion may see it as a service for the woman, an act on her behalf. This has to do with the motive of the agent; it does not affect the nature of the action. That action is still murder, and should be declared so under the law. A doctor who kills a handicapped newborn baby may also do it as a service to the parents, perhaps out of compassion. Whatever the status of his motive, his deed is clearly murder, the deliberate killing of a helpless infant. Abortion is no different.
Let us turn to the question of penalties for women. On the one hand, as I have shown, women are in various ways the second victims. They are often pressured; they turn to abortion because they are not supported and see no alternative. Far from being a genuine choice, abortion is often an act of desperation. Women are often devastated in many ways, by feelings of guilt, regret, depression, and by physical damage. Abortion is a terrible assault on the woman, psychologically and physically. One might easily say they have suffered enough. Moreover, women are often unaware of the full reality of the child, and how horrible abortion is for the child. All these are surely mitigating factors.
On the other hand, we must not retreat from the stand that abortion is murder, and, therefore, that the woman in choosing abortion participates in murder. Women themselves sometimes say, "I have murdered my baby," or something similar.
"But is it not an extreme and harsh view that would treat women who have abortions as murderers?" This is sometimes asked by defenders of abortion as an objection to making abortion illegal: "It would treat women as murderers." It is assumed that any sensible person will immediately see that this is absurd.
But is it? If we recall what a horrible act abortion is, as we have repeatedly stressed here, any apparent absurdity will quickly vanish. Abortion is murder, and therefore all those who are involved in it are involved in murder. It is not my judgment that makes the killing of an innocent human being murder, but the facts of the case itself. The alleged absurdity here comes from failing to see the reality of the child in the womb and the horror of deliberately killing her. Given this horror, how can abortion be anything but murder?
Part of this question/objection stems from the idea that we should have pity on the woman. Indeed we should. But to call such an action murder is not to contradict pity. If a desperate person kills an innocent person, we can have great pity on him; we do not judge him harshly, and yet we say his deed was murder. Pity is a response to the person; the question of murder pertains to the nature of the action. The action, if it is the deliberate killing of an innocent person, does not cease to be murder because we have pity on the person who committed it, or the person involved in it.
We should pity the woman who has an abortion. And the child! We should have the same concern for the child that we naturally have for the woman. If what is done to the child in abortion were done to the woman, we would be outraged. We would surely call it murder, regardless of who did it, or why that person did it. We must be equally outraged at what is actually done to the child, and we must call it murder as well.
At first the two aspects - calling abortion murder, recognizing that women who choose abortion are involved in murder; and having pity on women as second victims of abortion - may seem contradictory or opposed. I think that on a deeper level they unite. The law must recognize abortion in all its seriousness and apply penalties that reflect this. This is not only in response to the child as the primary victim, to protect him, but also in response to the woman, the second victim, to protect her. Paradoxical as it may seem, we can have pity on women by recognizing abortion as murder, with appropriate penalties. It is a way of conveying the message that abortion is a terrible thing, from which women must be protected. "Do not commit murder" is a powerful warning.
In all of this I have not spelled out what the penalties for abortion should be, for the doctor and for the woman. That is a topic beyond the scope of this book, belonging to other subjects, the ethics of punishment and criminology. I have argued for two main points: equal treatment for the preborn child, that killing her be treated as murder, just like the killing of a born child, or any other person: and protection for the woman. Whatever penalties are imposed must reflect this, as well as take into account any relevant mitigating factors, just as in all other cases of murder. There are, however, several points that should be made in regard to the question just raised.
First, the severity of the penalty should reflect the seriousness of the crime. The gravity of the penalty is a measure of the seriousness with which we take the offense. If we value human life, we must impose a corresponding penalty on those who would deliberately destroy it.
Second, should we pity the criminal? A tension between pity and justice runs through the whole of the criminal justice system. The rapist who evokes our wrath may also evoke our pity if we look into his rniserably unhappy childhood, and if we see him harshly punished. This tension is a very general one, not confined to any single type of crime. And it is not, I think, easily resolved. The pity/justice tension that we see in the case of abortion, pity for the woman, justice in response to the murder of the child, is part of this general tension. It should be seen as such, and not as something special. And neither element should completely overshadow the other, as when pity for the woman leads to a denial that the abortion she requests is a case of murder.
Third, consistent with justice, the penalty for a crime should be severe enough to provide maximum deterrence against committing it. The principles here are the same as for the murder of born persons. Murder of the preborn must be punished in such a way as to afford the potential victims the maximum protection of the deterrent effect of law, consistent with justice. This is the kind of protection we owe the woman; and her preborn child.
Finally, as in all cases of killing, the severity of the penalty should also reflect all the relevant factors of the individual case. All the elements that make women the second victims of abortion enter here as mitigating factors. In some cases, similar considerations may also apply to the doctor. As a general rule, however, it seems to me that the penalties should be more severe for the doctor than for the woman. As noted, the doctor is a hired killer, and should be treated as such.
The question of penalties for women is an agonizing one. In trying to resolve it, I suggest we keep in mind the four points immediately above, paying special attention to the second: pity for the woman, but also a concern for justice.
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Abortion - Discrimination Against the Poor |
| 01.28.04 (12:50 pm) [edit] |
"If abortion is made illegal, the rich will still be able to get an abortion, for example by traveling to another country where it is legal, while the poor will be unable to. This is unfair discrimination."
The first point to stress is that the difference involved here is not a matter of discrimination, of being unfair. That applies when the law itself discriminates. But when the law applies equally to all persons it is not discriminatory, even though compliance is unequal. Generally, the rich can often evade a law that the poor cannot evade (e.g., by hiring expensive lawyers who can find loopholes in the law). That is a defect in law enforcement, not in the content of the law. The issue here is the content of the law: should it recognize and protect all persons? That question is not answered by pointing to something quite general, namely, that, whatever the law says, whatever its content, the rich are often in a position to evade it in a way that the poor are not. This is an injustice perpetrated by the rich. It has nothing to do with the question of what the law should say, what it should allow or forbid. Sexual exploitation of children, for example, must be prohibited, as a matter of principle, because it violates their rights, rights the state is required to uphold and defend. That a rich person can evade the law prohibiting this in a way a poor person cannot is completely beside the point. Neither should be allowed to do it. If there is a discrepancy, the rich person should be brought to where the poor person is: prevented from committing such a crime. Not the other way around: allowing the poor person to do what the rich person already manages to do.
This is what applies to abortion. If abortion is the horrible crime that it has been shown to be, then neither rich nor poor women should be allowed to perpetrate it. They should be made equal, not by allowing the poor to kill their preborn babies but by more vigorous enforcement to prevent the rich from doing so.
Discrimination means the denial of a right that one really has. Poor women (and all women) have no right to kill their preborn babies. The real discrimination is against the child when killing him is allowed by law. This is the discrimination that must be prohibited - the discrimination that means the denial of his most fundamental right, the right to live.
Illegal Abortion Would Create Havoc
"Making abortion illegal would create havoc with existing laws and systems; e.g., the census, apportionment of legislatures or services based on population, tax law."30
This is simply not true. Many of these items would be unaffected by the enactment of a law recognizing preborn persons and upholding their right to live. An example is apportionment of legislatures, which can continue to be based on the number of born persons. Generally, we can legitimately make legal distinctions between born and preborn persons in some respects, without condemning preborn persons to the status of non-persons who may be legally destroyed. We legitimately distinguish between minors who cannot vote and adults who can, without declaring minors to be non-persons who may be legally destroyed. Precisely the same thing applies to a sub-class of minors: preborn babies.
Some of these, and possibly other similar items may be affected by enactment of the legal recognition that is due to preborn persons. So be it. If we owe them a service let us give it to them. Making the necessary adjustment would not create havoc, but would be a requirement of justice.
Above all, the reciting of such a list should not obscure the elementary point, that we owe the child in the womb recognition as a person, and the equal protection of law that flows from it.
Legal Status of Unborn Would Limit Women's Freedom
"If the fetus is granted legal status equal to other persons, would pregnant women be forbidden to smoke, since that has a harmful effect on the fetus? Would they be forbidden to do other things that might have harmful side effects on the fetus? Such prohibitions are absurd, an invasion of a woman's privacy. In any case, they are impossible to enforce."
It is true, as the objection assumes, that it is morally wrong to do things like smoking that adversely affect the child. The child has a right that such things not be done to him. It is a new question whether this right can be, and should be, enshrined in the law. Perhaps it should not be, and cannot be, because of the privacy factor. If so, that hardly means that another right the child has should not be enshrined in law, namely the right to live, the right not to be murdered. From the unfeasibility of protecting the first right, nothing whatever follows regarding the second right. Not all rights can be given the protection of law, but some surely can, especially the right not to be murdered.
A born child has a right to good health care, proper diet, protection from harmful effects. To some extent this right can be enshrined in law, to a large extent it cannot. We cannot have police at the family dinner table ensuring that the child gets all the nourishing food and vitamins he needs. Nor can he be protected from all harmful effects in the home, parallel to the harmful effects for the preborn child from his mother's smoking. But surely the born child's right to live must be enshrined in the law, and given the same legal protection the rest of us enjoy. Exactly the same applies to that child before he is born.
It is interesting that this objection argues equally against the pro-abortion view that the being in the womb is only a potential person and not an actual person. For the harm done to the "fetus" by the pregnant woman's smoking will be manifest, and will be suffered, when that being is a person after birth. Even if he is not a person before birth, as this position holds, he is surely a person after birth, and suffers then because of the adverse effects of his mother's smoking before his birth. So the wrongness of smoking while pregnant is in no way removed, or even mitigated, by adopting the view that no person is present in the womb. Correspondingly, if smoking is already wrong on the assumption that the "fetus" is merely a potential person, nothing significant is changed or added when we come to realize that he is already a real person, an actual person. Hence the objection is not peculiar to the position defended here, that the being in the womb is a real person, entitled to the same legal status and protection as the rest of us.
Can a pregnant woman undergo medical treatment or take medication that is beneficial to her, but has a harmful side effect on the child? In some cases, yes, in some cases, no. I suggest three principles to help decide such cases: (A) The woman and her child must be treated equally as persons. (B) We must try to benefit both as much as possible. (C) Proportionality must be observed. A harmful side effect for one person must not be caused that is out of proportion to the good effect intended for the other person.
Illegal Abortion Would Make All Miscarriages Suspect
"If abortion were made illegal it would 'perhaps require women who had spontaneous abortions [miscarriages] (and their doctors) to undergo special scrutiny to prove that they were in no way induced.'"31
If there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the spontaneous abortion was indeed deliberately induced, there should be a special scrutiny; for inducement of abortion means that a small child had been deliberately killed. Deliberately killing him should be treated just like deliberately killing any child. If there are no reasonable grounds for suspecting a deliberate killing, there would be no scrutiny. This is precisely the same situation as the death of a born baby from an accident at home. If there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the accident was deliberately caused, there will be, and should be, an investigation. If not, there will not be.
Illegal Abortion Would Proscribe Certain Treatments
"If abortion were made illegal, it would mean that treatment for certain medical conditions would be proscribed if the treatment had an abortifacient side effect."32
The force of the objection assumes the pro-abortion position, that women have the right to bring about the death of the child within them. Once this assumption is removed, the objection collapses. A woman does not have the right to a treatment that benefits her while killing the child. One cannot benefit B by killing innocent person A, as has been noted so often already. The objection arises because one does not recognize the reality of the child. Imagine someone suggesting the converse of this: a treatment for certain medical conditions in the child that would have the side effect of killing the woman. The term abortifacient side effect does not sound so bad, until one realizes what it means: a human person is being killed.
The reply to this objection is simply that such medical treatments should be proscribed if they include the killing of the child, just as any treatment, or any action, should be proscribed if it includes the killing of an innocent person.
Illegal Abortion Would Prohibit Certain Contraceptives
"If abortion were made illegal, specifically, if it were declared that human life begins at conception-fertilization, that would make illegal certain kinds of contraception, such as the IUD and some oral contraceptives (such as the Morning After Pill)."
The first point to make is that this formulation of the objection (which is common) confuses two essentially different terms: contraception, which means preventing the coming to be of a new person, and abortion, including abortifacients, which means destroying an already existing person. Outlawing abortion would in no way affect what are really contraceptives. It would outlaw abortifacients such as the IUD and the Morning After Pill, which destroy a tiny human person.
The reply to the objection applying only to abortifacients is that making abortion illegal would indeed outlaw the IUD, the Morning After Pill, and other abortifacients. If the child is recognized as a person from the very beginning - despite his small size, lack of development, and inability to function as a person - his right to live, his right not to be killed should be recognized also. If our right to live is enshrined in law, his right should likewise be enshrined in law. It is very easy, and often very convenient, to kill a preborn child by an IUD, while it is generally difficult, especially psychologically to kill an older person. That is hardly a morally relevant difference. It is unfair to take advantage of a person's small size and inability to defend himself in order to kill him. It is likewise unfair to deny a tiny child the legal protection we enjoy.
Protecting a child from death by IUD or the Morning After Pill is much more difficult than protecting him from death by D & C, saline, and other surgical killings. But the principle is the same: the child must be protected by the law. There must be a legal prohibition on the manufacture, transport, distribution, possession, and use of IUD's, Morning After Pills, and other death-dealing devices. That which has as its sole purpose the destruction of a small person cannot be legally tolerated. That enforcement of such a prohibition will be difficult is no argument against it. Protecting babies from child abuse in the home is also difficult in terms of enforcement, but is of course absolutely imperative.
|
|
3 Comments
|
| |
| Back-alley Abortions |
| 01.28.04 (12:44 pm) [edit] |
"Do you want to return to the butchery of self-induced or back-alley abortions? Keep abortions safe and legal." The right to legal abortion is crucial to the health and well-being of American women. This fundamental right is guaranteed by the U.S. Supreme Court decision of January 22, 1973, which: Affirms every woman's right to end an unwanted pregnancy safely and legally. Affirms that women need no longer be forced by desperation into the horror of underworld abortion."9 "Desperate women will get abortions in any case. Let us keep them legal so that they are safe, so that women are not forced into the horrors of back-alley abortionists. Or to self-induced abortions by coat hangers!"
"Keep abortion safe and legal." First, legal abortion is not safe for the child! The idea of a "safe" abortion can arise only if the reality of the child is overlooked.
The force of this argument is its own destruction. It is the horror of death and mutilation for women at the hands of back-alley butchers. But this is precisely the horror that is repeated in every abortion! That is why every abortion, legal or illegal, must be prevented at all costs. The true response to back-alley abortions is to be outraged at all abortions, to condemn all abortions - not to propose one kind (legal) in place of another (illegal). The very evil that the argument appeals to is the essence of every abortion. And for this reason every abortion must be condemned, morally and by the law.
The "back-alley" argument for legal abortion is a contradiction. It is the argument, "We should allow abortion so that women are not killed." But, since abortion is itself killing, the argument reads: "We should allow killing so that there is no killing."
We cannot legalize murder. To appeal to terrible side effects for the person ordering the murder is not an argument. It does not justify the murder. Mary Ann Warren, who advocates the right to abortion, is clear on this point: "The fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects [i.e.. death due to illegal abortions] does not in itself show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it."10
The "back-alley" argument is not really an argument, either for the moral rightness of abortion or for its legalization, but merely a threat: "Give us legal abortions, or else." A law protecting preborn children is a just law. Everyone ought to obey it. Pointing to the hazards of disobeying the law is no more valid in this case than it would be in any other.
There is a second major reply to the appeal to "safe abortion": legal abortion is not safe for the woman. Reardon's research reveals a frightening fact: "Legalization has improved the odds that an individual will survive an abortion, but the astronomical increase in the number of abortions performed means that more women are dying. The percentage chance of survival is improved, but the absolute number of those who suffer has increased!"11
He goes on to add that this increase in suffering applies also to abortion complications and that one must also include "the deaths which are indirectly caused by abortion," namely future wanted babies: "Each year approximately 100,000 'wanted' pregnancies will end in the sorrow of a spontaneous miscarriage because of latent abortion morbidity." 12
Keeping abortion illegal is better for women: "The number of women dying and suffering from physical complications alone far exceeds the number who would have suffered similarly if abortion had remained illegal. Rather than reducing the pain and suffering of women, legalization of abortion has increased it by exposing many more women to its inherent risks. The only difference is that now the pain and suffering can be antiseptically ignored because it is 'legal.'"13
These numbers are based on reported deaths, and, as I noted before, "the reported rate of deaths due to legal abortion is being deliberately kept low through selective underreporting."14
As an example, Reardon mentions a Los Angeles doctor, Lester Hibbard, who was "charged with keeping track of maternal deaths." While "four abortion-related deaths [were] officially reported as such," Dr. Hibbard said that "he personally knew of at least four other deaths which had followed legal abortions but had not been reported as such on the death certificates. Furthermore, he said he was certain that these unreported abortion deaths were only the tip of the iceberg."15
Reardon reports, "According to one estimate, less than 10% of deaths from legal abortion are reported as such."16
Women are suffering and dying from legal abortions partly because abortion is inherently unsafe for the woman, an assault on her, and partly because, in many cases, the staff at legal abortion centers can be as dangerous (or nearly so) to the woman's health as some of the infamous "back-alley" abortionists at illegal abortion centers. Reardon presents a frightening array of data:
Abortion clinics routinely hire low-cost, unskilled staff members to fulfill the quasi-medical tasks normally performed by physicians or nurses.... There are no educational or certification requirements for abortion clinic personnel.... The depth of knowledge which abortion staff members have, therefore, is generally far below the usual standards of the medical and nursing professions.17
In the typical abortion clinic, these staff members counsel the patients about the procedure, examine the patients, estimate gestation, perform any required tests (e.g., pregnancy tests and blood samples), record vital signs, prepare the patients for surgery, and assist patients through the recovery room.... By delegating responsibility and minimizing patient/doctor interaction, abortionists free themselves to work solely on performing the actual abortion in the least amount of time possible. 18
As a result of cost-efficient measures, most clinics do not have transfusion supplies and blood type selections available, even though 2 to 12 percent of aborted women bleed enough to warrant a transfusion.19
"Keep abortion safe and legal." And, "Let us not return to the days of back-alley abortionists." How do these phrases square with the reality of legal abortion? Reardon explains: "To increase profits even further, abortionists try to work as fast as possible in order to handle as many patients per day as possible. Besides the obvious risks in hurrying a blind operation which involves sharp instruments and vacuum pressures capable of tearing out organs, the rush for efficiency often results in 'cutting comers' on normal sanitation standards."20
The Chicago Sun-Times series shocked readers with the fact that many abortions were being performed by "moonlighting residents, [and] general practitioners with little or no training in women's medicine." But once again this "revelation" was not unique to the four Chicago clinics which were investigated. Instead the use of such "untrained" abortionists is perfectly legal and commonplace.21 Abortionists are essentially free of oversight by state and local governments or even by state medical boards. Even if an abortionist causes numerous complications or deaths, there is no mechanism to prevent him from continuing to perform abortions short of imprisonment for criminal neglect.22
Both illegal abortions and legal abortions are dangerous for women, legal abortions being somewhat safer. Most women wanting abortions are dissuaded from seeking them if they are illegal. ("75 percent said they definitely would not have sought an illegal abortion."23) What, then, is the actual implication of the appeal to keeping abortion legal for the sake of safety? It would mean increasing the safety margin for a small group of women - 25% or so who would resort to it in defiance of the law - while at the same time opening the floodgates of massive destruction for millions of preborn children and an increase in suffering and death for women as a whole. Legalization improves the odds that an individual woman will survive an abortion, but the astronomical increase in the number of abortions performed means that more women are dying.
A word about self-induced abortions by coat hangers. Here too the force of the argument is its own destruction. The horror of a woman killed by a coat hanger is repeated in every abortion, with the child the victim of a horrible death. If the woman should not be killed by one instrument of death, a coat hanger, then neither should the child be killed by another. We cannot legalize murder in order to dissuade people from choosing particularly dangerous forms of carrying it out.
In addition, coat hangers will be a thing of the past, replaced by new forms of abortion, such as an abortion pill.
Finally, "a return to illegal abortions" for those who choose to defy the law "does not mean that there would be a return to the death and complication rates of illegal abortion prior to 1973," when abortion was legalized throughout the United States. "Instead, the complication and death rates would be much lower" because of improvements in "medical care for abortion complications" and in "the abortion techniques used ... illegal abortionists would continue to use the suction curettage that is used in legal abortion clinics today." This means that "illegal abortions performed by physician/abortionists will be no more dangerous than legal abortion - they will only be far less common, and that alone will save lives and reduce complications."24
Fewer women proportionately are dying from abortions now than before, not because of legalization, but because of improvements in medicine. Dr. Willke tells us: "With penicillin, the number [of deaths] dropped sharply. . . . " The general decline in deaths "was clearly due to better antibiotics, the establishment of intensive care units, better surgical techniques, etc."25
The actual number of women who died from illegal abortions prior to legalization is far lower than is sometimes claimed by pro-abortion groups. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, in the past a leader in the effort to legalize abortion, and now a leading opponent of abortion, tells in Aborting America the story of his struggles and his profound change, and that the high figures were an outright lie.
When we spoke of the [number of deaths from illegal abortions] it was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too.... But in the "morality" of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted.... The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.26
Keeping in mind that not all abortion deaths are reported, it is still of some interest to see what the reported figures are: "In 1967.... the federal government listed only 160 deaths from illegal abortion. In the last year before ... [abortion was legalized throughout the country], 1972, the total was only 39 deaths."27
Abortion Laws Unenforceable
"Laws prohibiting abortion are not enforceable. Desperate women, denied legal abortions, will find ways to obtain abortions in other ways. Trying to ban abortion is like trying to ban alcohol: it would be Prohibition all over again. The law would be flouted, creating disrespect for law in general."
It is simply not true that the prohibition of abortion is not enforceable. Abortion "clinics" could be shut down; hospitals now performing abortions could be prevented from doing so; doctors could be prosecuted, jailed, and barred from practicing. Those who counseled women to have abortions, and those who assisted at them, could be prosecuted. For most of our history, until very recently, abortion was illegal. Those who committed this crime were prosecuted. The child in the womb received legal protection in the past; what was unjustly taken away from him should now be restored to him.
Perhaps what the objection has in mind is that there would be widespread resistance to outlawing abortion. That should not be a factor in deciding law. "We will protect you as long as it is not too difficult to do so, as long as such a measure meets with popular approval." Imagine saying this to a minority suffering discrimination. Persons must be given equality before the law because it is demanded by justice, not because (or only if) it is easy.
The protection of certain rights is more difficult to enforce than that of others. It is easier to protect a person's right not to be beaten or killed in a public place than it is to protect the right of a child against child abuse at home. But the law must stand with equal clarity and firmness in both cases. The case of the child in the womb is similar to the child at home: both are more difficult to protect than an adult or child in a public place. But the essential point remains, that both should be protected, and protected equally.
"Desperate women will flout the law and try to have abortions anyway." In general, some people desperate to do something prohibited by law will try to do it anyway, and some of them will succeed. This is surely not a reason to have no law. Consider rape. Some desperate men will commit this crime anyway, even though it is illegal. Making rape illegal does not eliminate it. However different the psychology and motivation may be in the two cases, the effects on the victim are comparable: a violation of the intimacy and integrity of an innocent person. Such attacks on the person must be prohibited by law, that some people will disobey the law is tragic, but is not the point here.
Most women are not "desperate women (who] will flout the law." As was cited above, seventy-five percent of women seeking legal abortion .said they definitely would not have sought an illegal abortion." These are the women who are, to a large extent, "protected from being pressured into an abortion" by its illegality.28
Trying to outlaw abortion is like bringing Prohibition back."29 This is simply not true, for a number of reasons. First, the aim of Prohibition was to prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages. This is largely a private matter, where the state has no clear and evident right to interfere. In direct contrast to this, abortion is not a private matter, but the killing of one person by others.
Second, even if prohibition of alcohol were justified, it would not be required as a fundamental principle of law. Prohibiting murder, all murder, is required as a fundamental principle of law.
Third, a basic defect of Prohibition (of alcohol) was the confusion between a practice and its abuse. What Prohibition wanted to eliminate was the abuse of alcohol; what it actually prohibited was alcohol itself. No such confusion, or even distinction, exists in regard to abortion. It is abortion itself that is a terrible crime; there is no question of any abuse.
Finally. there is the charge that making abortion illegal would mean widespread flouting of the law, and a consequent loss of respect for the law. On the contrary, when the law fails to recognize a whole class of human beings as persons before the law, when it fails to protect their rights, it invites disrespect. The law must protect all fundamental human rights. It cannot hesitate in one area out of fear of disrespect.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Abortion - Individual Conscience |
| 01.28.04 (12:42 pm) [edit] |
"Abortion decisions should be left up to individual conscience. Abortion is often an agonizing decision for the woman. We must leave her the freedom to make her own decision, in conscience, free from state interference."
These are noble sounding phrases, and it is understandable that people are impressed by them and brought to support a woman's right to make her own decision in conscience. They are psychologically plausible, but they are not logically and morally sound. The law that would give a woman this right to decide in conscience would thereby take away the child's legal right to equal protection under the law. The noble-sounding phrases veil the horror of the reality of abortion.
There are things that should be left up to individual conscience. There are other things that should not. Equal treatment of blacks in society is an obvious example. Equal treatment for preborn persons is another.
When it comes to questions of fundamental civil rights, laws that allow individual conscience to decide mean the surrender of some to the power of others to deprive them of these fundamental rights, including the power to destroy them.
|
|
1 Comments
|
| |
| Abortion - A Religious Issue |
| 01.28.04 (12:41 pm) [edit] |
"Abortion is a religious issue. No group should impose its religious values and prohibitions on the rest of society. We live in a pluralistic society. Different groups of people have different moral beliefs. An individual religious group may oppose abortion as morally wrong, but it has no right to impose that belief on society as a whole."
The crucial thing is to understand that abortion is wrong because it is the killing of an innocent person, the violation of his most fundamental right, the right to be. This is not only a religious matter, but a basic ethical concern, accessible to all people. I have urged that we identify with the child and do to her what we would want done to us. These are universal ethical appeals, not sectarian religious ideas.
Abortion is a civil rights issue, one that parallels slavery and discrimination. To argue that preborn human beings be given the same rights and respect as the rest of us is no more a religious matter than to argue that blacks be given the same rights and respect as the rest of us.
There are two senses of the term "religious issue." One refers to what the objection is based upon, that is, questions and topics that are properly left to individual persons and groups, such as the nature and existence of God. The other refers to religious issues that are also matters of public concern, for example marriage, divorce, capital punishment, human equality, and discrimination. To say that something is a religious issue in this second sense does not preclude government involvement in it. On the contrary, the government cannot be neutral on these things: for example, it either allows no-fault divorce or it does not. Abortion is a religious issue in this second sense.
Questions and topics that are religious issues in the second sense are generally also philosophical issues; that is, questions that are to be answered by the use of reason, rather than appeal to religious faith. Thus, in showing that the being in the womb is a real child and that abortion means killing this child, I have made no appeal whatever to any religious faith or theological principles. It has been a strictly philosophical argument, appealing to reason. In showing that a human person begins her existence at conception, I used scientific data and philosophical arguments, especially the one showing that conception-fertilization is the radical break. The two major philosophical arguments attempting to justify abortion - Thomson's "no duty to sustain" argument and the Tooley-Warren argument that the being in the womb is only biologically human but not a person - were refuted by strictly philosophical arguments. Finally, given that the being in the womb is a small person, it follows logically that he should be given the same legal standing as the rest of us, that abortion must be made illegal just as any other killing of innocent persons.
It is interesting to note that the preborn child was recognized as a person in Roman Law, with the same rights as born persons. Thus, for example, Julian, the classical Roman jurist, expresses this recognition in Roman Law when he teaches that the child in his mother's womb is to be treated as a member of human society in terms of legal rights. And the jurist, Paulus, teaches that whoever is in his mother's womb is to be protected as if he were already born; he is to be granted the same civil rights and the same benefits accruing from them as anyone else.5 Roman Law was surely not a religious matter. What the Roman Law clearly recognized, we too should recognize.
Furthermore. there are widely recognized secular codes of ethics that explicitly condemn abortion and/or acknowledge the sanctity of human life in the womb. Thus the Hippocratic Oath includes the promise: "I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion."6 And The World Medical Association Declaration of Geneva states, as part of the Physician's Oath, "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception. Even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."7
No Consensus to Make Abortion Illegal
There is no consensus for making abortion illegal. Hence doing so would mean unfairly imposing the beliefs of some people on the rest of society."
First, just as there is no consensus for making abortion illegal, there is also no consensus on making it legal. Abortion is a controversial matter, opinion is divided. The objection argues equally against the pro-abortion, or pro-choice, side: "Abortion should not be legal because there is no consensus for making it legal."
Second, we must examine the nature of abortion itself - whether or not the being in the womb who is killed is a real person - not what people think about abortion. If abortion is not the killing of a child, if it is something private, then it should be legal, consensus or not. If abortion is a woman's right, then she should have that right under the law, consensus or not. Those who campaign for women's rights, including "the right to abortion," believe that this is something right in itself, called for in justice, not something that should be enacted only if there is a consensus for it. This shows that consensus is not relevant in this kind of issue, where questions of fundamental human rights are at stake.
Third, when we examine the nature of abortion itself, carefully and objectively, we see that the being who is killed by it is a real person, one of us. With this we come to the core fallacy in the consensus objection, and the fundamental reply to it as an argument for legalizing abortion. What this argument really says is that a person is not to be given recognition under the law as a person, his right to live protected by the state, simply because he is a person, and entitled to this protection; but only because other persons have agreed to recognize him as a person. If that view is taken no one is safe. If your right to live, your right to equal protection under the law, depends on there being a consensus that the group you belong to should be protected, then your rights are fragile indeed.
In short, fundamental rights, above all the right of a person to be recognized and respected as a person, do not depend on the democratic voting procedures that are perfectly appropriate in other matters. The recognition of fundamental rights cannot be made subject to popular votes. Such rights are not granted by the people by majority votes; they cannot rightfully be taken away in this manner. They are above the level of democratic processes based on majority opinion.
Fourth, suppose there is a lack of consensus for outlawing abortion. Rather than wait for a consensus to enact laws to protect the rights of preborn persons, these laws should be enacted as a matter of justice, with the expectation that the laws will then help create the consensus. Rather than the consensus leading to the laws, the laws can lead to the consensus. This is what occurred in the case of civil rights laws to give equal treatment to blacks. If an oppression is legal (racist oppression of blacks, the killing of preborn babies), it tends to be widely practiced. This tends to make it respectable, which in turn tends to create a lack of consensus to outlaw the oppression. We must reverse this process. Our obligation is to respect persons, irrespective of the shifting tides of popular consensus.
No Simple Answers to Complex Questions
"We should avoid simplistic answers to complex problems. Abortion is a complex problem, and simply outlawing it is a simplistic solution."
First, abortion is only complex psychologically and socially, not morally, as was shown in chapter 9. The killing of an innocent child to get rid of him is as clear-cut an evil as one can find.
Is the outlawing of murder of born persons simplistic? In a way, yes: you simply cannot do that! The same must apply to preborn persons.
Second, if prohibiting all abortions is simplistic, allowing all abortions -which is the current state of affairs in America8 and throughout much of the rest of the world - is no less simplistic. What, in the view of those who use this objection, would be the ideal or true solution? A law that forbade some abortions and allowed others? But then why should only some innocent preborn children be protected and not others? Because there are justifying factors in some cases, such as rape and incest? These factors do not justify murdering the child. An innocent person cannot be killed, or allowed to be killed, for the benefit of others.
What, after all, is wrong with a "simple" prohibition of murder? That is all that is being asked for, for preborn and born persons alike. Changing "simple" to "simplistic" is merely inserting a negative emotional overtone, to try to frighten people away from supporting what is demanded by "simple" justice: protection of innocent, defenseless small babies.
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Abortion - Imposing Morality |
| 01.28.04 (12:40 pm) [edit] |
"We should not impose our morality on others. One group should not impose its beliefs on the rest of society. I'm personally opposed to abortion but I will not impose that belief on others."
Suppose someone said, "I'm personally opposed to rape, but I will not impose that belief on potential rapists." How absurd! This argument is as absurd in the case of abortion as it is in that of rape. The law must protect all innocent persons from assault: women from rape, babies from slaughter. The morality of not raping, and of not murdering, a fellow human being is not "my morality" or "our morality" but morality itself.
Perhaps some people who say they're personally opposed do so because they feel abortion is wrong but do not fully understand why; they are unable to articulate good moral reasons why it is wrong. Thus they think that others may feel differently about it, and they want to respect these differences of opinion or feeling. "That's the way I feel, but maybe you don't."3 This attitude is psychologically understandable but morally disastrous, for the result is that a cruel death is imposed on the child. We must look at the evidence that abortion is wrong, that it is murder; we will then see that it is not merely a feeling, but the truth of the matter.
It is true that we should not impose on people. We should have compassion and concern for others, especially the weak, the oppressed, the poor, the downtrodden. We should protect the helpless, not step on them. Legalized abortion is the enshrinement in law of oppression, stepping on the weak and defenseless. Legalizing abortion is saying, "Abortionists may crush the little ones if they like." Precisely because we should not impose on others, we must not allow such an imposition, the crushing to death of innocent, helpless babies in the womb.
The term impose suggests that outlawing abortion is something bad because it imposes a burden or restriction on people. But all laws impose. Traffic laws impose on us certain obligations and restrictions. Laws making abortion illegal are nothing special in this regard. They are simply another instance of the general feature of all laws, to impose certain obligations and restrictions for the common good, and to respect other individuals as persons and not to hurt or kill them. Laws outlawing abortion merely apply this general feature to one class of persons, preborn babies.
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Abortion - Legislating Morality |
| 01.28.04 (12:35 pm) [edit] |
"We should not legislate morality. Morality is a matter of private choice, not government legislation."
We legislate morality all the time, in many ways: laws against the murder of born persons, against rape, against other forms of assault, against theft, against libel and slander, and many more. These moral evils, as violations of the rights of persons, must be reflected in the law and made illegal.
It is true that certain parts of the moral domain should not be reflected in the law. For example, to be ungrateful is a moral wrong that should not be reflected in the law; indeed, it cannot be. There are other matters that are genuinely complex with regard to the question whether or not - and if so, to what extent - they should be reflected in the law. But surely the fundamental right to life, not to be killed, belongs within the domain of law. All civil rights should be protected by law.
Some years ago many people opposed civil rights legislation, saying, "You cannot legislate morality." Dr. Martin Luther King responded, "It is true, the law cannot make a white man love me, but it can discourage him from lynching me."2
The distinction drawn here, between the command to love and the prohibition against lynching is a good example of the difference between the non-legal domain of morality (love) and the legal domain (killing).
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Abortion - Right over One's Body |
| 01.28.04 (12:26 pm) [edit] |
"A woman has a right over her body, to decide what happens in it, and to it. She should have the right to make her own decision regarding her pregnancy. Someone else cannot tell her what she may or may not do with her own body."
In short, a woman's right over her body does not give her a right to an abortion. The child is not a part of her body, but a distinct individual, entrusted to her, to be sustained and protected by her. The woman has a right over her body, including the right not to be destroyed. The child has the same right not to be destroyed. Granting a woman a right to an abortion denies the child his most fundamental right.
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Privacy and Abortion |
| 01.28.04 (12:07 pm) [edit] |
"The question of abortion is something very intimate, very private to a woman. Only she should decide whether to continue her pregnancy to term, or to end it by abortion. No one else, and certainly not the government, should tell a woman what to do. She alone should decide. Hence abortion should be legal."
There is certainly something very intimate in the relation between a woman and the child she is carrying. The child is hers, entrusted to her, residing in her, nourished by her, protected by her. And it is a terrible evil if someone comes from the outside to interfere with this relationship destructively. It is abortion, not the prohibition of it, that violates the intimate realm of a woman who is pregnant. It is abortion that intrudes into this beautiful sanctuary, where a small, innocent, defenseless child is nestled and protected. Abortion sunders the beautiful and natural relation that exists between woman and child by violently tearing the child out, brutally killing him in the process.
That the woman herself requests the abortion in no way nullifies this point. It is objectively a violent sundering of this natural, intimate relationship. By her abortion she becomes a part of this terrible evil, and often suffers from it as the second victim.
Yes, there is something private and intimate that we should protect: the child. Abortion is a violation of the child's privacy, an intrusion into what is intimate for him, his own person. The methods of abortion and the pain they cause are a violation of intimacy and privacy.
Thus the appeal to intimacy and privacy, insofar as it is valid and reasonable, means forbidding abortions. The child's right to live, not to be killed, especially by the painful methods of abortion, that right surely outweighs anyone's claim to a right to privacy. And the state must protect that right, just as it protects other civil rights.
Many of these objections rest on the idea that abortion is private to the woman, where no one else should interfere. It is not. It involves another human person, the child, who is killed by this act. It involves other people as well. The family structure, human relations, and other children may be adversely affected by abortion. Noonan outlines the many ways in which abortion affects society at large:
Each act of abortion is, by declaration of the Supreme Court of the United States, a private decision. Yet each act of abortion bears on the structure of marriage and the family, the role and duties of parents, the limitations of the paternal part in procreation, and the virtues that characterize a mother. Each act of abortion bears on the orientation and responsibilities of the obstetrician, the nurse, the hospital administrator, and the hospital trustee. The acceptance of abortion affects the professor and student of medicine and the professor and student of law. In the United States, abortion on a large scale requires the participation of the federal and state governments.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Richard Nixon's War? Vietnam? Hu? |
| 01.27.04 (1:38 pm) [edit] |
In his victory speech after his Iowa victory, Kerry spoke of Vietnam as "Richard Nixon's War." Richard Nixon's War?
The day after the Iowa caucus, I wrote an article entitled "Is John Kerry a Good Democrat?
Is John Kerry a Good Man?"
It took me only one day to answer both questions. In his victory speech after his Iowa triumph, Kerry spoke of "Richard Nixon's War."
That, sadly, answered every question about this particular incarnation of Leftist evil.
Richard Nixon's War? Kerry served in Vietnam when Lyndon Baines Johnson was president, not when Richard Nixon was president. The Vietnam War had been a big political issue, but that issue was first presented to the American people in 1964, not 1968.
Lyndon Johnson and his crooked flacks within the Democrat Party smeared one of the most decent and noble men in American politics, Barry Goldwater, by pretending that Goldwater would do just what Johnson had planned to do: fight a war in Vietnam.
What was the difference? The same difference that divides Kerry from President Bush today, and which has always divided Republicans from Democrats.
Republicans are reluctant to begin wars, but if we are in a war, the Republican strategy is that America decisively win.
Goldwater did not lie to the American people like Johnson did in 1964.
Barry Goldwater correctly observed that America was headed toward a land war in Asia and the way to win that war was through the unrestricted use of air and naval power.
No one in 1964 needed to guess whether a communist-sponsored insurgency could be contained effectively in Southeast Asia.
Britain had just done precisely that in Malaya. The Philippines, with American help, had done so in that complex archipelago.
Soon the people of Indonesia would remove the communist-leaning leader of that enormous archipelago as well.
South Vietnam never fell to communist insurgents. It fell to panzer divisions coming out of a very well supplied North Vietnam, which was essentially all of the military power in this so-called "Civil War."
The key was to stop the totalitarian thugs of Hanoi from waging a conventional war behind the safe haven of the borders of North Vietnam.
Goldwater explained how.
Mine Haiphong Harbor, the point of entrance for nearly all the indispensable supplies that the communists received to prosecute their war. Attack with overwhelming air power the air defenses of North Vietnam and then the infrastructure of North Vietnam.
This was similar to how tactical and operational air power was able to win the war against a very good and well equipped German Army in the Second World War. Air power broke the Berlin Blockade in 1948.
The use of air power by military men who knew how to use it was also how American defeated the fourth largest and most battle-tested army in the world in Desert Storm.
It is how Afghanistan was liberated without America even having forces in contiguous nations. The mere threat of air power being used with devastating effect was how America ousted the Baathist butchers with few casualties.
Although air power involved the risk of some casualties, the loss of life was one hundred times smaller than it would have been with land forces.
The use of naval power involved almost no risk of American casualties at all. American battleships could shell most of the coastal strip that is North Vietnam with virtual impunity, and the mining of Haiphong Harbor could probably have been accomplished with no loss of American life at all.
Johnson was, of course, a coward.
He was a dishonest coward as well. The micro-management of the Vietnam War from Washington was a mistake of unthinkable proportions. American soldiers fight best when given initiative.
Our fighting men and their officers were hamstrung by Leftists afraid of offending our allies (sound familiar?) and alienating those who were already our enemies.
Nixon inherited the Democrats' War.
A few days before the November 1968 Election, Johnson launched the only clear "October Surprise" when he suddenly decided that it would be a good thing to stop bombing North Vietnam at all, and unilaterally stopped.
This gave Hubert Humphrey a bounce, which was what was intended, and thousands of America's sons died or were injured because of that.
Nixon also, of course, negotiated a peace treaty (some "Nixon War, huh?)
This peace may well have worked, except for one problem: Leftist Democrats blocked Nixon at every turn in fighting this war inherited from two Democrat presidents.
After Nixon resigned, Kerry and other Leftists did something even more awful. They prevented South Vietnam from getting military aid (not troops or pilots) which had been solemnly promised to them.
So the panzer divisions entered Saigon, now Ho Chi Minh City, and all the non-communist nations of Southeast Asia which had been involved in this long war fell to communism.
Then communists did exactly what Barry Goldwater and countless other conservatives warned. The communists began a bloodbath.
The worst was what happened in Cambodia under Pol Pot and Khieu Samphan.
The communists began one of the most brutal holocausts in human history, but with a spin.
The Holocaust of Jews and Gentiles by the Nazis was unavoidable; we did all we could just to defeat this grave threat. The Gulag and the Tibetan holocausts were impossible to prevent without a potential world war.
The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, by contrast, were a tenth rate military power with a long coastline. America could have defeated them in a few weeks, and saved millions of Cambodian men, women and children for a sadistic and long genocide.
We did not exactly because John Kerry and other Leftist used their enormous clout in Congress to hamstring our nation.
No, Senator Kerry, it was not "Richard Nixon's War," it was Lyndon Johnson's War. But the blood and agony of millions of Cambodians was the handiwork of you and your friends.
Not "Richard Nixon's War" but rather "John Kerry's Killing Fields."
If you had come back from Vietnam determined to stop communism, then millions of innocents would have been spared, but you went for the opposing Nixon -- How bold! How brave! No one who was anyone was opposing Nixon...wait...I have that backwards: anyone who was anything was opposing Nixon.
You were brave, once, and only in the sense of physical courage, never moral courage. Senator Kerry, you have shared bravery under fire with some pretty important people: Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Tse Tung and Attila the Hun.
War heroes are good for a nation, all other things being equal.
But all things are not equal when John Kerry, the richest man in the Senate, can look at Americans whose fathers, sons, brothers and husbands died in a noble cause and pretend that this was “Richard Nixon’s War.”
No, Senator Kerry. You are a liar. It was not “Richard Nixon’s War.” It was “John Kerry’s Killing Fields.”
|
|
3 Comments
|
| |
| Untreated Anti-Life Rantings |
| 01.27.04 (11:50 am) [edit] |
I remember like it was yesterday a conversation I had a number of years ago with a very prominent bioethicist. The topic was one in an endless series of anything-goes proposals (about which, by the way, he would never say never).
But he did caution me to remember that as ghoulish as these ideas sounded to my ears, to the scientists involved, it often had nothing to do with ethics, morality, commonsense, or a flagrant assault on the minimum standards of human decency. These guys, he said, have only one agenda: pushing the envelope.
They want to scavenge brain tissue from aborted babies, or create hybrid organisms, or clone babies and gestate them until just before birth and then kill them for spare parts, etc. "just because they think they can."
I thought of this conversation when I read about the latest uproar caused by the comments of someone the London Times called a "genetics guru." According to the Times,
"A government adviser on genetics has provoked uproar by suggesting that it may be acceptable to destroy babies with 'defects' soon after birth. John Harris, a member of the Human Genetics Commission, told a parliamentary meeting last week that he did not see any moral difference in aborting a fully grown unborn baby at 40 weeks and committing infanticide."
Reading other accounts, what he said is even worse than what these first couple of sentences suggest. It's doubly scary because of who said it.
These are not the observations of a representative of some fringe cult like the Raelians, who believe humans were created by extra-terrestrial beings and who periodically insist they've successfully cloned a human baby. This is the creme de la creme of the British Medical Establishment speaking.
Harris is the author of 15 books on the ethics of genetics and one of the founders of the International Association of Bioethics. He is also a professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester and a member of the British Medical Association's ethics committee.
And his remarks were not some cocktail party banter. They came during an unreported debate last week held as part of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's consultation on human reproductive technologies.
Let me quote from the [London] Telegraph. Harris
"was asked what moral status he accorded an embryo and [if] he endorsed infanticide in cases of a child carrying a genetic disorder that remained undetected during pregnancy.
"He replied: 'I don't think infanticide is always unjustifiable. I don't think it is plausible to think that there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal.' "
Harris refused to back off his comments, which (according to the Telegraph) "he claimed had been elicited 'in response to goading' from pro-life campaigners." Harris said,
"People who think there is a difference between infanticide and late abortion have to ask the question: what has happened to the foetus in the time it takes to pass down the birth canal and into the world which changes its moral status? I don't think anything has happened in that time.
"It is well-known that where a serious abnormality is not picked up- - when you get a very seriously handicapped or indeed a very premature newborn which suffers brain damage--that what effectively happens is that steps are taken not to sustain it on life-support.
"There is a very widespread and accepted practice of infanticide in most countries. We ought to be much more upfront about the ethics of all of this and ask ourselves the serious question: what do we really think is different between newborns and late foetuses?
"There is no obvious reason why one should think differently, from an ethical point of view, about a foetus when it's outside the womb rather than when it's inside the womb."
Back in the ancient days--the l960s and l970s--such arguments kicked around largely in arcane philosophy journals. When pro-lifers dutifully pointed them out, we were told, pshaw. Who besides a couple of fringe characters actually believed that?
Well, that "fringe" position is now espoused by one of the lions of the Medical Establishment in Great Britain. It gets one round of news stories--which include denunications and those who defend the proposal--and then it will vanish until the next outrageous statement.
But it doesn't end there. Tragically, for some unknown percentage of people, each exposure to such barbarity will diminish the natural repugnance they feel. In this instance familiarity really does breed contempt--contempt for innocent, wholly vulnerable human life.
After all, if the objective is to produce "perfect" children, and the tests don't catch imperfection, why should an error in screening mean that parents have to live with this "mistake?" We saw whiffs of this in the debate over partial-birth abortion.
More typical, of course, over an eight-year period, were endless misdirection--nonsense about how rare it was and how partial-birth abortions were only performed when kids were "going to die anyway." In truth, there are thousands of partial-birth abortions performed annually almost all of which are of healthy babies of healthy moms.
But occasionally the real perspective seeped out.
So what if the kid is 95% out of his mother's womb? This misses the point, we were told. It's not WHERE the kid is located, it's rather what is WANTED: a dead baby.
Harris is, alas, all too representative of a certain stream of thinking, one that is as full of yuck as water on its way to a sewage treatment plant. Fortunately, there are plenty of people like you and I who will challenge this view every time this pollution surfaces.
I remember like it was yesterday a conversation I had a number of years ago with a very prominent bioethicist. The topic was one in an endless series of anything-goes proposals (about which, by the way, he would never say never).
But he did caution me to remember that as ghoulish as these ideas sounded to my ears, to the scientists involved, it often had nothing to do with ethics, morality, commonsense, or a flagrant assault on the minimum standards of human decency. These guys, he said, have only one agenda: pushing the envelope.
They want to scavenge brain tissue from aborted babies, or create hybrid organisms, or clone babies and gestate them until just before birth and then kill them for spare parts, etc. "just because they think they can."
I thought of this conversation when I read about the latest uproar caused by the comments of someone the London Times called a "genetics guru." According to the Times,
"A government adviser on genetics has provoked uproar by suggesting that it may be acceptable to destroy babies with 'defects' soon after birth. John Harris, a member of the Human Genetics Commission, told a parliamentary meeting last week that he did not see any moral difference in aborting a fully grown unborn baby at 40 weeks and committing infanticide."
Reading other accounts, what he said is even worse than what these first couple of sentences suggest. It's doubly scary because of who said it.
These are not the observations of a representative of some fringe cult like the Raelians, who believe humans were created by extra-terrestrial beings and who periodically insist they've successfully cloned a human baby. This is the creme de la creme of the British Medical Establishment speaking.
Harris is the author of 15 books on the ethics of genetics and one of the founders of the International Association of Bioethics. He is also a professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester and a member of the British Medical Association's ethics committee.
And his remarks were not some cocktail party banter. They came during an unreported debate last week held as part of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's consultation on human reproductive technologies.
Let me quote from the [London] Telegraph. Harris
"was asked what moral status he accorded an embryo and [if] he endorsed infanticide in cases of a child carrying a genetic disorder that remained undetected during pregnancy.
"He replied: 'I don't think infanticide is always unjustifiable. I don't think it is plausible to think that there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal.' "
Harris refused to back off his comments, which (according to the Telegraph) "he claimed had been elicited 'in response to goading' from pro-life campaigners." Harris said,
"People who think there is a difference between infanticide and late abortion have to ask the question: what has happened to the foetus in the time it takes to pass down the birth canal and into the world which changes its moral status? I don't think anything has happened in that time.
"It is well-known that where a serious abnormality is not picked up- - when you get a very seriously handicapped or indeed a very premature newborn which suffers brain damage--that what effectively happens is that steps are taken not to sustain it on life-support.
"There is a very widespread and accepted practice of infanticide in most countries. We ought to be much more upfront about the ethics of all of this and ask ourselves the serious question: what do we really think is different between newborns and late foetuses?
"There is no obvious reason why one should think differently, from an ethical point of view, about a foetus when it's outside the womb rather than when it's inside the womb."
Back in the ancient days--the l960s and l970s--such arguments kicked around largely in arcane philosophy journals. When pro-lifers dutifully pointed them out, we were told, pshaw. Who besides a couple of fringe characters actually believed that?
Well, that "fringe" position is now espoused by one of the lions of the Medical Establishment in Great Britain. It gets one round of news stories--which include denunications and those who defend the proposal--and then it will vanish until the next outrageous statement.
But it doesn't end there. Tragically, for some unknown percentage of people, each exposure to such barbarity will diminish the natural repugnance they feel. In this instance familiarity really does breed contempt--contempt for innocent, wholly vulnerable human life.
After all, if the objective is to produce "perfect" children, and the tests don't catch imperfection, why should an error in screening mean that parents have to live with this "mistake?" We saw whiffs of this in the debate over partial-birth abortion.
More typical, of course, over an eight-year period, were endless misdirection--nonsense about how rare it was and how partial-birth abortions were only performed when kids were "going to die anyway." In truth, there are thousands of partial-birth abortions performed annually almost all of which are of healthy babies of healthy moms.
But occasionally the real perspective seeped out.
So what if the kid is 95% out of his mother's womb? This misses the point, we were told. It's not WHERE the kid is located, it's rather what is WANTED: a dead baby.
Harris is, alas, all too representative of a certain stream of thinking, one that is as full of yuck as water on its way to a sewage treatment plant. Fortunately, there are plenty of people like you and I who will challenge this view every time this pollution surfaces.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Married Catholic Priests in the United States |
| 01.26.04 (11:51 am) [edit] |
|
The law of celibacy has no doctrinal bearing in the Catholic Church--it is a mere disciplinary law. Even today, there are married Catholic priests in the United States. Each is a former Episcopalian priest who joined the Catholic Church. There are Uniate Churches, churches in union with Rome, e.g., the Greek Byzantine Church, who have a married clergy.
|
|
3 Comments
|
| |
| Clerical Celibacy |
| 01.26.04 (11:50 am) [edit] |
The Roman Catholic Church demands celibacy--no voluntary sexual pleasure, hence, no marriage--as a prerequisite to the order of presbyter.
The primary basis for the requirement of celibacy is clearly the lifestyle example of Jesus himself.
The Church notes that the practice is sanctioned by the New Testament.
Mt 19:12
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.
1 Cor 7:6-7
This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command. Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am (single? widowed?), but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
1 Cor 7:25-26
Now in regard to virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. So this is what I think best because of the present distress: that it is a good thing for a person to remain as he is.
1 Cor 7:32-34
I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
The law of celibacy has no doctrinal bearing in the Catholic Church--it is a mere disciplinary law. Even today, there are married Catholic priests in the United States. Each is a former Episcopalian priest who joined the Catholic Church. There are Uniate Churches, churches in union with Rome, e.g., the Greek Byzantine Church, who have a married clergy.
Priestly celibacy became law in the Roman Church in the 6th century.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| CANDLES |
| 01.23.04 (9:40 am) [edit] |
WE stand in a double and contrary relationship to objects outside ourselves. We stand to the world and all its contents as when God brought the animals to the first man for him to name. Among them all Adam could find no companion. Between man and the rest of creation there is a barrier of difference, which neither scientific knowledge nor moral depravity can remove or efface. Man is of another make from every other earthly creature. To him they are foreign. His kinship is with God.
On the other hand he is related to everything that exists in the world. Everywhere we feel somehow at home. The shapes, attitudes, movements of objects all speak to us, all are a means of communication. It is the incessant occupation of the human soul to express through them its own interior life, and to make them serve as its signs and symbols. Every notable form we come across strikes us as expressing something in our own nature, and reminds us of ourselves.
This feeling of our connection with things is the source of metaphor and simile. We are profoundly estranged from, yet mysteriously connected with, outside objects. They are not us, and yet all that is or happens is an image to us of ourselves.
One of these image-objects strikes me, and I think most people, as having more than ordinary force and beauty. It is that of a lighted candle. There it rises, firmly fixed in the metal cup on the broad-based, long-shafted candlestick, spare and white, yet not wan, distinct against whatever background, consuming in the little flame that flickers above it the pure substance of the wax in softly-shining light. It seems a symbol of selfless generosity. It stands so unwavering in its place, so erect, so clear and disinterested, in perfect readiness to be of service. It stands, where it is well to stand, before God.
It stands in its appointed place, self-consumed in light and warmth.
Yes, of course the candle is unconscious of what it does. It has no soul. But we can give it a soul by making it an expression of our own attitude.
Stir up in yourself the same generous readiness to be used. "Lord, here am I." Let the clean, spare, serviceable candle bespeak your own attitude. Let your readiness grow into steadfast loyalty. Even as this candle, O Lord, would I stand in your presence.
Do not weaken in or try to evade your vocation. Persevere. Do not keep asking why and to what purpose. To be consumed in truth and love, in light and warmth, for God, is the profoundest purpose of human life.
|
|
1 Comments
|
| |
| WALKING |
| 01.23.04 (9:38 am) [edit] |
WALKING,--how many people know how to walk? It is not hurrying along at a kind of run, or shuffling along at a snail's pace, but a composed and firm forward movement. There is spring in the tread of a good walker. He lifts, not drags, his heels. He is straight, not stoop-shouldered, and his steps are sure and even.
There is something uncommonly fine in the right kind of walking. It is a combination of freedom and discipline. It is poised, as if the walker were carrying a weight, yet proceeds with unhampered energy. In a man's walk there is a suggestion of bearing arms or burdens; in a woman's an attractive grace that reflects an inner world of peace.
And when the occasion is religious, what a beautiful thing walking can be! It is a genuine act of divine worship. Merely to walk into a church in reverent awareness that we are entering the house of the Most High, and in a special manner into his presence, may be "to walk before the Lord." Walking in a religious procession ought not to be what so often it is, pushing along out of step and staring about. To escort the Blessed Sacrament through the city streets, or through the fields, "his own possession," the men marching like soldiers, the married women in the dignity of motherhood, the young girls in the innocent charm of youth, the young men in their restrained strength, all praying in their hearts, should be a sight of festive gladness.
A penitential procession should be supplication in visible form. It should embody our guilt, and our desperate need of help, but also the Christian assurance that overrules them,--that as in man there is a power that is superior to all his other powers, the power of his untroubled will, so, above and beyond human guilt and distress there is the might of the living God.
Walking is the outward mark of man's essential and peculiar nobility. It is the privilege of man alone to walk erect, his movement in his own power and choice. The upright carriage denotes the human being.
But we are more than human beings. We are, as the Bible calls us, the generation of God. We have been born of God into newness of life. Profoundly, through the Sacrament of the Altar, Christ lives in us; his body has passed into the substance of our bodies; his blood flows in our veins. For "he that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him." These are his words. Christ grows in us, and we grow in him, until being thoroughly formed by him, we attain to the full stature of Jesus Christ, and everything we do or are, "whether we eat or sleep, or whatsoever we do," our work, our recreation, our pleasures and our pains, are all taken up into the Christ-life.
The consciousness of this mystery should pass in all its joyous strength and beauty into our very manner of walking. The command "to walk before the Lord and be perfect" is a profound figure of speech. We ought both to fulfil the command and illustrate the figure.
But in sober reality. Beauty of this order is not the product of mere wishing.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| STANDING |
| 01.23.04 (9:31 am) [edit] |
THE respect we owe to the infinite God requires of us a bearing suited to such a presence. The sense that we have of the greatness of His being, and, in His eyes, of the slightness of our own, is shown outwardly by our kneeling down to make ourselves small. But reverence has another way of expressing itself. When you are sitting down to rest or chat, and someone to whom you owe respect comes in and turns to speak to you, at once you stand up and remain standing so long as he is speaking and you are answering him. Why do we do this?
In the first place to stand up means that we are in possession of ourselves. Instead of sitting relaxed and at ease we take hold of ourselves; we stand, as it were, at attention, geared and ready for action. A man on his feet can come or go at once. He can take an order on the instant, or carry out an assignment the moment he is shown what is wanted.
Standing is the other side of reverence toward God. Kneeling is the side of worship in rest and quietness; standing is the side of vigilance and action. It is the respect of the servant in attendance, of the soldier on duty.
When the good news of the gospel is proclaimed, we stand up. Godparents stand when in the child's place they make the solemn profession of faith; children when they renew these promises at their first communion. Bridegroom and bride stand when they bind themselves at the altar to be faithful to their marriage vow. On these and the like occasions we stand up.
Even when we are praying alone, to pray standing may more forcibly express our inward state. The early Christians stood by preference. The "Orante," in the familiar catacomb representation, stands in her long flowing robes of a woman of rank and prays with outstretched hands, in perfect freedom, perfect obedience, quietly attending to the word, and in readiness to perform it with joy.
We may feel at times a sort of constraint in kneeling. One feels freer standing up, and in that case standing is the right position. But stand up straight: not leaning, both feet on the ground, the knees firm, not slackly bent, upright, in control. Prayer made thus is both free and obedient, both reverent and serviceable.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| KNEELING |
| 01.23.04 (9:18 am) [edit] |
WHEN a man feels proud of himself, he stands erect, draws himself to his full height, throws back his head and shoulders and says with every part of his body, I am bigger and more important than you. But when he is humble he feels his littleness, and lowers his head and shrinks into himself. He abases himself. And the greater the presence in which he stands the more deeply he abases himself; the smaller he becomes in his own eyes.
But when does our littleness so come home to us as when we stand in God's presence? He is the great God, who is today and yesterday, whose years are hundreds and thousands, who fills the place where we are, the city, the wide world, the measureless space of the starry sky, in whose eyes the universe is less than a particle of dust, all-holy, all-pure, all-righteous, infinitely high. He is so great, I so small, so small that beside him I seem hardly to exist, so wanting am I in worth and substance. One has no need to be told that God's presence is not the place in which to stand on one's dignity. To appear less presumptuous, to be as little and low as we feel, we sink to our knees and thus sacrifice half our height; and to satisfy our hearts still further we bow down our heads, and our diminished stature speaks to God and says, Thou art the great God; I am nothing.
Therefore let not the bending of our knees be a hurried gesture, an empty form. Put meaning into it. To kneel, in the soul's intention, is to bow down before God in deepest reverence.
On entering a church, or in passing before the altar, kneel down all the way without haste or hurry, putting your heart into what you do, and let your whole attitude say, Thou art the great God. It is an act of humility, an act of truth, and everytime you kneel it will do your soul good.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| THE HANDS |
| 01.23.04 (9:17 am) [edit] |
EVERY part of the body is an expressive instrument of the soul. The soul does not inhabit the body as a man inhabits a house. It lives and works in each member, each fibre, and reveals itself in the body's every line, contour and movement. But the soul's chief instruments and clearest mirrors are the face and hands.
Of the face this is obviously true. But if you will watch other people (or yourself), you will notice how instantly every slightest feeling,--pleasure, surprise, suspense,--shows in the hand. A quick lifting of the hand or a flicker of the fingers say far more than words. By comparison with a language so natural and expressive the spoken word is clumsy. Next to the face, the part of the body fullest of mind is the hand. It is a hard strong tool for work, a ready weapon of attack and defence,--but also, with its delicate structure and network of innumerable nerves, it is adaptable, flexible, and highly sensitive. It is a skilful workmanlike contrivance for the soul to make herself known by. It is also an organ of receptivity for matter from outside ourselves. For when we clasp the extended hand of a stranger are we not receiving from a foreign source the confidence, pleasure, sympathy or sorrow that his hand conveys?
So it could not but be that in prayer, where the soul has so much to say to, so much to learn from, God, where she gives herself to him and receives him to herself, the hand should take on expressive forms.
When we enter into ourselves and the soul is alone with God, our hands closely interlock, finger clasped in finger, in a gesture of compression and control. It is as if we would prevent the inner current from escaping by conducting it from hand to hand and so back again to God who is within us, holding it there. It is as if we were collecting all our forces in order to keep guard over the hidden God, so that he who is mine and I who am his should be left alone together. Our hands take the same position when some dire need or pain weighs heavily on us and threatens to break out. Hand then locks in hand and the soul struggles with itself until it gets control and grows quiet again.
But when we stand in God's presence in heart-felt reverence and humility, the open hands are laid together palm against palm in sign of steadfast subjection and obedient homage, as if to say that the words we ourselves would speak are in good order, and that we are ready and attentive to hear the words of God. Or it may be a sign of inner surrender. These hands, our weapons of defence, are laid, as it were, tied and bound together between the hands of God.
In moments of jubilant thanksgiving when the soul is entirely open to God with every reserve done away with and every passage of its instrument unstopped, and it flows at the full outwards and upwards, then the hands are uplifted and spread apart with the palms up to let the river of the spirit stream out unhindered and to receive in turn the water for which it thirsts. So too when we long for God and cry out to him.
Finally when sacrifice is called for and we gather together all we are and all we have and offer ourselves to God with full consent, then we lay our arms over our breast and make with them the sign of the cross.
There is greatness and beauty in this language of the hands. The Church tells us that God has given us our hands in order that we may "carry our souls" in them. The Church is fully in earnest in the use she makes of the language of gesture. She speaks through it her inmost mind, and God gives ear to this mode of speaking.
Our hands may also indicate the goods we lack,--our unchecked impulses, our distractions, and other faults. Let us hold them as the Church directs and see to it that there is a real correspondence between the interior and exterior attitude.
In matters such as this we are on delicate ground. We would prefer not to talk about things of this order. Something within us objects. Let us then avoid all empty and unreal talk and concentrate the more carefully on the actual doing. That is a form of speech by which the plain realities of the body say to God what its soul means and intends.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| MAKE THE SIGN OF THE CROSS |
| 01.23.04 (9:13 am) [edit] |
WHEN we cross ourselves, let it be with a real sign of the cross. Instead of a small cramped gesture that gives no notion of its meaning, let us make a large unhurried sign, from forehead to breast, from shoulder to shoulder, consciously feeling how it includes the whole of us, our thoughts, our attitudes, our body and soul, every part of us at once. how it consecrates and sanctifies us.
It does so because it is the Sign of the universe and the sign of our redemption. On the cross Christ redeemed mankind. By the cross he sanctifies man to the last shred and fibre of his being. We make the sign of the cross before we pray to collect and compose ourselves and to fix our minds and hearts and wills upon God. We make it when we finish praying in order that we may hold fast the gift we have received from God. In temptations we sign ourselves to be strengthened; in dangers, to be protected. The cross is signed upon us in blessings in order that the fulness of God's life may flow into the soul and fructify and sanctify us wholly.
Think of these things when you make the sign of the cross. It is the holiest of all signs. Make a large cross, taking time, thinking what you do. Let it take in your whole being,--body, soul, mind, will, thoughts, feelings, your doing and not-doing,-- and by signing it with the cross strengthen and consecrate the whole in the strength of Christ, in the name of the triune God.
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Abortion Begins to Thaw |
| 01.21.04 (3:05 pm) [edit] |
Not until he became governor and faced a bill on his desk did Ronald Reagan ever think much about abortion, he tells us in his book, and then he boiled his queries down to one commonsense question.
Tell me what would happen, he asked his lawyer friends, if a man died, leaving his estate half to his pregnant wife and half to the child in her womb.
If the wife then procured an abortion, so that she could keep the estate for herself, would that be murder for financial gain?
Nobody wanted to answer that.
The law protects the unborn child in two or three important areas, Reagan concluded, including inheritance laws and laws against the abuse of pregnant women that causes the death of the unborn child.
That gave Reagan the foundation for his view that, in the general case, the unborn deserve the protection of their lives. They are human individuals and have long been so treated by the law. They have rights to be protected.
Reagan's radio address upon this subject should be read in full; it is a marvelous record of how one man faced his own puzzlement and made up his mind.
It may be found in "Reagan, In His Own Hand", published by the Hoover Institution Press.
It was reprinted in The New York Times Magazine (Dec. 31, 2000).
It is one of the advance scripts for Reagan's radio show, drafted and corrected in his own hand.
This text appears just in time to prepare us for this year's great March for Life, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, to mourn the deaths of 46 million citizens ripped untimely from the womb, and to pray to God to bless this nation with a more civilized and benign moral practice.
The 46 million dead represent almost exactly the number of young workers needed to fend off the immense crisis of unsustainable Social Security burdens.
With every year that passes, not enough younger people are working to finance the retirement of the older. The young workers have been winnowed out. Their cohort is lacking 46 million.
The oldest of those now dead would be in their 31st year. Each year now, there would be another 1.4 million of them turning six and entering first grade, and an equal number graduating into the work force from high school or college. But they are absent.
Some 15 million of these missing ones were black children, just about one-third of all aborted ones.
The winnowing in the black community has been the most severe. (If this were any other activity, less protected by the liberal elites, this fact alone would brand abortion a racist policy.)
The people of the United States have never voted for the abortion regime.
When they have had a chance to vote, they have usually voted for some modest method of restricting it; but the courts have aborted legislative will.
No issue is so divisive in our public disputations. No issue so inflames liberal women. No issue is surrounded so by lies and euphemism, evasion, even refusal to keep statistics. It is virtually certain that many more women today are maimed or die from complications due to abortion procedures than in "the bad old days before Roe v. Wade," both because of lack of policing of abortion facilities, and because of the massive annual number of abortions (more than 3,000 every day), hugely swollen since 1973.
But the government refuses in this one instance to keep statistics about death and injury from abortion procedures. The truth is abortion's enemy.
Many consciences in America believe abortion is benign. It is not difficult to respect their consciences. But lack of investigative reporting, truth telling, and public argument from all points of view is a grave weakness of our public life.
Some who rabidly promote abortion do not dare to tell the truth about it.
They defame any who oppose them, as most recently against John Ashcroft.
They turn to calling names with passion. The fundamental lie they propagate is this: The unborn is "part of the woman's body."
Genetic science no longer allows them such a claim. Like the common law that Ronald Reagan reflected on, science too studies in the womb a genetically independent human individual. If its life is not prematurely taken from it, this individual can become no other than a developed human child.
That is science, not moral judgment.
A college student wrote recently that the generation born since 1973 is the first in history to reflect that they might have been aborted. They lacked security even in their mother's womb.
There is no rock of trust on which they can depend.
But the profoundest thing that has changed since 1973 is that the arguments have swung decisively toward the protection of the human rights of the genetically independent child in the womb.
Millions are now committed to defending what has happened since 1973, of course, and do not want to hear of argument.
They have planned their lives around some falsehoods. Ice is creaking underneath their feet.
But still, in the wind and the cold, the great March for Life of January 22 goes on, year by dreary year. More and more people are beginning to awaken.
There is a better way to live. Better laws are coming. Public consciences are thawing. After winter, spring is always on its way.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Abortion Begins to Thaw |
| 01.21.04 (3:04 pm) [edit] |
Not until he became governor and faced a bill on his desk did Ronald Reagan ever think much about abortion, he tells us in his book, and then he boiled his queries down to one commonsense question.
Tell me what would happen, he asked his lawyer friends, if a man died, leaving his estate half to his pregnant wife and half to the child in her womb.
If the wife then procured an abortion, so that she could keep the estate for herself, would that be murder for financial gain?
Nobody wanted to answer that.
The law protects the unborn child in two or three important areas, Reagan concluded, including inheritance laws and laws against the abuse of pregnant women that causes the death of the unborn child.
That gave Reagan the foundation for his view that, in the general case, the unborn deserve the protection of their lives. They are human individuals and have long been so treated by the law. They have rights to be protected.
Reagan's radio address upon this subject should be read in full; it is a marvelous record of how one man faced his own puzzlement and made up his mind.
It may be found in "Reagan, In His Own Hand", published by the Hoover Institution Press.
It was reprinted in The New York Times Magazine (Dec. 31, 2000).
It is one of the advance scripts for Reagan's radio show, drafted and corrected in his own hand.
This text appears just in time to prepare us for this year's great March for Life, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, to mourn the deaths of 46 million citizens ripped untimely from the womb, and to pray to God to bless this nation with a more civilized and benign moral practice.
The 46 million dead represent almost exactly the number of young workers needed to fend off the immense crisis of unsustainable Social Security burdens.
With every year that passes, not enough younger people are working to finance the retirement of the older. The young workers have been winnowed out. Their cohort is lacking 46 million.
The oldest of those now dead would be in their 31st year. Each year now, there would be another 1.4 million of them turning six and entering first grade, and an equal number graduating into the work force from high school or college. But they are absent.
Some 15 million of these missing ones were black children, just about one-third of all aborted ones.
The winnowing in the black community has been the most severe. (If this were any other activity, less protected by the liberal elites, this fact alone would brand abortion a racist policy.)
The people of the United States have never voted for the abortion regime.
When they have had a chance to vote, they have usually voted for some modest method of restricting it; but the courts have aborted legislative will.
No issue is so divisive in our public disputations. No issue so inflames liberal women. No issue is surrounded so by lies and euphemism, evasion, even refusal to keep statistics. It is virtually certain that many more women today are maimed or die from complications due to abortion procedures than in "the bad old days before Roe v. Wade," both because of lack of policing of abortion facilities, and because of the massive annual number of abortions (more than 3,000 every day), hugely swollen since 1973.
But the government refuses in this one instance to keep statistics about death and injury from abortion procedures. The truth is abortion's enemy.
Many consciences in America believe abortion is benign. It is not difficult to respect their consciences. But lack of investigative reporting, truth telling, and public argument from all points of view is a grave weakness of our public life.
Some who rabidly promote abortion do not dare to tell the truth about it.
They defame any who oppose them, as most recently against John Ashcroft.
They turn to calling names with passion. The fundamental lie they propagate is this: The unborn is "part of the woman's body."
Genetic science no longer allows them such a claim. Like the common law that Ronald Reagan reflected on, science too studies in the womb a genetically independent human individual. If its life is not prematurely taken from it, this individual can become no other than a developed human child.
That is science, not moral judgment.
A college student wrote recently that the generation born since 1973 is the first in history to reflect that they might have been aborted. They lacked security even in their mother's womb.
There is no rock of trust on which they can depend.
But the profoundest thing that has changed since 1973 is that the arguments have swung decisively toward the protection of the human rights of the genetically independent child in the womb.
Millions are now committed to defending what has happened since 1973, of course, and do not want to hear of argument.
They have planned their lives around some falsehoods. Ice is creaking underneath their feet.
But still, in the wind and the cold, the great March for Life of January 22 goes on, year by dreary year. More and more people are beginning to awaken.
There is a better way to live. Better laws are coming. Public consciences are thawing. After winter, spring is always on its way.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Is Abortion the Killing of a Child? |
| 01.21.04 (2:03 pm) [edit] |
Methods of Abortion
Abortion a Form of Infanticide?
Is Abortion Murder?
Abortions Resulting in Live Births
Methods of Abortion
Abortion is generally described as the termination of pregnancy. It is terminated by the removal of the child from the womb. That is done by several methods:
D & C or Dilation and Curettage:
Performed between 7 and 12 weeks, this method utilizes a sharp curved knife. The uterus is approached through the vagina. The cervix, or mouth of the womb, is stretched open. The surgeon then cuts the tiny body to pieces and cuts and scrapes the placenta from the inside walls of the uterus....
One of the jobs of the operating nurse is to reassemble the parts to be sure the uterus is empty, otherwise the mother will bleed or become infected.
Suction or Vacuum Aspiration:
A powerful suction tube is inserted through the cervix into the womb. The baby is violently torn to pieces and sucked into a jar. Used between 7 and 12 weeks.
D & E or Dilation and Evacuation:
Used between 12 and 24 weeks. Here, too, the child is cut to pieces by a sharp knife, as in D & C, only it is a much larger and far more developed child, weighing as much as a pound, and measuring as much as a foot in length. A newspaper report on abortion and live births describes it:
It involves dismembering the fetus while still in the womb, which eliminates any possibility of live birth.
It is a relatively new procedure in late abortions and is generally believed to be among the safest for women and the least psychologically painful.
However, it is also generally considered the most traumatic for doctors and staff... [The use of this method] in second trimester abortions [twelfth to twenty-fourth week] has increased greatly in recent years.
While in these three methods the child always dies, there are other methods that generally result in the death of the child, but occasionally result in a live birth:
Saline Solution or Salt Poisoning:
This method is generally used after thirteen weeks of pregnancy. A long needle is inserted through the mother's abdomen and a strong salt solution is injected directly into the amniotic fluid that surrounds the child.
The salt is swallowed and "breathed" and slowly poisons the baby, burning his skin as well. The mother goes into labor about a day later and expels a dead, grotesque, shriveled baby. Some babies have survived the "salting out" and were born alive.
"It takes over an hour to slowly kill a baby by this method." Another description of this procedure explains:
A very long needle pierces the skin near the belly button and is driven through the abdomen into the womb and amniotic sac (the bag of water surrounding the swimmer).
If the preborn does not push the needle away (which they are often known to do) about one hundred and fifty cc's of his fluid environment are removed to be replaced by the deadly saline solution.
Sometime during the next hour comes the most difficult part (and the part most likely not to be told to the woman considering abortion).
More difficult than making The Choice, more difficult than seeing that huge needle bearing down on the stomach, is the time when the saline begins to affect the preborn and s/he begins to react to it with the basic tools for survival used by every living creature - fight or flight. The preborn kicks, thrusts, and writhes. Soon, since s/he can neither fight the poison nor run from it, the convulsions begin.
The death throes of the preborn can be very uncomfortable for the mother; she can ... feel ... them [if the child is 20 weeks old or more].
There is no escape for her either. After the preborn dies labor begins, followed by delivery of the infant and the afterbirth (that is, if all goes according to plan).
Prostaglandin Chemical Abortion:
This form of abortion uses chemicals developed and sold by the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company
These hormone-like compounds are injected or otherwise applied to the muscle of the uterus, causing it to contract intensely, thereby pushing out the developing baby.
Babies have been decapitated during these abnormal contractions. Many have been born alive.
Hysterotomy or Cesarean Section Abortion:
Used in the last trimester of pregnancy, the womb is entered by surgery through the wall of the abdomen. The tiny baby is removed and allowed to die by neglect or sometimes killed by a direct act.
Is Abortion Killing?
Is abortion the killing of a preborn child?
That it is called removal does not mean that it is not also killing. There are essentially three types of cases here.
First, abortion may be removal of the child by killing him or her. The ultimate intention is removal, but it is carried out by a method that is in fact killing, such as dismembering or poisoning.
Hence abortion in such cases is killing: the method of "removal" kills the child.
It is sometimes said, "We only want to remove the child, not kill her, though she may die as a result."
Where the first three methods are used (D & C, suction, D & E), this is hardly plausible. One "removes" the child by a method that cannot be anything other than killing, even if one's interest lies in removal rather than in death.
And where the next two methods are used (saline and prostaglandin) and result in death, the same applies; for example, one kills the child by poisoning and burning.
Second, there are some cases in which the distinction between removal and killing has meaning, namely hysterotomy, which is very rare, and those cases, also rare, when saline and prostaglandin result in live births.
I will deal with these cases shortly. They constitute rare exceptions to the general rule that abortion is indeed the killing of a child.
Third, termination of pregnancy may sometimes be carried out with the explicit purpose of killing the child.
This is explained by Steven L. Ross, who points out that abortion is not, in many cases, abandonment of the child, or merely wanting him removed, but rather wanting him dead. He says:
If upon entering a clinic women were told, "We can take the fetus out of your womb without any harm to you or it, keep it alive elsewhere for nine months, and then see it placed in a good home," many would, understandably be quite unsatisfied.
What they want is not to be saved from "the inconvenience of pregnancy" or "the task of raising a certain (existing) child"; what they want is not to be parents, that is, they do not want there to be a child they fail or succeed in raising.
Far from this being "exactly like" abandonment, they abort precisely to avoid being among those who later abandon. They cannot be satisfied unless the fetus is killed; nothing else will do.
Obviously abortion means killing the child in such cases.
On the whole, apart from the rare instances where there are live births, abortion is the killing of the child. It is a deliberate and intentional killing; either because one wants the child dead, or because one chooses a method of removal that in fact constitutes killing.
|
|
3 Comments
|
| |
| Is Abortion the Killing of a Child? |
| 01.21.04 (2:02 pm) [edit] |
Methods of Abortion
Abortion a Form of Infanticide?
Is Abortion Murder?
Abortions Resulting in Live Births
Methods of Abortion
Abortion is generally described as the termination of pregnancy. It is terminated by the removal of the child from the womb. That is done by several methods:
D & C or Dilation and Curettage:
Performed between 7 and 12 weeks, this method utilizes a sharp curved knife. The uterus is approached through the vagina. The cervix, or mouth of the womb, is stretched open. The surgeon then cuts the tiny body to pieces and cuts and scrapes the placenta from the inside walls of the uterus....
One of the jobs of the operating nurse is to reassemble the parts to be sure the uterus is empty, otherwise the mother will bleed or become infected.
Suction or Vacuum Aspiration:
A powerful suction tube is inserted through the cervix into the womb. The baby is violently torn to pieces and sucked into a jar. Used between 7 and 12 weeks.
D & E or Dilation and Evacuation:
Used between 12 and 24 weeks. Here, too, the child is cut to pieces by a sharp knife, as in D & C, only it is a much larger and far more developed child, weighing as much as a pound, and measuring as much as a foot in length. A newspaper report on abortion and live births describes it:
It involves dismembering the fetus while still in the womb, which eliminates any possibility of live birth.
It is a relatively new procedure in late abortions and is generally believed to be among the safest for women and the least psychologically painful.
However, it is also generally considered the most traumatic for doctors and staff... [The use of this method] in second trimester abortions [twelfth to twenty-fourth week] has increased greatly in recent years.
While in these three methods the child always dies, there are other methods that generally result in the death of the child, but occasionally result in a live birth:
Saline Solution or Salt Poisoning:
This method is generally used after thirteen weeks of pregnancy. A long needle is inserted through the mother's abdomen and a strong salt solution is injected directly into the amniotic fluid that surrounds the child.
The salt is swallowed and "breathed" and slowly poisons the baby, burning his skin as well. The mother goes into labor about a day later and expels a dead, grotesque, shriveled baby. Some babies have survived the "salting out" and were born alive.
"It takes over an hour to slowly kill a baby by this method." Another description of this procedure explains:
A very long needle pierces the skin near the belly button and is driven through the abdomen into the womb and amniotic sac (the bag of water surrounding the swimmer).
If the preborn does not push the needle away (which they are often known to do) about one hundred and fifty cc's of his fluid environment are removed to be replaced by the deadly saline solution.
Sometime during the next hour comes the most difficult part (and the part most likely not to be told to the woman considering abortion).
More difficult than making The Choice, more difficult than seeing that huge needle bearing down on the stomach, is the time when the saline begins to affect the preborn and s/he begins to react to it with the basic tools for survival used by every living creature - fight or flight. The preborn kicks, thrusts, and writhes. Soon, since s/he can neither fight the poison nor run from it, the convulsions begin.
The death throes of the preborn can be very uncomfortable for the mother; she can ... feel ... them [if the child is 20 weeks old or more].
There is no escape for her either. After the preborn dies labor begins, followed by delivery of the infant and the afterbirth (that is, if all goes according to plan).
Prostaglandin Chemical Abortion:
This form of abortion uses chemicals developed and sold by the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company
These hormone-like compounds are injected or otherwise applied to the muscle of the uterus, causing it to contract intensely, thereby pushing out the developing baby.
Babies have been decapitated during these abnormal contractions. Many have been born alive.
Hysterotomy or Cesarean Section Abortion:
Used in the last trimester of pregnancy, the womb is entered by surgery through the wall of the abdomen. The tiny baby is removed and allowed to die by neglect or sometimes killed by a direct act.
Is Abortion Killing?
Is abortion the killing of a preborn child?
That it is called removal does not mean that it is not also killing. There are essentially three types of cases here.
First, abortion may be removal of the child by killing him or her. The ultimate intention is removal, but it is carried out by a method that is in fact killing, such as dismembering or poisoning.
Hence abortion in such cases is killing: the method of "removal" kills the child.
It is sometimes said, "We only want to remove the child, not kill her, though she may die as a result."
Where the first three methods are used (D & C, suction, D & E), this is hardly plausible. One "removes" the child by a method that cannot be anything other than killing, even if one's interest lies in removal rather than in death.
And where the next two methods are used (saline and prostaglandin) and result in death, the same applies; for example, one kills the child by poisoning and burning.
Second, there are some cases in which the distinction between removal and killing has meaning, namely hysterotomy, which is very rare, and those cases, also rare, when saline and prostaglandin result in live births.
I will deal with these cases shortly. They constitute rare exceptions to the general rule that abortion is indeed the killing of a child.
Third, termination of pregnancy may sometimes be carried out with the explicit purpose of killing the child.
This is explained by Steven L. Ross, who points out that abortion is not, in many cases, abandonment of the child, or merely wanting him removed, but rather wanting him dead. He says:
If upon entering a clinic women were told, "We can take the fetus out of your womb without any harm to you or it, keep it alive elsewhere for nine months, and then see it placed in a good home," many would, understandably be quite unsatisfied.
What they want is not to be saved from "the inconvenience of pregnancy" or "the task of raising a certain (existing) child"; what they want is not to be parents, that is, they do not want there to be a child they fail or succeed in raising.
Far from this being "exactly like" abandonment, they abort precisely to avoid being among those who later abandon. They cannot be satisfied unless the fetus is killed; nothing else will do.
Obviously abortion means killing the child in such cases.
On the whole, apart from the rare instances where there are live births, abortion is the killing of the child. It is a deliberate and intentional killing; either because one wants the child dead, or because one chooses a method of removal that in fact constitutes killing.
|
|
4 Comments
|
| |
| On Invetro Fertilization |
| 01.21.04 (1:38 pm) [edit] |
As science and technology advances, man must always discern if the advancement is for the better of mankind.
We were given an intellect and will to make decisions throughout our lives. Reproductive technology is an example.
To understand why certain reproductive technology is morally licit or illicit, one must first comprehend the sacrament of marriage and the dignity of each human being. The child, in the womb, (which sad to say, is one of the most dangerous places to be these days), is a gift from God, and is to be valued and protected as such. This new life is the fruit of the love between a married couple, in the conjugal act, exhibiting unity and procreation.
In vitro fertilization or IVF, is a reproductive technique with the intention to procreate. The ova from the woman, along with the sperm from the man, are retrieved and the two are placed in a lab dish. Fertilization soon follows and the embryo is placed in the woman’s uterus. The intention to procreate is a good end, but the means to that end is contrary to moral, natural law.
It puts the child at the hands of technology, and completely disrespects the sanctity of human life. In IVF, conception not only takes place outside the mother’s body, but also outside the conjugal act itself. The man and woman no longer come together as one, in body and spirit, in the unitive way. The mixing of sperm and ova result in the creation of embryos, or human beings. The ‘extra embryos’, those not used for the couple, are either frozen for later use, or destroyed.
This discarding, or murder, and freezing of embryo’s, does a grave injustice and disrespect to a human life. The new child also is deprived of conception in his mother’s womb. This means to procreate, is intrinsically evil, and contrary to the natural moral law.
IVF is separated into heterologous and homologous. Heterologous IVF involves a man’s sperm or a woman’s ova, outside the marriage. Homologous IVF, is strictly the husband’s sperm and his wife’s ovum.
In Homologous, as well as in heterologous, fertilization takes place outside the uterus, usually in a lab dish. They both take place outside the conjugal act, separating the unitive and procreative aspects. Heterologous IVF, hurts the unity of marriage, as well as the dignity of the spouses, and the child conceived. The child, being the fruit of a marriage, has the right to be conceived in his mother’s womb, as well as, carried to full term.
Surrogate motherhood involves in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination within another woman. This does great danger to the unity of the marriage and to the dignity of the child. The child has the right to be carried by his own mother and brought up by his own two parents.
The surrogate mother, who may see this as heroic and as a good end, is involved in an evil means. She, as Donum Vitae states, "represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity, and of responsible motherhood."
In surrogate motherhood and IVF, heterologous and homologous, man attempts to play the role of the Creator. As a result, children are seen as objects, to be frozen, or even discarded, rather than gifts from God.
Since the unitive and procreative aspects are separated, and the conjugal act is absent, these reproductive technologies are contrary to the natural, moral law.
There are two methods that, to date, are left unanswered by the Church.
TOTS and GIFT are fairly new techniques, in which the physical union of man and woman, in the conjugal act, takes place.
In TOTS, the man’s sperm is collected in a perforated sheath and manipulated in ways to make conception easier. The ovum and sperm are both put in a sheath, with a bubble between the two, allowing conception within the fallopian tube.
GIFT, if the sperm is obtained within a perforated sheath, is similar to TOTS. If the sperm is obtained by masturbation, as in IVF and artificial insemination, then GIFT is gravely immoral and intrinsically evil.
Masturbation is evil, for the fact that it takes place apart from the conjugal act, and uses the male sex organ for a means contrary to its purpose, the conjugal act. The big question with both GIFT and TOTS is whether the technology replaces the conjugal act, or assists it to achieve conception. Personally, I feel technology goes beyond its limits here. I question whether it is a total self giving, since a perforated sheath, which is somewhat of a barrier, is involved. It seems that the conjugal act, in this case, does not allow all the sperm to carry out its natural route. Some of the sperm are taken out and manipulated and then put with the ovum, separated by a bubble, in a sheath. There appears to be to much manipulation and technology involved.
One final, theological point, is that of God’s will. Does God will that all married couples procreate, or are some, for unknown reasons, infertile? We appear to be going too far with technology, and not putting enough trust in God. Infertility is hard to deal with, but by the grace of God it is possible for married couples to carry the cross of Christ.
We have seen, through IVF, surrogate motherhood, and GIFT and TOTS, that not all technology is used to better mankind. IVF, whether heterologous or homologous, along with surrogate motherhood are evil means to procreate. They do great injustice to marriage, the couples themselves, the child, and God’s natural moral law. GIFT and TOTS are questionable and the Church has basically left it up to the people’s and their doctor’s consciences, until a decision is made. When that time comes, all the faithful will have to adjust their consciences according to the teaching of the Church, which is based on the natural, moral law as revealed by God himself.
|
|
3 Comments
|
| |
| What is Wrong With the World? Liberalism |
| 01.20.04 (3:26 pm) [edit] |
By definition, Liberalism is the mistaken notion that "One religion is as good as another."
The absurdity of this proposition is immediately obvious to all, for two beliefs that contradict each other cannot at the same time both be true. Therefore, insofar as one at least is false, it is simply not good at all, and definitely it is not as good as a belief which is true. Nor is it even as good as one that is nearer to the truth.
Also, Liberalism takes no cognizance of there being in the world a One, True, Divinely revealed Religion that is true in all its doctrines and moral teachings--which is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church unabashedly maintains that it is.
Liberalism at least here in America--is all-pervasive and is almost, as it were, universally victorious over the thinking of our people.
Yet as a religious--philosophical tenet it is false! And woefully so! For, as is pointed out, it leads to an eventual denial of any truth whatsoever by some of its adherents.
For people hear first one religious "truth" asserted and then another that contradicts it, and soon they are so confused that they do not know what to believe. And often they end up believing nothing--or holding that nothing is certain, even in matters relating to the Natural Law, which all people know through the use of their reason alone.
Regarding its source, Liberalism, as is taught very clearly, is a direct result of Protestantism, with its tenet of private interpretation of the Bible. For if a person has a right to decide for himself what the Bible means, this says in effect that he has a right to choose whether he will believe or not believe certain revealed teachings.
Then in effect, he also has a right to believe nothing at all.
Whereas the correct view is that when the mind of man sees the divinely revealed truth, he has NO CHOICE, morally speaking, to reject it. Its obvious truth requires that he must accept it as true.
(Society, on the other hand, must concede every person a civil right to reject religious truth, as far as he individually is concerned, but that is only because both religion and society must allow a person to exercise his free will and to choose for himself whether he will accept or reject God's Revelation. He who rejects the truth, however, must personally bear whatever evil consequences that result from his own personal choice.) For some, this theme may be difficult because they are unaccustomed to reading abstract, theoretical ideas, but the issues discussed are so important to each a person individually, and to our society as a whole, that it behooves everyone to persist to the end (the concluding aurgument is one of the best).
For Liberalism says in effect that there is no objective truth, which is patently absurd. And in the practical order--in our social and political lives--Liberalism leads to a practiced atheism, that is, to a situation in society where, though we do not deny the existence of God, we nonetheless must conduct ourselves vis-a-vis one another as if God did not exist, because we must in effect deny that He has a right to tell man what to do.
This situation results from Liberalism's denying in effect that there is one body of revealed truth, with which man must comply. Liberalism therefore destroys adherence even to the Natural Law, that law which we all understand to be true without the assistance of divine Revelation. But it also destroys the universal acceptance among people of divine Revelation. Adherence to both the supernatural and the natural order, therefore, breaks down under its influence, and the result is chaos in individual lives and anarchy in society.
The all-pervading Liberal ideas that "one religion is basically as good as another" and that "it does not matter what a person believes so long as he is a good person" were spawned almost automatically and by logical necessity, as it were, due to the historical context leading up to where we find ourselves today.
By the year 304 A.D., Christianity (read here "Catholicism") had pretty well permeated and converted the ancient Roman world, so that with the victory of Constantine the Great at that time in the battle of the Malvian Bridge and with his succession as Roman Emperor in that year, Catholicism became the official religion of society. And as the Roman world more and more influenced its neighbors, especially the northern European peoples, the civilization that developed there was Roman-Catholicized civilization, or Catholicized-Roman civilization, if you will.
At the time of the Protestant Reformation (read "Revolt"), starting in 1517 and continuing throughout that century, European civilization had already been well formed by the Catholic religion for, at the most, 1,200 years in some regions to, at the least, 400 years in others.
Significant for our Western civilization is the fact, as Hilaire Belloc points out in Essays of a Catholic, that THE PEOPLE WHO HAD BECOME PROTESTANT DID NOT ABANDON THEIR CATHOLIC MORAL CUSTOMS. They continued to live by the truth which their Catholic forefathers had lived by for centuries. The only problem was that they no longer believed as true the religious-philosophical truths taught by the Revealed Religion, the Catholic Faith, which had created their customary and traditional ethic.
This dichotomy between varying professed faiths in the minds of people, on the one hand, and the continued practice of the traditional Catholic and therefore true moral customs, on the other, has come down into our own time.
All during the centuries since Luther's revolt in 1517, society has been able to function fairly well, despite the various erroneous religious-philosophical ideas in the minds of people in the same nation--simply because, practically speaking, they were by and large living by the old inherited Catholic truths and practices, and this was what enabled our society to function more or less harmoniously, despite a diversity of belief among its members. Let us pause here to name some of the Catholic social moral customs that are based on the revealed word of God: to worship God on Sunday, not to work on Sunday, to give honest work for your pay, not to steal, to keep monogamous marriage relations, not to practice polygamy, to avoid adultery and fornication, to shun homosexuality (like a plague!), to have children and not to practice birth control (let alone abortion), to raise and nurture them within the family they were born in, to respect and care for the elderly, to nurse the sick, to bury the dead (in anticipation of the resurrection of the body), etc., etc.
Now, the average person might say, "Most of that we have always taken for granted" But the fact is that now most of these traditional customs--that have made our society workable up until now--have been, not just called into question, but simply abandoned by many people, as if there were no objective truth, and definitely as if there were no divine retribution for sin left unexpiated.
This abandonment is the direct result of the loss of the one, true Catholic faith as the integral creed of our society as a whole, which in turn has eventuated in the abandonment of traditional Catholic moral customs that enable man to live in conformity with God's laws and enable society to function harmoniously.
Liberalism, which in effect says, "It does not matter what you believe--or whether you believe anything at all"--could be held without dire results by even the majority of people in our present society--so long as the majority of our people were also still practicing the old traditional (read "true," "Catholic") moral customs, for these customs, based on the revealed truths of Almighty God and adherence to the Natural Law, enabled our society to function reasonably well. But now, with so many people having lost touch with the reasons for morality and goodness, we live in a situation where many of these customs have been abandoned by a large segment of our society, and the result is social disorder of the first magnitude.
It is only when the present disorder arose in our social affairs--when murders and broken marriages and people going berzerk in all sorts of ways--became epidemic that people universally began to ask:
"WHAT IS WRONG?!"
People in general do not understand philosophy, let alone the bad effects that a bad philosophy can have. These evil effects must first impinge on their lives--"smack them hard in the face"--before they cry out, "What is wrong?!"
Well, Dear Reader, "What is wrong" is what has already been wrong for a very long time in the thinking of our people--they no longer profess the truth. They abandoned it starting in 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the chapel door at Wittenberg and initiated his revolt against the True Faith and a unified Catholic society. They jettisoned the Revealed Religion of God, sort of like naughty children left home alone and rebelling against their parents' firm (but orderly) rule--not realizing that they were destroying the very underpinnings of society itself, not to mention the infinitely more important matter of abandoning the one and only vehicle of their eternal salvation. And it was these people by and large who emigrated to North America and founded our nation.
I believe we can say with good historical accuracy that the Catholic moral customs inherited from centuries of Catholic and Roman civilization survived until the decade of the 1960's, when the rot of Liberalism--spread at an accelerated rate by the immoral movie industry--had prepared the social seedbed for people finally to abandon the traditional Catholic moral customs. This abandonment of order for hedonism and personal licentiousness was precipitated during the 1960's, more than anything else, I believe, by the advent of the birth control pill, accompanied by the utter daring of the movie industry in portraying on the screen people actually committing fornication and adultery. The result over the next few years was a general disintegration of sexual morality, pandemic infidelity, a meteoric rise in divorce, and finally, the coup de grace for society, abortion. Top this all off with the concomitant alarming increase in drug abuse, and the rest of human morals simply disintegrated in the train.
This historical scenario we have actually witnessed in just the past 30 years! The discussion here, therefore, is not academic. For the collapse of Catholic customs has taken place only recently, and that within the lifetimes of many of us. The result--if not soon reversed--will destroy what is left of our civilization.
This collapse ultimately is the result of Protestantism--with its belief in private interpretation of the Bible. With the Protestant Revolt from revealed truth and the divinely established authority in the person and office of the Pope in Rome, everyone became his own little pope. Whereas people could not abide one man's being infallible--one man, who held the divine commission from Jesus Christ Himself, when He said to St. Peter, "I say to thee: that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys to the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt. 16:18-20); whereas they could not abide this one man's being infallible, whose authority exists only within the strictly defined limits of a tightly wrought, nearly 2,000--year, universally known tradition, all the while being guided by the Holy Spirit, the "Paraclete" whom Christ had sent; whereas they could not accept this sort of God--assisted, worldwide--visible, tightly constrained infallible teacher; they could and did accept, and continue to this day to accept, THEMSELVES(!) as the infallible, unfailing, inerrant rule of faith and morals--they, who are often mental pygmies in theoretical matters, uninstructed in theology and philosophy, poorly informed, busy with practical affairs, weak, sick and all of that; they themselves are the only, the one, the true and infallible authority which they will accept--only themselves! God preserve us from such nonsense!
Is it any wonder we have ended with the social dilemmas we now face, when the majority of people in our society operate under an idea structure such as this? The moral, social, civil, political chaos we have brought upon ourselves is the direct result of Protestantism, with its disastrous tenet of "private interpretation," and its ugly stepchild, "Liberalism," which blesses the spiritual and moral disorder produced by Protestantism with the gooey mental salve of "One religion is as good as another," and its equally absurd corollary, "It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you lead a good life."
"Protestantism is now a dead dog". But Liberalism still waxes strong in Protestantism's defense. However, the social upheaval of our times, brought on by these false ideas, now demands the ringing of the death-knell of Liberalism. We can no longer abide this error and survive as a civilization.
For liberals in a society are like termites in a wooden house. They live off the house while it is still basically sound, saying all the while, "What harm do we do? The house still stands!" But we know that the house of our civilization is getting progressively weaker as the termite--Liberals increase and thrive, and at some point, in the not-too-distant future, we are going to crash!
It is my opinion that we are now there! We are about to crash as a civilization. And we need immediately to begin the process of exterminating the verminous Liberal pest with large antidotes of real, logical truth, taken from the wellspring of all truth, our Divinely Revealed Religion--the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Faith. No other medicine will do for what is otherwise a terminal case for all of us.
We are at the point where action is imperative. For our very personal, earthly safety is at stake--not to mention the vastly more important matter of the salvation of our souls. But we can only act rightly if we know the truth and act in accordance with it.
Liberalism Is A Sin focuses our sights on the last enemy that needs to be destroyed before we can begin rebuilding the "Lost Faith" that makes life on this earth reasonable and harmonious and that enables people to obtain eternal salvation--if they will only embrace it and live by it.
For Liberalism is all that is left standing between us and the shedding of the light of Catholic truth on all the problems of our times and eventuating thereby those real, lasting solutions to the moral, social and religious problems which now afflict us unto the death of our civilization.
|
|
1 Comments
|
| |
| Liberalism As It Is In This Country |
| 01.20.04 (3:02 pm) [edit] |
Liberalism, whereas essentially one and the same everywhere, presents various faces in different countries. In its essence, it is the denial of the supernatural in whole or 1.n part, but that denial takes a local coloring from place or circumstances.
The traditions, customs, prejudices, and idiosyncrasies of a people reflect it at various angles. It is protean [variable] in its presentations throughout the world, and to the casual observer, who falls to probe below the appearances of things, it may not seem to manifest itself at all; whereas, in reality, it exists in its subtlest and therefore most dangerous form.
In America it would scarcely seem to exist at all, so ingrained is it in our social conditions, so natural is it to the prevailing modes of thought, so congenital is it with the dominant religious notions about us-and thus providing so congenial a habitat to the Protestant sects. Indeed it is the very constituent of the pseudo-religious and pseudo-moral atmosphere we daily breathe. We can hope to escape its taint only by copious and frequent draughts of orthodox doctrine, by the strictest intellectual vigilance, fortified by supernatural grace. Its aspect in this country is peculiar and fraught with especial danger to those negligent either in faith or morals. Its chief manifestation in the United States is in the form of what is popularly called NON-SECTARIANISM. It is a current fallacy, laid down as a fundamental truth that one religion is as good as another, that everyone has the right to believe what be pleases, that differences in creed are after all but differences in forms of expression, that everyone may select his own creed or sect according to his taste-or even altogether repudiate religious beliefs-and finally, that religion is a thing entirely apart from civic and social life. All this of course is SECULARISM in its various degrees-the denial of the supernatural.
In practice, this principle ingratiates itself into social and civic life, directly or indirectly working out to the prejudice of religion and morality: Civil marriage and divorce, mixed marriages and the consequent degeneration of family life, business standards and morality in general pitched on a low key, a vicious literature, a materialistic journalism catering to lax thinking and lax living, religion publicly mocked, scoffed, denied or held indifferently; all these things are coldly regarded as a matter of course, a necessary expedience, things to be condoned and applauded, all on the ground that they are the fruit of liberty. But the most virulent effect crops out in the prevailing educational theory. Here Liberalism manifests itself in its most direful and fullest effects, for it denies to religion the very sphere where it has the strongest right and the fullest reason to use its widest and most lasting influence, viz., upon the minds of children.
Secularism, with the instinct of a foe, has here most positively and triumphantly asserted its claim and, under the disguise of strict impartiality and even patriotism, has banished religion from the schoolroom.
That Catholics should not feel the effects of this relaxing atmosphere is scarcely to be expected.
With the air so strongly impregnated with poison, it would be difficult indeed to keep the blood healthy. In not a few instances, they have fallen victims to the plague, and if not always out-and-out corrupted, they become not a little tainted.
Hence we find amongst, if not a large, at least no small number, an easy disposition to compromise or minimize their faith in points of doctrine or practice. THE NATURAL TENDENCY IN HUMAN NATURE TO ESCAPE FRICTION AND AVOID ANTAGONISM IS UNHAPPILY IN MOST INSTANCES A READY FACTOR IN THE DIRECTION OF CONCESSION.
To apologize, excuse, extenuate, soften, explain away this or that point of faith, practice or discipline easily follows from a habit of thought contracted from perpetual contact with Liberalists, with whom everything takes precedence over faith and supernaturalism. This is especially true where Liberalism eschews aggressive action and with a cunning, either satanic or worldly wise, bases its treacherous tolerance upon a supposed generosity of mind or breadth of view. When the supernatural is vaguely identified with the superstitious, faith with credulity, firmness with fanaticism, the uncompromising with the intolerant, consistency with narrowness (for such is the current attitude of secularism around us), in these adjuncts it requires courage, fortitude and the consolation of the assured possession of truth to resist the insidious pressure of a false public opinion. Unless supernaturally fortified and enlightened, human nature under this moral oppression soon gives way to "human respect."
Such are our Liberal surroundings in this country. We cannot escape them. But we are in duty bound to resist their fatal contagion with all the powers of our soul. If we hope to preserve our faith intact, to keep it pure and bright in our souls, to save ourselves from the malign influence
of a deadly heresy which is daily leading thousands to perdition, we must be guarded and vigilant in its presence. Amidst a host of swarming foes, our armor should be without flaw from greave to helmet, our weapons well-tempered, keen, and burnished, not only to ward off the hostile blow, but ready to deal home a telling stroke wherever the enemy's weakness exposes him.
It is because we live in the midst of such perplexities, where the ways are devious and where snares are laid for our every footstep, in order to entrap us unawares, that we require to be on our guard in a twofold way: first, by means of a life lived in the state of grace, second, by means of an enlightened reason, which may shine out over our path as a guide to ourselves and a beacon to others.
In a special manner is this a need in our country, where Liberalism pretends to be the champion and guardian of natural reason, laying its snares to entrap the unwary and the ignorant. Not in violence but in a treacherous friendliness on the part of Liberalism does the danger lie. A well-instructed Catholic-who thoroughly comprehends the rational grounds of his faith and understands the character of Liberal tactics under our national conditions-can alone successfully cope with the enemy face-to-face. Ultramontanism is the only conquering legion in this sort of warfare. It is for the vanguard of the army to surprise the enemy at his own ambuscade, to mine against his mine and to expose him before he has burrowed under our own camp. Ultramontanism is Catholicity intact and armed cap-a-pie [from head to foot]. It is Catholicity consistent in all its parts, the logical concatenation of Catholic principles to their fullest
conclusions in doctrine and practice. Hence the fierce and unholy opposition with which it is constantly assailed. The foe well knows that to rout the vanguard is to demoralize the entire army; hence their rage and fury against the invincible phalanx which always stands fully armed, sleeplessly vigilant and eternally uncompromising.
In this country, above all others, do Catholics need to be Watchful, constant and unshaken in their falth, for the disease of Liberalism is virulently endemic. Its assault is perpetual, its weapons invisible, save to the enlightened eye of a resolute and undaunted faith. In Europe, at least on the Continent, Liberalism is violent, aggressive, openly breathing its hatred and opposition. There the war is open; here it is concealed. There the battlefield is the public arena in civic and political life; here the contest is within the social, business and even domestic circle. There it is declared foe against declared foe; here it is friend against friend, even brother against brother, and all the more dangerous in results because friendly, social or domestic relations endure without injury amidst the struggle and are dangerous to the Catholic because these various ties are so many embarrassments to his free action, so many bonds of affection or interest to enchain him. Therefore must be be all vigilant; therefore should his courage be great, his attitude firm and his stand bold, for whereas his circumstances make him friendly to his foe, he must wage a deadly battle for his faith. His task is doubly difficult; be must conquer an enemy who appears his dearest friend.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Liberalism and Authority in Particular Cases |
| 01.20.04 (3:01 pm) [edit] |
How is one to tell on his own authority who or what is Liberal, without having recourse to a definitive decision of the teaching Church? When a good Catholic accuses anyone of Liberalism or attacks and unmasks Liberal sophisms, the accused immediately seeks refuge in a challenge of the accuser's authority: "And pray, who are you to charge me and my journal with Liberalism? Who made you a master in Israel to declare who is or who is not a good Catholic? And is it from you that I must take out a patent on Catholici'ty?" Such is the last resort of the tainted Catholic on finding himself pushed to the wall. How then are we to answer this opposition? Upon this point, is the theology of Liberal Catholics sound? That we may accuse any person or writing of Liberalism, is it necessary to have recourse to a special judgment of the Church upon this particular person or this particular writing? By no means.
If this Liberal paradox were true, it would furnish Liberals with a very efficacious weapon with which, practically speaking, to annul all the Church's condemnations of Liberalism.
The Church alone possesses supreme doctrinal magistery in fact and in right,juris etfacti; her sovereign authority is personified in the Pope. To him alone belongs the right of pronouncing the final, decisive and solemn sentence. But this does not exclude other judgments less authoritative but very weighty, which cannot be despised and even ought to bind the Christian conscience. Of this kind are:
1. judgments of the Bishops in their respective dioceses.
2. judgments of pastors in their parishes.
3. judgments of directors of consciences.
4. judgments of theologians consulted by the lay faithful.
These judgments are of course not infallible, but they are entitled to great consideration and ought to be binding in proportion to the authority of those who give them, in the gradation we have mentioned. But it is not against judgments of this character that Liberals hurl the peremptory challenge we wish particularly to consider. There is another factor in this matter that is entitled to respect, and that is:
5. The judgment of simple human reason, duly enlightened.
Yes, human reason, to speak after the manner of theologians, has a theological place in matters of religion. Faith dominates reason, which ought to be subordinated to faith in everything. But it is altogether false to pretend that reason can do nothing, that it has no function at all in matters of faith; it is false to pretend that the inferior light, illumined by God in the human understanding, cannot shine at all because it does not shine as powerfully or as clearly as the superior light. Yes, the faithful are permitted and even commanded to give a reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad, and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it. They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church. Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm. Opportet allatrare canes "It behooves watchdogs to bark," very opportunely said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to such occasions.
Is not perchance the part played by human reason so understood by those zealous prelates who on a thousand occasions exhort the faithful to refrain from the reading of bad journals and works, without specially pointing them out? Thus do they show their conviction that reason, this natural criterion, illumined by faith, is sufficient to enable the faithful to apply well-known doctrines to such matters.
Does the Index of Forbidden Books itself give the title of every forbidden book? Do we not find under the rubric of "General Rules of the Index" certain principles according to which good Catholics should guide themselves in forming their judgment upon books not mentioned in the Index, but which each reader is expected to apply at his own discretion? Of what use would be the rule of faith and morals if in every particular case the faithful could not of themselves make the immediate application, or if they were constantly obliged to consult the Pope or the diocesan pastor? just as the general rule of morality is the law in accordance with which each one squares his own conscience (dictamen practi .cum-"practical judgment") in making particular applications of this general rule (subject to correction if erroneous), so the general rule of faith, which is the infallible authority of the Church, is and ought to be in consonance with every particular judgment formed in making concrete applications-subject, of course, to correction and retraction in the event of mistake in so applying it. It would be rendering the superior rule of faith useless, absurd and impossible to require the supreme authority of the Church to make its special and immediate application in every case and upon every occasion which calls it forth.
This would be a species of brutal and satanic Jansenism, like that of the followers of the unhappy Bishop of Ypres, who exacted, for the reception of the Sacraments, such dispositions as would make it impossible for men to profit by that which was plainly intended and instituted for them by Jesus Christ Himself.
The legal rigorism invoked by the Liberalists in matters pertaining to faith is as absurd as the ascetic rigorism once preached at Port Royal [the seat of the jansenist heresy]; it would result even more disastrously. If you doubt this, look around you. The greatest rigorists on this point are the most hardened sectaries of the Liberal school. But how explain this apparent contradiction? It is easily explained, if we only reflect that nothing could be more convenient for Liberalism than to put this legal muzzle upon the lips and the pens of their most determined adversaries. It would be in truth a great triumph for them, under the pretext that no one except the Pope and the bishops could speak with the least authority, and thus to impose silence upon the lay champions of the Faith, such as were DeMaistre, Cortes, Veuillot, Ward, Lucas and McMaster, who once bore, and others who now bear, the banner of the Faith so boldly and unflinchingly against its most insidious foes.
Liberalism would like to see such crusaders disarmed and would prefer above all to succeed in getting the Church herself to do the disarming.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| An Illusion of Liberal Catholics |
| 01.20.04 (2:59 pm) [edit] |
Amongst the illusions entertained by a certain class of Catholics, there is none more pitiable than the notion that the truth requires a great number of defenders and friends. To these people, numbers seem a synonym for force. They imagine that to multiply heterogenous quantities is to multiply power.
Now true force-real power, in the physical as in the moral order-consists in intensity, rather than in extension. A greater volume of matter equally intense evidently produces a greater effect, not by reason of the increased volume, but by virtue of the augmented intensities contained in it. It is therefore a rule of sound mechanics to seek to increase the extension and number of forces, but always on the condition that the final result be a real augmentation of their intensities. To be content with an increase without consideration of the value of the increment is not only to accumulate fictitious force, but to expose to paralysis the powers which one does possess by the congestion of an unwieldy mass. The millions of Xerxes' army constituted a force of tremendous extension, but they were of no avail against the vigorous intensity of the Greek three hundred at Thermopylae.
Faith possesses a power of its own, which it communicates to its friends and defenders. It is not they who give the truth power, but truth which charges them with its own vigor. This on the condition that they use that power in its defense.
If the defender, under the pretext of better defending the truth, begins to mutilate it, to minimize it, to attenuate it, then he is no longer defending the truth. He is simply defending his own invention, a mere human creation, more or less beautiful in appearance, but having no relation to truth, which is the daughter of Heaven.
Such is the delusion of which many of our brethren are the unconscious victims, through a detestable contact with Liberalism.
They imagine, with blinded good faith, that they are defending and propagating Catholicity. But by dint of accommodating it to their own narrow views and feeble courage, in order to make it, they say, more acceptable to the enemy whom they wish to overcome, they do not perceive that they are no longer defending Catholicity, but a thing of their own manufacture, which they naively call Catholicity, but which they ought to call by another name. Poor victims of self-deception, who at the beginning of the battle, in order to win over the enemy, wet their own powder and blunt the edge and the point of their swords! They do not stop to reflect that an edgeless and pointless sword is no longer a weapon, but a useless piece of old iron, and that wet powder cannot be fired.
Their journals, their books, their discoursesveneered with Catholicity but bereft of its spirit and its life-have no more value in the cause of the Faith than the toy swords and pistols of the nursery.
To an army of this kind, be it ten times as numerous as the multitudinous hosts of Xerxes, a single platoon of well-armed soldiers-knowing what they are defending, against whom they are contending, and with what arms they fight in order to defend the truth-is preferable a thousand times over. This is the kind of soldiers we need. This is the kind who have always and will yet do something more for the glory of His Name. They go into the deadly, imminent breach and never flinch.
No compromising, no minimizing with them.
They plant their banner on the topmost height and form a solid, invincible phalanx around it that not all the legions of Earth and Hell combined can budge a single inch. They make no alliance, no compromise with a foe whose single aim, disguised or open, is the destruction of the truth. They know that the enemy is by nature implacable and that his flag of truce is but a cunning device of treachery.
Of this we will become more and more convinced, if we consider that an alliance of this kind with a false auxiliary group is not only useless to the good Christian in the midst of the combat, but moreover, it is most of the time an actual embarrassment to him and favorable to the enemy. Catholic associations hampered in their onward march by such an alliance will find themselves so impeded that free action becomes impossible. They will end by having all their energies crushed under a deadly inertia. To bring an enemy into the camp is to betray the citadel. It was not until the Trojans admitted the fatal wooden horse within the city walls that Illium [Troy] fell. This combination of the bad with the good cannot but end in evil results. It brings disorder, confusion, suspicion and uncertainty to distract and divide Catholics, and all this to the benefit of the enemy and to our own disaster.
Against such a course la Civilta Cattolica, in some remarkable articles, has emphatically declared. Without the proper precaution, it says, "associations of this kind (Catholic) run the certain danger, not only of becoming a camp of scandalous discord, but also of wandering away from their true principles, to their own ruin and to the great injury of religion '" And this same review, whose authority is of the greatest possible weight, in regard to the same subject, says, "With a prudent understanding, Catholic associations ought chiefly to take care to exclude from amongst themselves not only those who openly profess the principles of Liberalism, but also those who have deceived themselves into believing that a conciliation between Liberalism and Catholicism is possible, and who are known as Liberal Catholics."
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Liberalism and Journalism |
| 01.20.04 (2:57 pm) [edit] |
The press has grown so omnipresent nowadays that there is no escape from it. It is therefore important to know exactly how to steer our course amidst the many perils that beset Catholics on this score. How then are we to distinguish between journals that merit or do not merit our confidence? Or rather, what kind of journals ought to inspire us with very little and what with no confidence? In the first place, it is clear that such journals as boast of their Liberalism have no claim to our confidence in matters that Liberalism touches on. These are precisely the enemies against whom we have constantly to be on guard, against whom we have to wage perpetual war.
This point then is outside of our present consideration. All those who in our times claim the title of Liberalism, in the specific sense in which we always use the term, become our declared enemies and the enemies of the Church of God.
But there is another class of journals less prompt to unmask and proclaim themselves, who love to live amidst ambiguities in an undefined and indefinite region of compromise. They declare themselves Catholic and aver their detestation and abhorrence of Liberalism, at least if we credit their words. These journals are generally known as Liberal Catholic. This is the class which we should especially mistrust, and we should not permit ourselves to be duped by its pretended piety. When we find journals, Catholic in name and in profession, strongly leaning to the side of compromise and seeking to placate the enemy by concessions, we may rest assured that they are being drawn down the Liberal current, which is always too strong for such weak swimmers. He who places himself in the vortex of a maelstrom is sure in the end to be engulfed in it. The logic of the situation brings the inevitable conclusion.
The Liberal current is easier to follow. It is largely made up of proselytes and readily attracts the self-love of the weak. The Catholic current is apparently more difficult; it has fewer partisans and friends and requires us constantly to row against the stream, to stem the tide of perverse ideas and corrupt passions. With the uncertain, the vacillating and the unwary, the Liberal current easily prevails and sweeps them away in its fatal embrace. There is no room, therefore, for confidence in the Liberal Catholic press, especially in cases where it is difficult to form a judgment.
Moreover, in such cases, its policy of compromise and conciliation hampers it from forming any decisive or absolute judgment, for the simple reason that its judgment has nothing decisive or radical in it; on the contrary, it is always overweighted with a preponderating inclination towards the expedient. Opportunism is its guiding star. The truly Catholic press is altogether Catholic, that is to say, it defends Catholic doctrine in all its principles and applications; it opposes all false teaching (known as such) always and entirely, opposite per diametrum ["diametrically opposed"], as St. Ignatius says in that golden book of his exercises. Arrayed with unceasing vigilance against error, it places itself on the frontier, always face-toface with the enemy. It never bivouacs with the hostile forces, as the compromising press loves to do.
Its opposition is definite and determined; it is not simply opposed to certain undeniable maneuvers of the foe, letting others escape its vigilance, but watches, guards, and resists at every point. It everywhere presents an unbroken front to evil, for evil is evil in everything, even in the good which, by chance, may accompany it.
Let us here make an observation to explain this last phrase, which may appear startling to some, and at the same time explain a difficulty entertained by not a few.
Bad journals (we include doctrinally unsound journals under this head) sometimes contain something good. What are we to think of the good thus imbedded with the bad in them? We must think that the good in them does not prevent them from being bad, if their doctrine or their character is intrinsically bad. In most cases this good is a mere artifice to recommend, or at least disguise, what in itself is essentially bad. Some accidentally good qualities do not take away the bad character of a bad man. An assassin and a thief are not good because they sometimes say a prayer or give alms to a beggar. They -are bad in spite of their good works, because the general character of their acts, as well as their habitual tendencies, is bad and if they sometimes do good in order to cloak their malice, they are even worse than before.
On the other hand, it sometimes happens that a good journal falls into such or such an error or into an excess of passion in a good cause and so says something which we cannot altogether approve. Must we for this reason call it bad? Not at all, and for a reverse although analogous reason. With it the evil is only accidental; the good constitutes its substance and is its ordinary condition. One of several sins do not make a man bad-above all, if he repent of them and make amends. That alone is bad which is bad with full knowledge, habitually and persistently. Catholic journalists are not angels; far from it; they too are fragile men and sinners. To wish to condemn them for such or such a failing, for this or that excess, is to entertain a pharisaical or jansenistic opinion of virtue, which is not in accord with sound morality!
To conclude, there are good and bad journals; among the latter are to be ranked those whose doctrine is ambiguous or ill-defined. Those that are bad are not to be accounted good because they happen to slip in something good, and those that are good are not to be accounted bad on account of some accidental failings.
Good Catholics, who judge and act loyally according to these principles, will rarely be deceived.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| How to Distiguish Catholic From Liberal Works? |
| 01.20.04 (2:57 pm) [edit] |
Qui male agit odit lucem--"Everyone that doth evil hateth the light" (John 3:20)--said our Divine Lord. Iniquity works in obscurity. It is not difficult to discover an enemy who comes to meet us in the broad daylight, or not to recognize as Liberals those who frankly declare themselves to be such.
But this sort of frankness is not ordinary to the Liberal sect. On the contrary, it is usually very clever and cautious in concealing its real meaning in various disguises. We may add that often the eye that ought to discover the imposture is not the clearsighted eye of a lynx. There should therefore be some easy and popular criterion to distinguish, at every instant, the Catholic cry from the infernal birdcall of Liberalism.
It often happens that some project or enterprise is put on foot, some sort of a work is undertaken, whose bearings Catholics cannot promptly or easily apprehend. It may appear indifferent or even innocent enough, and yet it may have its roots in error and be a mere artifice of the enemy-flying our colors to allure us into an ambuscade. It may speak the language of charity, appealing to us from the tenderest side, and ask us to associate ourselves with it in the name of a common humanity. "Sink all differences of creed and let us fraternize on the broader plane of brotherly love" is often its most insidious appeal. Such instances are arising every day of our lives. "Consult the Church" some may say; "its word is infallible and will dissipate all uncertainty." Very true, but the authority of the Church cannot be consulted at every moment and in every particular case. The Church has wisely laid down certain general principles for our guidance, but it has left to the judgment and prudence of each of us the special application of these principles to the thousand and one concrete cases which we have to face every day. Now a case of this kind presents itself to be determined according to our own judgment and discretion. We are asked to give a contribution to such and such an undertaking, to Join such and such a society, to take part in such and such an enterprise, to subscribe to such and such a j'ournal, and all this may be for God or the devil; or what is worse, it may be evil cloaked in the garb of holy things. How shall we guide ourselves in such a labyrinth?
Here are two very practical rules of ready service to a Catholic who is walking on slippery ground:
1. Observe carefully what class of people are the projectors of the affair. Such is the first rule of prudence and common sense. It is based on that maxim of Our Lord: "A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit." Liberalism is naturally bound to produce writings, works and deeds impregnated with the spirit of Liberalism, or at least tainted with it. Therefore, we must carefully scrutinize the antecedents of the person or persons who organize or inaugurate the work in question. If they are such that you cannot have entire confidence in their doctrines, be on your guard against their enterprises. Do not disapprove immediately, for it is an axiom of theology that not all the works of infidels are sinful, and this axiom can be applied to the works of Liberals. But be careful not to take them immediately for good; mistrust them, submit them to examination, await their results.
2. Observe the kind of people who praise the work in question. This is an even surer rule than the preceding. There are in the world two perfectly distinct currents: the Catholic current and the Liberal current. The first is reflected for the most part by the Catholic press; the second is reflected by the Liberal press. Is a new book announced? Are the beginnings of a new project published? See if the Liberal current approves, recommends and accounts them its own. If yes, the book and the project are judged: they belong to Liberalism.
It is evident that Liberalism has inspired them, distinguishing immediately what is injurious or useful to it, for Liberalism is never such a fool as not to understand what is opposed to it or to be opposed to that which is favorable to it. The sects, religious or infidel, have an instinct, a particular intuition (olfactus mentis), as philosophers say, which reveals to them a priori what is good or what is bad for them. Repudiate, then, whatever Liberals praise or vaunt. It is evident that they have recognized-by its nature or by its origin, or as a means or as an end-something in the object so praised that is favorable to Liberalism. The clairvoyant instinct of the sect cannot deceive them. Certain scruples of charity and the habit of thinking well of our neighbor sometimes blind good people to such an extent as to lead them to attribute good intentions where unhappily they do not exist. This is not the case with falsifiers.
They always send their shot right to the center; they never credit good intentions where there are none, or even where there are. They always beat the bass-drum in favor of all that advances in any way their own nefarious propaganda. Discredit, therefore, what you see your known enemies proclaiming with hallelujahs.
It seems to us that these two rules of common sense, which we can call rules of good Christian sense, suffice-if not to enable us to judge definitively every question-at least to keep us from perpetually stumbling over the roughnesses of the uneven soil which we daily tread and where the combat is always taking place. The Catholic of the age should always bear in mind that the ground on which he walks is undermined in every direction by secret societies, that it is these who give the keynote to anti-Catholic polemics, that unconsciously and very often these secret societies are served even by those who detest their infernal work. The actual strife is principally underground and against an invisible enemy, who rarely presents himself under his real device. He is to be scented, rather than seen; to be divined by instinct, rather than pointed out with the finger.
A good scent and practical sense are more necessary here than subtle reasoning or labored
theories.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| How to Avoid Liberalism |
| 01.20.04 (2:56 pm) [edit] |
How may Catholics, who are perpetually surrounded by the snares of Liberalism, guard themselves securely against its dangers?
1. By the organization of all good Catholics, be their number great or small: They should become known to each other, meet each other, unite together in every locality-every city, town or village, should have a nucleus of Catholic men of action. Such an organization will attract the undecided, give courage to the hesitating and counteract the influence of hostile or indifferent surroundings. If you number only a dozen men of spirit, no matter. Found societies, especially of young men. Put yourselves in correspondence with older societies in your neighborhood, or even at a distance. Link your associations togetherassociation with association-as the Roman legions used to form the military tortoise, by uniting shield with shield over their heads. Thus united, be your number ever so small, lift on high the banner of a sound, pure and uncompromising doctrine, without disguise, without attenuation, yielding not an inch to the enemy. Uncompromising courage is always noble, commands sympathy, and wins over the chivalric. To see a man battered by the floods, yet standing firm as a rock, upright and immovable, is an inspiring sight! Above all, give good example, give good example always.
What you preach, do! You will soon see how easily you force people to respect you; when you have gained their admiration, their sympathy will soon follow. Proselytes will be forthcoming. If Catholics only understood what a brilliant secular apostolate they could exercise by being open, straightforward, uncompromising practical Catholics, in word and deed, Liberalism and heresy would die a quick death.
2. Good journals: Choose from among good journals that which is best, the one best adapted to the needs and the intelligence of the people who surround you. Read it; but not content with that, give it to others to read; explain it; comment on it, let it be your basis of operations. Busy yourself in securing subscriptions for it. Encourage the reluctant to take it; make it easy for those to whom it seems troublesome to send in their subscriptions. Place it in the hands of young people who are beginning their careers. Impress on them the necessity of reading it; show them its merits and its value. They will begin by tasting the sauce and will at last eat the fish. This is the way the advocates of Liberalism and impiety work for their journals; so then ought we to work for ours. A good Catholic journal is a peremptory or imperative necessity in our day. Whatever be its defects or inconveniences, its advantages and its benefits will outweigh them a thousandfold. The Holy Father has said that "a Catholic paper is a perpetual mission in every parish." It is ever an antidote to the false journalism that meets you on every side. In general, do all in your power to further the circulation of Catholic literature, be it in the shape of book, brochure, lecture, sermon or pastoral letter. The weapon of the crusader of our times is the printed word.
3. The Catholic school: With all your power support the Catholic school, in deed and in word, with your whole heart and your whole soul. The Catholic school has become in this age the only secure bridge of the Faith from generation to generation. In our own country, we have been compelled to establish our own schools, unaided and alone. The prejudice and intolerance of Liberalism has refused us common justice. While we protest against the wrong and never cease demanding our right, our clear and peremptory duty is to provide the best possible schools of our own, where our children may be educated in the full and only true sense of the word. Where Catholic schools are needed, build them, build them, build them! Never tire in this absolutely necessary work. Bend every energy to it. Archbishop Hughes said, "Not until I have built my school shall one stone of my Cathedral be laid upon another' " This great prelate fully realized what every Catholic today should take as his motto, "The foundation of the parish church is the schoolhouse'" Be the support of the school a burden, be it built and perpetuated at a great sacrifice, its value is beyond estimation, the burden and the sacrifice are featherweights in comparison to the good that arises from the Catholic school. The spiritual life of a parish without a school is tepid, neither hot nor cold. Let the school be the best possible. Too much time or too much care cannot be given to it, for Catholic education amidst the deluge of Liberalism-which has overwhelmed the world-is the ark of salvation. Speak out fearlessly on this matter of education. Say squarely and frankly that irreligious education leads to the devil. An irreligious school is the school of Satan. Danton, a celebrated French revolutionist, continually cried, "Boldness! More boldness!" But we, for our part, must let our constant cry be, "Frankness! Frankness! Light! Light!" Nothing will more quickly put to flight the legions of Hell, who seduce only under the shelter of darkness.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| How Catholics Fall In For Liberalism |
| 01.20.04 (2:55 pm) [edit] |
Various are the ways in which a faithful Christian is drawn into the error of Liberalism.
Very often corruption of heart is a consequence of errors of the intellect, but more frequently still, errors of the intellect follow the corruption of the heart. The history of heresies very clearly shows this fact. Their beginnings nearly always present the same character, either wounded self-love or a grievance to be avenged; either it is a woman that makes the heresiarch lose his head and his soul, or it is a bag of gold for which he sells his conscience.
Error nearly always has its origin, not in profound and laborious studies, but in the triple-headed monster which St. John describes and calls Concupiscentia carnis, concupiscentia oculorum, superbia vitae 'Concupiscence of the flesh, concupiscence of the eyes, the pride of life." Here are the sources of all error, here are the roads to Liberalism. Let us dwell on them for a moment. 1. Men become Liberal on account of a natural desire for independence and for an easy life. Liberalism is necessarily sympathetic with the depraved nature of man, just as Catholicity is essentially opposed to it. Liberalism is emancipation from restraint; Catholicity the curb of the passions. Now, fallen man, by a very natural tendency, loves a system which legitimatizes and sanctifies his pride of intellect and the license of passion. Hence, Tertullian says, "The soul, in its noble aspirations, is naturally Christian." Likewise may it be said that man, by the taint of his origin, is born naturally Liberal. Logically then does he declare himself a Liberal in due form when he discovers that Liberalism offers a protection for his caprices and an excuse for his indulgences.
2. Men become Liberal by the desire for advancement in life. Liberalism is today the dominating idea; it reigns everywhere and especially in the sphere of public life. It is therefore a sure recommendation to public favor.
On starting out in life, the young man looks around upon the various paths that lead to fortune, to fame, to glory, and sees that an almost indispensable condition of reaching the desired goal is, at least in our times, to become Liberal.
Not to be Liberal is to place in his way, at the outset, what appears to be an insurmountable obstacle. He must be heroic to resist the Tempter, who shows him, as he did Jesus Christ in the desert, a splendid future, saying: Haec omnia tibi dabo si cadens adoraveris me: "All this will I give thee, if, falling down, thou wilt adore me." Heroes are rare, and it is natural that most young men beginning their career should affiliate with Liberalism. It promises them the assistance of a powerful press, the recommendation of powerful protectors, the potent influence of secret societies, the patronage of distinguished men. The poor Ultramontane requires a thousand times more merit to make himself known and to acquire a name, and youth is ordinarily little scrupulous.
Liberalism, moreover, is essentially favorable to that public life which this age so ardently pursues.
It holds out as tempting baits public offices, commissions, fat positions, etc., which constitute the organism of the official machine. It seems an absolute condition for political preferment. To meet an ambitious young man who despises and detests the perfidious Corrupter is a marvel of God's grace.
3. Men become Liberal out of avarice, or the love of money. To get along in the world, to succeed in business, is always a standing temptation of Liberalism. It meets the young man at every turn. Around him in a thousand ways does he feel the secret or open hostility of the enemies of his faith. In mercantile life or in the professions he is passed by, overlooked, ignored. Let him relax a little in his faith, Join a forbidden secret society, and lo, the bolts and bars are drawn; he possesses the "open sesame" to success! Then the invidious discrimination against him melts in the fraternal embrace of the enemy, who rewards his perfidy by advancing him in a thousand ways. Such a temptation is difficult for the ambitious to withstand. Be Liberal, admit that there is no great difference between men's creeds, that at the bottom they are really the same after all. Proclaim your breadth of mind by admitting that other religious beliefs are just as good for other people as your faith is for you; they are, as far as they know, just as right as you are; it is largely a question of education and temperament what a man believes; and how quickly you are patted on the back as a "broad-gauged" man who has escaped the narrow limitations of his creed. You will be extensively patronized, for Liberalism is very generous to a convert. "Falling down adore me, and I will give you all these things' " says Satan yet to Jesus Christ in the desert.
Such are the ordinary causes of perversions to Liberalism; from these all others flow. Whoever has any experience of the world and the human heart can easily trace the others.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| A Liberal Sophism and the Church's Diplomacy |
| 01.20.04 (2:53 pm) [edit] |
Liberals often urge as an objection to Ultramontane vigor the fact that the Church herself enters into amicable relations with Liberal governments and personages, or what comes to the same thing, with Liberalism itself.
If the Church can take such a position, surely Ultramontanes, who are looked upon as the vanguard of the Church, may find an example in this her policy worthy of imitation.
We reply. We are to consider these relations as official amities, and nothing more. They by no means suppose any particular affection for the persons who are their object, much less approbation of their actions, and infinitely less any adhesion to their doctrines or the approval of them.
In the first place, we must remember that there are two ministrations in the Church of God: one which we may call apostolic, relative to the propagation of the Faith and the salvation of souls; the other, which we may very properly term diplomatic, having for its subject human relations with the powers of the world.
The first is the most noble; properly speaking, it is the principal and essential ministration. The second is inferior and subordinate to the first, of which it is only the auxiliary. In the first, the Church is intolerant and uncompromising; in this she goes straight to her end and breaks rather than bends: frangi non flecti. Witness in this respect the persecutions she has suffered. When it is a question of divine rights and divine duties, neither attenuation nor compromise is possible.
In the second ministration, the Church is condescending, benevolent and full of patience. She discusses, she solicits, she negotiates, she praises, that she may soften the hard; she is silent sometimes, that she may better succeed; seems to retreat, that she may better advance and soon attain a better vantage. In this order of relations, her motto might be: flecti non frangi ["to bend not to break"]. When it is a question of mere human relations, she comports herself with a certain flexibility and admits the usage of special resources.
In this domain, everything that is not declared bad and prohibited by the law common to the ordinary relations of men is lawful and proper.
More explicitly, the Church deems that she may properly make use of all the resources of an honest diplomacy.
Who would dare reproach her for accrediting ambassadors to bad and even infidel governments, and on the other hand, in accepting ambassadors from them; for honoring their noble and distinguished families by her courtesies and enhancing their public festivities by the presence of her legates?
"But why," interrupt the Liberals, "should you manifest such detestation for Liberalism and so vehemently combat Liberal governments, when the Pope thus negotiates with them, recognizes them, and even confers distinctions on them?" We can best answer this foolish thrust by a comparison.
We will suppose you are the father of a family. You have five or six daughters, whom you have brought up in the most scrupulous and rigorous virtue. Opposite to your house, or perhaps next door, we will imagine, dwell some neighbors of blemished reputation. You command your daughters, without cessation, under no circumstances to have aught to do with these people. They obey you strictly. But suppose now that some matter should arise relative to both you and your neighbor's interest in common, such as the paving of a street, the laying of a water main, etc. This obliges you to consult and advise with your neighbors as to this common interest. In your intercourse with them, you treat them with the usual courtesies of society and seek to conclude the business on hand in an harmonious way. Would your daughters, therefore, be justified in declaring that, as you their father had entered into certain relations with these neighbors and extended to them the usual courtesies of society, so should they be allowed to associate with them; as long as you their father had thus entered into relation with them, so they had a right to conclude that they were people of good morals? The Church is the home of good people (or of those who ought to be and desire to be), but she is surrounded by governments more or less perverted, or even entirely perverted. She says to her children: "Detest the maxims of these governments; combat these maxims; their doctrine is error; their laws are iniquitous." At the same time, in questions when her own and sometimes their interests are involved, she finds herself under the necessity of treating with the heads or the representatives of these governments, and in fact she does treat with them, accepts their compliments, and employs in their regard the formula of the polished diplomacy in usage in all countries; she negotiates with them in relation to matters of common interest, seeking to make the best of the situation in the midst of such neighbors. In thus acting does she do anything wrong) By no means. Is it not ridiculous then for a Catholic, availing himself to this example, to hold it up as a sanction of doctrines which the Church has never ceased to condemn, and as the approbation of a line of conduct which she has ever combatted?
Does the Church sanction the Koran when she enters into negotiations, power to power, with the sectaries of the Koran? Does she approve of polygamy because she receives the presents and embassies of the Grand Turk? Well, it is in this way that the Church approves of Liberalism when she decorates its kings or its ministers, when she sends her benedictions, simple formulae of Christian courtesy, which the Pope extends even to Protestants. It is a sophism to pretend that the Church authorizes by such acts what she has always condemned by other acts. Her diplomatic can never frustrate her apostolic ministration, and it is in this latter that we must seek the seeming contradictions of her diplomatic career.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Civil Catholic Charity to Liberals |
| 01.20.04 (2:52 pm) [edit] |
Charity in controversy with Liberals would be like taking a serpent to ones bosom. It would be as if one embraced some loathsome contagious disease with the foolish notion that to court it would secure immunity from its fearful ravages.
Notwithstanding the plain common sense of the situation and the memorable warning of Our Lord that he who loves the fire shall perish in it, some foolish Catholics join with the Liberals in their cry for a magnanimous display of charity on our part when we wage war against them.
Lest our competence to judge in so important a matter be called into question, we will cite as authority on this subject the foremost religious journal of the world, the Civilta Cattolica, founded by Pius IX himself and confided by him to the conduct of the fathers of the Society of Jesus. The Civilta, never suffering an instant of repose to Italian Liberalism, has often been reproached for its want of charity towards the Liberals. Replying to these pharasaical homilies on the measure of charity due them, the Civilta published a delightfully humorous, and at the same time solidly philosophical article, some passages of which we here transcribe for the consolation of our Liberals-and those tainted Catholics who make common cause with them-in decrying Ultramontane methods:
"De Maistre said that the Church and the Pope have never asked anything but truth and justice for their cause. On the other hand, the Liberals, no doubt on account of the horror they naturally entertain for truth, and above all, for justice, are always demanding charity.
"For more than a dozen years have we, on our part, been witness to this curious spectacle given us by Italian Liberals. With tears in their eyes, they never cease imploring our charity. Their importunities have at last become insupportable; they have lost all sense of shame; supplicatingly, in the press, in verse, in their brochures, in their journals, in public and private letters-anonymous and pseudonymous-directly or indirectly, they beg us, for the love of God, to show them some charity. They beseech us not to give them over to the ridicule of their neighbors, not to expose to an inspection so detailed, so minute, their sublime writings, not to be so obstinate in subjecting their glorious exploits to such a strong search-light, to close our eyes and our ears to their blunders, their solecisms [inconsistencies], their lies, their calumnies, their obscurities, in a word, to let them live in peace.
By this edifying conversion to the love of mendicancy, the Liberals have imitated another not less celebrated and not less edifying conversion, that of a rich miser to the virtue of alms-giving.
The same miser happening to be present at a sermon which was intended to be a very ardent exhortation to the practice of alms-giving, was so impressed that he imagined himself to be a veritable convert. In truth he was so touched by the sermon that, on going out of the Church, he exclaimed: 'It would be impossible for any good Christian who has heard this discourse henceforth not to give from time to time something in charity.' And so it is with our Liberals. After having shown (according to the measure of their means) by their acts and their writings that they have a love for charity equal to the devil's for holy water, when they hear it spoken of, they suddenly remember that there exists in the world a thing called charity, which might on certain occasions prove very profitable to them. So they show themselves distractedly enamored with it and vociferously demand it from Pope, bishop, clergy, religious, journalists, and everybody, even from the editors of the Civilta. It is curious to follow all the excellent reasons they offer in their own favor! "To believe them, it is not in their own interest at all that they hold such language! Heavens, no! When they speak thus, it is entirely in the interest of our holy Religion, which they cherish in their heart's core and which suffers so much from our very uncharitable manner of defending it! They even speak in the interest of the reactionaries themselves, and especially (who would believe it!) in the interest of the editors of the Civilta Cattolica!
"'What obliges you to enter into these quarrels?" they confidentially say to us. 'Have you not enough enemies already? Be tolerant and your adversaries will be so with you. What do you gain by following this wretched occupation, like a dog spending his life barking at robbers? If in the end you are beaten, struck down, to whom do you owe it, if not to yourselves and that indomitable animosity of yours, which is ever seeking the lash?' "What sage and disinterested reasoning, whose only defect is that it singularly resembles that which the police officer urged upon Renzo Tramaglino, in the romance The Betrothed, when he essayed to conduct him to prison by persuasion, fearing that if he used force, the young man would offer resistance ... The only result of these exhortations was to confirm Renzo in his design to pursue a course just opposite to that which the officer advised.
"This design, to speak properly, we are strongly tempted also to form, for in truth, we cannot persuade ourselves that the injury, great or small, which we cause religion, matters much or little to the Liberals, nor that they would give themselves so much trouble for our sakes. We are persuaded, on the contrary, that if the Liberals really believed that our manner of acting were hurtful to religion or to ourselves, they would carefully refrain from adverting to it, but rather encourage us in it by their applause. We even conclude that the zeal which they show in our regard and their reiterated prayers to us to modify our style are the surest signs that religion suffers nothing from our methods, and moreover that our writings have some readers, which is always some slight consolation to the writer...
"But as many of them (the Liberals) continue to beg, and as they have recently published a little book at Perugia entitled What Does the Catholic Party Say?-which they devote entirely to a demand upon the Civilta Cattolica for charity-it will be useful, in beginning this fifteenth series of our Review, to confute once more the old objections with the old answers. It will be in fact a great charity, not such indeed as the Liberals beg of us, but one truly very meritorious, the charity of listening to them with patience for the hundredth time."
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| A Liberal Objection to Ultramontane Methods |
| 01.20.04 (2:51 pm) [edit] |
The Liberals tell us that our violent methods of warfare against them are not in conformity with the Pope's counsels to moderation and charity. Has he not exhorted Catholic writers to a love of peace and union, to avoid harsh, aggressive and personal polemics? How then can we Ultramontanes reconcile the Holy Father's wishes with our fierce methods? Let us consider the force of the Liberals' objection. To whom does the Holy Father address these repeated admonitions? Always to the Catholic press, to Catholic journalists, to those who are supposed to be worthy of the name. These counsels to moderation and charity, therefore, are always addressed to Catholics, discussing with other Catholics free questions, i.e., those not involving established principles of faith and morality, and they do not in any sense apply to Catholics waging a mortal combat with the declared enemies of the Faith.
There is no doubt that the Pope here makes no allusion to the incessant battles between Catholics and Liberals, for the simple reason that Catholicity is truth and Liberalism heresy, between which there can be no peace, but only war to the death. By consequence, therefore, it is certain that the Pope intends his counsels to apply to our "family quarrels" unhappily much too frequent, and that by no means does he seek to forbid us from waging an unrelenting strife with the eternal enemies of the Church, whose hands, filled with deadly weapons, are ever lifted against the Faith and its defenders.
Therefore, there can be no contradiction between the doctrine we expound and that of the briefs and allocutions of the Holy Father on the subject, provided that logically both apply to the same matter under the same respect, which holds perfectly in this instance. For how can we interpret the words of the Holy Father in any other way? It is a rule of sound exegesis that any passage in Holy Scripture should always be interpreted according to the letter, unless such meaning be in opposition to the context; we can only have recourse to a free or figurative interpretation when this opposition is obvious. This rule applies also to the interpretation of pontifical documents.
How could we suppose the Pope to be in contradiction with all Catholic tradition from Jesus
Christ to our own times? Is it for a moment admissible that the style and method of most of the celebrated Catholic polemists and apologists from St. Paul to St. Francis de Sales should be condemned by a stroke of the pen? Clearly not, for if we were to understand the Pope's counsels to moderation and calm in the sense in which the Liberal conclusion would construe them, we should evidently have to answer, "Yes." Consequently, we must conclude that the Holy Father's words are not addressed to Catholics battling with the enemies of Catholicity, but only to Catholics controverting on free questions amongst themselves.
Common sense itself shows this. Imagine a general in the midst of a raging battle, issuing an order to his soldiers not to injure the enemy too severely! Imagine a captain rushing up and down the ranks shouting to his soldiers, "Be careful! Don't hurt the enemy! Attention there! Don't aim at the heart!" What more need be said! Pius IX has given us an explanation of the proper meaning of his words. On a memorable occasion he calls the sectaries of the Commune demons; and worse than demons the sectaries of Liberalism. Who then need fear to thunderbolt such an enemy with epithets too harsh and severe? In vain do the Liberals cite the words of Leo XIII (1878-1903) in the encyclical Cum Multa [1882], exhorting Catholics to avoid violence in the discussion of the sacred rights of the Church, and to rely rather upon the weight of reason to gain victory; for the words have reference to polemics between Catholics discussing the best means to preserve their common cause, and by no means apply as a rule to govern polemics with the sectaries of Liberalism. The intrinsic evidence of the encyclical proves this beyond cavil. The Pope concludes by exhorting all associations and individual Catholics to a still closer and more intimate union, and after pointing out the inestimable advantages of such a union, he instances, as the means of preserving it, that moderation of language and charity of which we are speaking. The argument is plain: the Pope recommends moderation and charity to Catholic writers as a means of preserving peace and mutual union. Clearly, this peace and union is between Catholics and not between Catholics and their enemies. Therefore, the moderation and charity recommended by the Pope to Catholic writers applies only to Catholic polemics between Catholics on free questions. Would it not be absurd to imagine that there could be any union between truth and error, therefore between the advocates of truth on the one side and error on the other? Irreconcilable opposites never unite. One or the other must disappear.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Personally Fighting Liberalism |
| 01.20.04 (2:47 pm) [edit] |
"It is all well enough to make war on abstract doctrines" some may say, "but in combating error, be it ever so evident, is it so proper to make an attack upon the persons of those who uphold it?" We reply that very often it is, and not only proper, but at times even indispensable and meritorious before God and men.
The accusation of indulging in personalities is not spared to Catholic apologists, and when Liberals and those tainted with Liberalism have hurled it at our heads, they imagine that we are overwhelmed by the charge. But they deceive themselves. We are not so easily thrust into the background. We have reason-and substantial reason-on our side. In order to combat and dis-credit false ideas, we must inspire contempt and horror in the hearts of the multitude for those who seek to seduce and debauch them. A disease is inseparable from the persons of the diseased.
The cholera threatening a country comes in the persons of the infected. If we wish to exclude it, we must exclude them. Now ideas do not in any case go about in the abstract; they neither spread nor propagate of themselves. Left to themselves-if it be possible to imagine them apart from those who conceive them-they would never produce all the evil from which society suffers. It is only in the concrete that they are effective, when they are the personal product of those who conceive them. They are like the arrows and the balls which would hurt no one if they were not shot from the bow or the gun. It is the archer and the gunner to whom we should give our first attention; save for them, the fire would not be murderous. Any other method of warfare might be Liberal, if you please, but it would not be common sense.
The authors and propagators of heretical doctrines are soldiers with poisoned weapons in their bands. Their arms are the book, the journal, the lecture, their personal z'nfluence. Is it sufficient to dodge their blows? Not at all; the first thing necessary is to demolish the combatant himself. When he is hors de combat ["out of the fight"], he can do no more mischief.
It is therefore perfectly proper not only to discredit any book, journal or discourse of the enemy, but it is also proper, in certain cases, even to discredit his person; for in warfare, beyond question, the principal element is the person engaged, as the gunner is the principal factor in an artillery fight and not the cannon, the powder, and the bomb. It is thus lawful, in certain cases, to expose the infamy of a Liberal opponent, to bring his habits into contempt and to drag his name in the mire. Yes, this is permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in a serious vein or in badinage, by every means and method within reach. The only restriction is not to employ a lie in the service of justice. This never. Under no pretext may we sully the truth, even to the dotting of an "i'" As a French writer says: "Truth is the only charity allowed in history," and, we may add, in the defense of religion and society.
The Fathers of the Church support this thesis. The very titles of their works clearly show that, in their contests with heresy, their first blows were at the heresiarchs. The works of St. Augustine almost always bear the name of the author of the heresy against which they are written: Contra Fortunatum Manichoeum, Adversus Adamanctum, Contra Felicem, Contra Secundinum, Quis fuerit Petiamus, De gestis Pelagii, Quis fuerit julianus, etc. Thus, the greater part of the polemics of this great Father and Doctor of the Church was per-sonal, aggressive, biographical, as well as doctrinal-a hand-to-hand struggle with heretics, as well as with heresy. What we here say of St. Augustine we can say of the other Fathers.
Whence do the Liberals derive their power to impose upon us the new obligation of fighting error only in the abstract and of lavishing smiles and flattery upon them? We, the Ultramontanes, will fight our battles according to Christian tradition and defend the Faith as it has always been defended in the Church of God. When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious means of waging war.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| More on Charity and Liberalism |
| 01.20.04 (2:44 pm) [edit] |
Liberalism never gives battle on solid ground; it knows too well that in a discussion of principles it must meet with irretrievable defeat. It prefers tactics of recrimination and, under the sting of a just flagellation, whiningly accuses Catholics of lack of charity in their polemics. This is also the ground which certain Catholics, tainted with Liberalism, are in the habit of taking. Let us see what is to be said on this score.
We Catholics, on this point as on all others, have reason on our side; whereas, Liberals have only its shadow. In the first place, a Catholic can handle his Liberal adversary openly, if such he be in truth [i.e., openly Liberal]; no one can doubt this. If an author or a journalist make open profession of Liberalism and does not conceal his Liberal predilections, what injury can be done him in calling him a Liberal? Si palam res est, repetitio injuria non est: "To say what everybody knows is no injury." With much stronger reason, to say of our neighbor what he every instant says of himself cannot justly offend. And yet, how many Liberals, especially those of the easy-going and moderate type, regard the expressions "Liberal" and "friend of Liberals" which Catholic adversaries apply to them, as offensive and uncharitable!
Granting that Liberalism is a bad thing, to call the public defenders and professors of Liberalism bad is no want of charity.
The law of justice, potent in all ages, can be applied in this case. The Catholics of today are no innovators in this respect. We are simply hold-ing to the constant practice of antiquity. The propagators and abettors of heresy, as well as its authors, have at all times been called heretics. As the Church has always considered heresy a very grave evil, so has she always called its adherents bad and pervert. Run over the list of ecclesiastical writers-you will then see how the Apostles treated the first heretics, how the Fathers and modern controversialists and the Church herself in her official language has pursued them. There is then no sin against charity in calling evil evil; its authors abettors and its disciples bad; all its acts, words, and writings iniquitous, wicked, malicious. In short, the wolf has always been called the wolf; and in so calling it, no one ever has believed that wrong was done to the flock and the shepherd.
If the propagation of good and the necessity of combating evil require the employment of terms somewhat harsh against error and its supporters, this usage is certainly not against charity. This is a corollary or consequence of the principle we have just demonstrated. We must render evil odious and detestable. We cannot attain this result without pointing out the dangers of evil, without showing how and why it is odious, detestable and contemptible. Christian oratory of all ages has ever employed against impiety the most vigorous and emphatic rhetoric in the arsenal of human speech. In the writings of the great athletes of Christianity, the usage of irony, imprecation, execration and of the most crushing epithets is continual. Hence the only law is the opportunity and the truth.
But there is another justification for such usage. Popular propagation and apologetics cannot pre-serve elegant and constrained academic forms. In order to convince the people, we must speak to their heart and their imagination, which can only be touched by ardent, brilliant, and impassioned language. To be impassioned is not to be reprehensible-when our heat is the holy ardor of truth.
The supposed violence of modern Ultramon-tane journalism not only falls short of Liberal journalism, but is amply justified by every page of the works of our great Catholic polemists of other epochs. This is easily verified. St. John the Baptist calls the pharisees a "race of vipers"; Jesus Christ, Our Divine Saviour, hurls at them the epithets "hypocrites, whitened sepulchres, a per-verse and adulterous generation," without thinking for this reason that He sullies the sanctity of His benevolent speech. St. Paul criticizes the schismatic Cretians as "always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies." The same Apostle calls Elymas the magician a "Seducer, full of guile and deceit, a child of the devil, an enemy of all justice."
If we open the Fathers, we find the same vigor-ous castigation of heresy and heretics. St. Jerome, arguing against Vigilantius, casts in his face his former occupation of saloon-keeper: "From your infancy," he says to him, "you have learned other things than theology and betaken yourself to other pursuits. To verify at the same time the value of your money accounts and the value of Scriptural texts, to sample wines and grasp the meaning of the prophets and apostles are certainly not occupations which the same man can accomplish with credit." On another occasion, attacking the same Vigilantius, who denied the excellence of virginity and of fasting, St. Jerome, with his usual sprightliness, asks him if he spoke thus "in order not to diminish the receipts of his saloon?" Heavens! what an outcry would be raised if one of our Ultramontane controversialists were to write against a Liberal critic or heretic of our own day in this fashion!
What shall we say of St. John Chrysostom? Is his famous invective against Eutropius not comparable, in its personal and aggressive character, to the cruel invectives of Cicero against Catiline and against Verres! The gentle St. Bernard did not honey his words when he attacked the enemies of the Faith. Addressing Arnold of Brescia, the great Liberal agitator of his times, he calls him in all his letters, "seducer, vase of injuries, scorpion, cruel wolf".
The pacific St. Thomas of Acquin [Aquinas] forgets the calm of his cold syllogisms when he hurls his violent apostrophe against William of St. Amour and his disciples: "Enemies of God" he cries out, "ministers of the devil, members of antichrist, ignorami, perverts, reprobates!" Never did the illustrious Louis Veuillot speak so boldly. The seraphic St. Bonaventure, so full of sweetness, overwhelms his adversary Gerard with such epithets as "impudent, calumniator, spirit of malice, impious, shameless, ignorant, impostor, malefactor, perfidious, ingrate!" Did St. Francis de Sales, so delicately exquisite and tender, ever purr softly over the heretics of his age and country? He pardoned their injuries, heaped benefits on them even to the point of saving the lives of those who sought to take his, but with the enemies of the Faith he preserved neither moderation nor con-sideration. Asked by a Catholic, who desired to know if it were permissible to speak evil of a heretic who propagated false doctrines, he replied:
"Yes, you can, on the condition that you adhere to the exact truth, to what you know of his bad conduct, presenting that which is doubtful as doubtful, according to the degree of doubt which you may have in this regard." In his Introduction to the Devout Life, that precious and popular work, he expresses himself again: "If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry wolf when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock and in every way and place we may meet him."
But enough. What the greatest Catholic polemists and Saints have done is assuredly a fair example for even the humblest defenders of the Faith. Modern Ultramontanism has never yet sur-passed the vigor of their castigation of heresy and heretics. Charity forbids us to do unto another what we would not reasonably have them do unto ourselves. Mark the adverb reasonably; it includes the entire substance of the question.
The essential difference between ourselves and the Liberals on this subject consists in this, that they look upon the apostles of error as free citizens, simply exercising theirfull rl'ght to think as they please on matters of religion. We, on the contrary, see in them the declared enemies of the Faith, which we are obligated to defend. We do not see in their errors simply free opinions, but culpable and formal heresies, as the law of God teaches us they are. By virtue of the assumed freedom of their own opinions, the Liberals are bound not only to tolerate but even to respect ours; for since freedom of opinion is, in their eyes, the most cardinal of virtues, no matter what the opinion be, they are bound to respect it as the expression of man's rational freedom. It is not what is thought, but the mere thinking that constitutes the standard of excellence with them. To acknowledge God or deny Him is equally rational by the standard of Liberalism, and Liberalism is grossly inconsistent with itself when it seeks to combat Catholic truths, in the holding of which there is as much exercise of rational freedom, in the Liberal sense, as in rejecting them. But our Catholic standpoint is absolute; there is but one truth, in which there is no room for opposition or contradiction. To deny that truth is unreasonable; it is to put falsehood on the level with truth. This is the folly and sin of Liberalism. To denounce this sin and folly is a duty and a virtue. With reason, therefore, does a great Catholic historian say to the enemies of Catholicity: "You make your-selves infamous by your actions, and I will endeavor to cover you with that infamy by my writings." In this same way the law of the Twelve Tables of the ancient Romans ordained to the virile generations of early Rome: Adversus bostem aeterna auctoritas esto, which may be rendered: "To the enemy no quarter."
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Charity and Liberalism |
| 01.20.04 (2:43 pm) [edit] |
Narrow! Intolerant! Uncompromising! These are the epithets of odium hurled by Liberal votaries of all degrees at us Ultramontanes [i.e., Roman Catholics or papists--literally: "beyond the mountains" for entrance to Italy from the continent of Europe requires traversing the Alpine Mountains, the highest in Europe. Thus, to Europe the Roman Catholic Church has its government, its head, its nerve center "beyond the mountains"]. Are not Liberals our neighbors like other men? Do we not owe to them the same charity we apply to others? Are not your vigorous denunciations, it is urged against us, harsh and uncharitable and in the very teeth of the teaching of Christianity, which is essentially a religion of love? Such is the accusation continually flung in our face. Let us see what its value is. Let us see all that the word "Charity" signifies.
The Catechism [of the Council of Trent], that popular and most authoritative epitome of Catholic theology, gives us the most complete and succinct definition of charity; it is full of wisdom and philosophy. Charity is a supernatural virtue which induces us to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves for the love of God. Thus, after God we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, and this not just in any way, but for the love of God and in obedience to His law. And now, what is it to love? Amare est velle bonum, replies the philosopher. "To love is to wish good to him whom we love." To whom does charity command us to wish good? To our neighbor, that is to say, not to this or that man only, but to everyone. What is that good which true love wishes? First of all supernatural good, then goods of the natural order which are not incompatible with it. All this is included in the phrase "for the love of God."
It follows, therefore, that we can love our neighbor when displeasing him, when opposing him, when causing him some material injury, and even, on certain occasions, when depriving him of life; in short, all is reduced to this: Whether in the instance where we displease, oppose, or humiliate him, it is or is not for his own good, or for the good of someone whose rights are superior to his, or simply for the greater service of God.
If it is shown that in displeasing or offending our neighbor we act for his good, it is evident that we love him, even when opposing or crossing him. The physician cauterizing his patient or cutting off his gangrened limb may nonetheless love him. When we correct the wicked by restraining or by punishing them, we do nonetheless love them. This is charity--and perfect charity.
It is often necessary to displease or offend one person, not for his own good, but to deliver another from the evil he is inflicting. It is then an obligation of charity to repel the unjust violence of the aggressor; one may inflict as much injury on the aggressor as is necessary for defense. Such would be the case should one see a highwayman attacking a traveler. In this instance, to kill, wound, or at least take such measures as to render the aggressor impotent, would be an act of true charity.
The good of all good is the divine Good, just as God is for all men the Neighbor of all neighbors. In consequence, the love due to a man, inasmuch as he is our neighbor, ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to our common Lord. For His love and in His service we must not hesitate to offend men. The degree of our offense towards men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation to Him. Charity is primarily the love of God, secondarily the love of our neighbor for God's sake. To sacrifice the first is to abandon the latter. Therefore, to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin.
Modern Liberalism reverses this order; it imposes a false notion of charity: our neighbor first, and, if at all, God afterwards. By its reiterated and trite accusations toward us of intolerance, it has succeeded in disconcerting even some staunch Catholics. But our rule is too plain and too concrete to admit of misconception. It is this: Sovereign Catholic inflexibility is sovereign Catholic charity. This charity is practiced in relation to our neighbor when, in his own interest, he is crossed, humiliated, and chastised. It is practiced in relation to a third party when he is defended from the unjust aggression of another, as when he is protected from the contagion of error by unmasking its authors and abettors and showing them in their true light as iniquitous and pervert, by holding them up to the contempt, horror, and execration of all. It is practiced in relation to God when, for His glory and in His service, it becomes necessary to silence all human considerations, to trample under foot all human respect, to sacrifice all human interests--and even life itself--to attain this highest of all ends. All this is Catholic inflexibility and inflexible Catholicity in the practice of that pure love which constitutes sovereign charity. The Saints are the types of this unswerving and sovereign fidelity to God, the heroes of charity and religion. Because in our times there are so few true inflexibles in the love of God, so also are there few uncompromisers in the order of charity. Liberal charity is condescending, affectionate, even tender in appearance, but at bottom it is an essential contempt for the true good of men, of the supreme interests of truth and [ultimately] of God. It is human selflove, usurping the throne of the Most High and demanding that worship which belongs to God alone.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Liberalism and Literature |
| 01.20.04 (2:41 pm) [edit] |
Liberalism is a system, as Catholicism is, although in a contrary sense. It has its arts, its science, its literature, its economics, its ethics; that is, it has an organism all its own, animated by its own spirit and distinguishable by its own physiognomy. The most powerful heresies, for instance, Arianism in ancient times and Jansenism in our own days, presented like peculiarities.
Not only are there Liberal journals, but there exists a literature in all the shades and degrees of Liberalism; it is abundant and prolific. The present generation draws its main intellectual nourishment from it. Our modern literature is saturated with its sentiments, and for this reason should we take every precaution to guard against its infections, of which so many are the miserable victims. How is it to be avoided?
The rules of guidance in this case are analogous to or almost identical with the rules which should govern a Catholic in his personal relations with Liberals, for books are after all but the representatives of their authors, conveying by the printed, instead of the spoken word, what men think, feel and say. Apply to books those rules of conduct which should regulate our intercourse with persons, and we have a safeguard in reading the literature of the day. But in this instance, the control of the relation is practically in our own power, for it depends entirely on ourselves whether we seek or tolerate the reading of Liberal books. They are not apt to seek us out, and if they are thrust upon us, our consent to their perusal is practically all our own doing. We have none but ourselves to blame if they prove to be our own undoing.
There is one point, however, worthy of our close consideration. It should be a fundamental rule in a Catholic's intellectual life. It is this: Spare your praises of Liberal books, whatever be their scientific or literary merit, or at least praise with great reserve, never forgetting the reprobation rightly due to a book of Liberal spirit or tendency. This is an important point. It merits the strictest attention. Many Catholics, by far too naive (even some engaged in Catholic journalism), are perpetually seeking to pose as impartial and are perpetually daubing themselves with a veneer of flattery. They lustily beat the bass drum and blow all the trumpets of their vocabulary in praise of no matter what work, literary or scientific, that comes from the Liberal camp. They are fearful of being considered narrow-minded and partial if they do not give the devil his due. In the fulsomeness of their flattery, they hope to show that it costs a Catholic nothing to recognize merit wherever it may be found; they imagine this to be a powerful means of attracting the enemy. Alas, the folly of the weaklings; they play a losing game; it is they who are insensibly attracted, not the enemy! They simply fly at the bait held out by the cunning fisher who satanically guides the destinies of Liberalism.
Let us illustrate. When Arnold's Light of Asia appeared, not a few Catholics joined in the chorus of fulsome praise which greeted it. How charming, how beautiful, how tender, how pathetic, how humane; what lofty morality, what exquisite sentiment! Now what was the real purport of the book and what was its essence? To lift up Guatama, the founder of Buddhism, at the expense of Jesus Christ, the Founder of Christianity! The intention was to show that Guatama was equally a dit,ine teacher with as high an aspiration, as great a mission, as lofty a morality as our Divine Lord Himself. This was the object of the book; what was its essence? A falsification of history by weaving a series of poetical legends around a character, about whose actual life practically nothing is known. But not only this, the character was built up upon the model of Our Lord, which the author had in his own mind as the precious heirloom of Christianity; and his Gautama, whom he intended to stand out as at least the divine equal of the Founder of Christianity, became in his hands in reality a mere echo of Christ, the image of Christ, made to rival the Word made flesh! Buddhism, in the borrowed garments of Christianity, was thus made to appeal to the ideals of Christian peoples, and gaining a footing in their admiration and affections, to usurp the throne in the Christian sanctuary. Here was a work of literary merit, although it has been greatly exaggerated in this respect, praised extravagantly by some Catholics who, in their excessive desire to appear impartial, failed or refused to see in Edwin Arnold's Light of Asia a most vicious, anti-Christian book! What difference does it make whether a book be excellent in a literary sense or not, if its effect be the loss of souls and not their salvation? What if the weapon in the hands of the assassin be bright or not, if it be fatal? Though spiritual assassination be brilliant, it is nonetheless deadly.
Heresy under a charming disguise is a thousand times more dangerous than heresy exposed in the harsh and arid garb of the scholastic syllogism-- through which the death's skull grins in unadorned hideousness. Arianism had its poets to propagate its errors in popular verse. Lutheranism had its humanists, amongst whom the elegant Erasmus shone as a brilliant writer. Arnauld, Nicole, Pascal threw the glamour of their belles lettres over the serpentine doublings [tricks, artifices] of Jansenism. Voltaire's wretched infidelity won its frightful popularity from the grace of his style and the flash of his wit. Shall we, against whom they aimed the keenest and deadliest shafts, contribute to their name and their renown! Shall we assist them in fascinating and corrupting
youth! Shall we crown these condemners of our faith with the laurels of our praises and laud them for the very qualities which alone make them dangerous! And for what purpose? That we may appear impartial? No. Impartiality is not permissible when it is distorted to the offense of truth, whose rights are imprescriptible [inalienable, absolute]. A woman of bad life is infamous, be she ever so beautiful, and the more beautiful, the more dangerous. Shall we praise Liberal books out of gratitude? No! Follow the liberals themselves in this, who are far more prudent than we; they do not recommend and praise our books, whatever they be. They, with the instinct of evil, fully appreciate where the danger lies. They either seek to discredit us or to pass us by in silence.
Si quis non amat Dominum Nostrum Jesum Christum, Sit anathema ["If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema"], says St. Paul. Liberal literature is the written hatred of Our Lord and His Church. If its blasphemy were open and direct, no Catholic would tolerate it for an instant; is it any more tolerable because, like a courtesan, it seeks to disguise its sordid features by the artifice of paint and powder?
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Prudence and Liberalism |
| 01.20.04 (2:40 pm) [edit] |
Owing to their circumstances, Catholics in this country [America] live in the very midst of Liberalism; we are surrounded by and come into daily contact with extreme and moderate Liberals, as well as with Catholics tainted with its all-pervading poison. So did Catholics in the fourth century live among Arians, those of the fifth among Pelagians, and those of the seventeenth amongst Jansenists. It is impossible not to sustain some relations with the Liberals who surround us; we meet them everywhere--in our social dealings, in our business affairs, in our amusements and pleasures, even in Church and in the family. How then shall we comport ourselves in our unavoidable intercourse with those who are thus spiritually diseased? How may we avoid contagion, or at least diminish the risk to a minimum? To lay down a precise rule for every case is a difficulty beyond human capacity, but some general rules of guidance may be given; their application must be left to the prudence of those who are individually concerned, according to their circumstances and special obligations. It will be well first to distinguish, in a general way, three possible relations between a Catholic and Liberalism, or rather between a Catholic and Liberals: 1) Necessary relations; 2) Useful relations; 3) Relations of pure affection or pleasure. Necessary relations are imposed upon everyone by his station in life and his particular position; they cannot be avoided. Such are the family relations, the relations of inferior and superior, etc.
1. It is evident that a son who has the misfortune to have a Liberal father cannot on this account abandon him, nor the wife the husband, the brother the sister, nor the parent the child, except in the case where their Liberalism exacts from any of their respective inferiors acts essentially opposed to religion, so as to conduce to a formal apostasy.
But, for the taking of such a step, it will not suffice, on the part of a Catholic, that mere restraint is put upon his liberty in the performance of the precepts of the Church. For we must remember that the Church places no obligation in such matters on a person who could only perform them under grave inconvenience (sub gravi incommodo).
The Catholic unfortunate enough to be so placed must bear with Christian patience his painful situation and surround himself, as far as lies in his power, with every precaution to avoid the contagion of bad example in word or deed. Prayer should be his chief recourse, prayer for himself and the victims of error. He should avoid, as far as possible, all conversations on this topic, but when he finds that a controversy is thrust upon him, let him accept it in the full confidence of the truth, and armed with effective weapons of defense and offense. A prudent spiritual director should be consulted in the selection of his arsenal. As an antidote to much association with Liberals, let him frequent the company of other persons of science and authority who are in the constant possession of sound doctrine. Obedience to a superior in all that is not directly or indirectly against faith and morals is his bounden duty, but it is equally his duty to refuse obedience to anything directly or indirectly in opposition to the integrity of his faith. Courage he can draw only from supernatural sources; God, who sees the struggle, will not refuse all the assistance needed.
2. There are other relations which we have with Liberals, which are not absolutely, but which are morally indispensable, and without which social life, which consists in a mutual exchange of services, is impossible. Such are the relations of commerce, trade, labor, the professions, etc. But that strict subjection, which holds under the necessary relations of which we have just been speaking, does not exist here, and in consequence, one can exercise more independence. The fundamental rule in these cases is not to enter into unnecessary intercourse; what the gearing of the social machine demands, and no more, is sufficient. If you are a merchant, buy and sell with Liberals in accordance with the needs of your business; more than this, avoid; if you are a domestic, limit your intercourse to the necessities of your service; if you are a laborer, to giving and receiving what is due on either part. Guided by these rules, one could live without injury to his faith amidst a population of Jews. At the same time, it should never be forgotten that any manifestation of weakness or compromise is never needed. Even Liberals cannot refuse respect to the man who stands firmly and unflinchingly in his conviction, and when the Faith is in question, despicable in all men's eyes does he become who would sell his birthright for a mess of pottage.
3. Relations of pure friendship, pleasure or affectation, which we enter into as mere matters of taste or inclination, should be eschewed and, if once contracted, ought to be voluntarily broken off. Such relations are a certain danger to our faith. Our Lord says that he who loves danger shall perish in it. Is it difficult to sever such connections? What if it is; we must burst the bonds that place us in peril. Reflect for a moment. If your Liberal companion with whom you are constantly associating were subject to some contagious disease, would you then court him? If your relations with him compromised your reputation, would you continue them? If he were to asperse [attack] your family, would you cling to him still? Well, the honor of God and your own spiritual safety are at stake in this matter; what human prudence would counsel you to do for your worldly interest and human honor, surely that much at least your spiritual interests require from you. There is but one condition upon which intimacy with a Liberal is justifiable at all, and that is for the purpose of converting him. For this, two dispositions are necessary: your Liberal friend's willingness and your capacity to lead him to the light. Even here danger is not lacking. One must be very sure of his ground before he attempts the task.
Above all, have a horror of heresy, and Liberalism today is the most malignant of all heresies. Its face is absolutely set against religious faith. The first thing to do in an infected country is to isolate oneself, and if this is not possible, take all sanitary precautions against the deadly germ. Spiritual health is always endangered whenever we come into contact with Liberalism, and infection is almost certain if we neglect those precautions which prudence suggests.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| The Symtoms of Liberalism |
| 01.20.04 (2:39 pm) [edit] |
What are the signs or symptoms by which we may distinguish what is and what is not Liberalism in a person, a journal, a book or an institution? We are surrounded by Liberalism in all its shapes and varieties, and it behooves us to be on our guard against its subtle dangers. To lay down special rules by which we may detect it in its shadings and minutiae is neither practical nor necessary. But some general directions may be given. Their application must be left to each one's proper discretion.
To facilitate the matter, we will divide Liberals, whether persons or writings, into three classes:
1) Extreme Liberals; 2) Moderate Liberals; 3) Quasi Liberals, or those only tainted with Liberalism.
We will essay a description of each of these types. The study of their physiognomy will not be without interest and profit, for in the types we shall find a rule for our guidance in distinguishing Liberalism in its practical details.
The Extreme Liberal is easily recognized; he does not attempt to deny or conceal his perversity. He is the declared enemy of the Pope, of priests, of everything ecclesiastical; a thing has only to be sacred to rouse his implacable wrath; "priestcraft" is his favorite shibboleth. He subscribes to all the most violent and incendiary journals, the more impious and blasphemous, the better to his liking. He is ready to go to the furthermost conclusions of his baneful system. His premise of destruction once laid down, his conclusion of nihilism is a mere matter of logic. He would put it into practical execution with pleasure and exultation if circumstances permitted. He is a revolutionist, socialist, anarchist. He glories in living a life devoid of all religion. He belongs to secret societies, dies in their embrace and is buried by their ritual. He has always defied religion and dies in his defiance.
The moderate Liberal is just as bad as his extreme confrere, but he takes good care not to appear so. Social conventionalities and good manners are everything to him; these points secured, the rest is of little importance. Provided his iniquity is kid-gloved, it finds ready extenuation in his own mind. The niceties of polite society preserved, his Liberalism knows no bounds. He would not burn a convent--that would appear too brutal, but the convent once burned, he has no scruple in seizing upon the outraged property. The cheap impiety of a penny paper grates on his well-bred nerves; the vulgar blasphemy of Ingersoll he deprecates; but let the same impiety and the same blasphemy appear in the columns of a so-called reputable journal, or be couched in the silken phraseology of a Huxley in the name of science, and he applauds the polished sin. It is with him a question of manner, not matter. At the mere mention of the name of a nihilistic or socialistic club, he is thrown into a cold sweat, for there, he declares, the masses are seduced into principles which lead to the destruction of the foundations of society; yet, according to him, there is no danger, no inconvenience in a free lyceum where the same principles are elegantly debated and sympathetically applauded; for who could dare to condemn the scientific discussion of social problems? The moderate Liberal does not detest the Pope; he may even express admiration for his sagacity; he only blames certain pretensions of the Roman Curia and certain exaggerations of Ultramontanism, which do not fall in with the trend of modern thought. He may even like priests, above all, those who are enlightened, that is, such as have caught the twang of modern progress; as for fanatics and reactionaries, he simply avoids or pities them. He may even go to Church and, stranger still, sometimes approach the Sacraments; but his maxim is, in the Church to live as a Christian, outside of the Church to live as the world lives, according to the times in which one is born and not obstinately to swim against the stream. He dies with the priest on one side, his infidel literature on the other and imagines that his Creator will applaud his breadth of mind.
The Catholic simply tainted with Liberalism is generally a good man and sincerely pious; he exhales nevertheless an odor of Liberalism in everything he says, writes, or takes up. Like Madame de Sevigne, he can say, "I am not the rose, but standing by it, I have caught some of its perfume" This courageous man reasons, speaks, and acts as a Liberal without knowing it. His strong point is charity; he is charity itself. What horror fills his soul at the exaggerations of the Ultramontane press! To treat as a liar the man who propagates false ideas is, in the eyes of this singular theologian, to sin against the Holy Spirit. To him the falsifier is simply misguided; it is not the poor fellow's fault; he has, simple soul, been misled. We ought neither to resist nor combat him; we must strive to attract him by soft words and pretty compliments.
How the devil must chuckle over the mushy charity held out as a bait to abet his own cause! To smother evil under an abundance of good is the tainted Catholic's favorite maxim, read one day by chance in Balmes, and the only thing he has ever retained of the great Spanish philosopher. From the Gospel he is careful to cite only those texts flavored with milk and honey. The terrible invectives of Our Lord against Pharisaism astonish and confound him; they seem to be an excess of language on the part of our Divine Saviour! He reserves these denunciatory texts to use against those provoking Ultramontanes who every day compromise, by their exaggerated and harsh language, the cause of a religion that he thinks should be all peace and love. Against them his Liberalism, ordinarily so sweet and gentle, grows bitter and violent. Against them his zeal flames up, his polemics grow sharp, and his charity becomes aggressive.
In a celebrated discourse delivered apropos certain accusations against Louis Veuillot, Pere Felix once cried out, "Gentlemen, let us love and respect even our friends." But no, our Catholic tainted with Liberalism will do nothing of the kind. He saves the treasures of his tolerance and his charity for the sworn enemies of the Faith! What is more natural? Does not the poor man want to attract them? On the other hand, for the most heroic defenders of the Faith, he has only sarcasm and invective.
In short, the tainted Catholic cannot comprehend that direct opposition, per diametrum, of which St. Ignatius speaks in his Spiritual Exercises. He does not know how to give a direct blow. He knows no other tactics than to attack on the flank, tactics which, in religion, may perhaps be convenient, but are never decisive. He wants to conquer, but on the condition of not wounding the enemy, of never disturbing his ease or his rest. The mere mention of war painfully agitates his nerves and rouses all his pacific dispositions. With the enemy in full assault, with the implacable hatred and cunning of falsehood almost sweeping over him, he would withstand the hostile charge and stem the overwhelming tide with the paper barriers of an illusive peace.
In a word, we may recognize the extreme and the moderate Liberal by his bitter fruits; the tainted Catholic may be recognized by his distorted affection for Liberalism and its works.
The extreme Liberal roars his Liberalism; the moderate Liberal mouths it; the tainted Catholic whispers and sighs it. All are bad enough and serve the devil well. Nevertheless, the extreme Liberal overreaches himself by his violence; the fecundity of the tainted Catholic is partially sterilized by his hybrid nature; but the moderate is the real Satanic type; his is the masked evil, which in our times is the chief cause of the ravages of Liberalism.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Can a Liberal Be in Good Faith? |
| 01.20.04 (2:37 pm) [edit] |
Is there such a thing in rerum nature ["in the nature of things"] as a Liberal in good faith? In our day it seems almost impossible to reconcile Liberalism with good faith, which is the only thing that can give it the shadow of excuse. It cannot, however, be denied that, absolutely speaking, there may exist under peculiar circumstances an exceptional case, but this will indeed be unique.
In the history of heresy we frequently find some individuals, even many, who, in spite of themselves, are dragged into the torrent of error for no other reason than their supreme ignorance. But it must be admitted that, if ever an error has been deprived of any excuse on this score, that error is Liberalism as it exists today. Most heresies which have rent the bosom of the Church have attempted to disguise their errors under an exterior of affected piety. Jansenism, perhaps the most subtle of all heresies, won over a great number of adherents by its cunning simulation of sanctity. Its morals were rigid to the extreme; its dogmas formidable; the exterior conduct of its promoters ascetic and apparently enlightened. It wore the visage of a Saint, while at heart it reeked with the corruption of pride. The majority of ancient heresies turned upon very subtle points of doctrine, which only the skilled theologian could discern, and upon which the ignorant multitude could give no judgment, save such as they received in confidence from their leaders. By a very natural consequence, when the hierarch of a diocese fell into error, most of his subordinates--clerics and laity full of confidence in their pastor--fell with him. This was all the easier, owing to the difficulty of communication with Rome in ancient times, when the infallible voice of the Universal Pastor could not readily reach the flock in parts remote from the Chair of Peter. The diffusion of many ancient heresies, which were mostly purely theological, was nearly always due to this cause. Hence we find St. Jerome crying out in the fourth century: Ingemuit universus orbis se esse Arianum: "The whole world goaned to find itself Arian." This also explains how in the midst of great schisms and great heresies, such as the Greek Schism and Anglican heresy, there may be numbers of souls in whom the roots of the True Faith are not dead, although in its exterior profession this faith may appear deformed and vicious. Such was the case in England for many years after the rebellion of Henry VIII, and such, in some instances, is the case in our own times [1886], for the ready acceptance of the True Faith by many English converts of recent years bears ample witness to the vitality of the Faith in souls so grossly betrayed into heresy by apostate guides three centuries ago [i.e., in the 16th century]. Such souls, united to the Mystical Body of the Church by Baptism, by interior Sanctifying Grace, are able to gain eternal salvation with ourselves.
Can the same be said of Liberalism? Liberalism first presented itself under a political mask, but since its debut, this mask has become so transparent that blind indeed is he who cannot divine the perversity of such a miserable travesty. The veil of hypocrisy and pietism which some of its panegyrists first threw around it has been stripped off. The halo in which it was first depicted has shown itself to be, not the soft light of Heaven, but the lurid glare of Hell. It has gathered under its banner all the dregs of society, wherever corruption was its precursor and promoter. The new doctrines which it preached--and which it wished to substitute for ancient truth--had nothing abstract nor metaphysical; it rejected everything but brutal facts, which betrayed it as the offspring of Satan and the enemy of mankind. The terrors of the French Revolution were the evidence of its origin, as sprung from the corruptions of a society that had abandoned God and battened on the bestial results of Voltarian skepticism. No wonder it avoided the abstract and the metaphysical, to revel in the atrocious deeds of a bloody revolution [The French Revolution, 1789-1799], which proclaimed the absolute sovereignty of man against his Creator and the Church.
If such were the horrors of the birth of Liberalism, what must be said of its odious development in our own day, when its infernal principles bask in the full light of the world's approbation? Never has an error been more severely castigated by the condemnation of the Church; never more accurately have those condemnations been borne out by the testimony of experience and history. When Protestantism is fast losing its power, sinking into the abyss out of sheer impotence, Liberalism, even more formidable and more dangerous, fills the ranks of this decaying heresy with enemies still more resourceful, implacable and obstinate. Protestantism is now a dead dog; Liberalism a living lion going about seeking whom he may devour. Its dreadful doctrine is permeating society to the core;
It has become the modern political creed and threatens us with a second revolution, to turn the world over once again to paganism. Are there any good Catholics who do not believe this? Let them but read the signs of the times, not with the eyes of the world, but by the light of the Faith, which Jesus Christ gave to them. "I am the way, the truth and the life," said our Divine Lord. "He that followeth me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life." (John 8:12). He who follows the Church follows Him, for He Himself said to the Apostles and their successors, "He who hears you, hears Me."
What then is the attitude of the Church towards Liberalism? Is not its entire hierarchy considered hostile to Liberalism? Does not Liberalism itself bear witness to this? What does the word "Clericalism" with which the Liberals have honored those most energetically opposed to their doctrine, prove, if not that they regard the Church as their most implacable adversary? How do they look upon the Pope, upon bishops, priests, religious of all kinds, on pious people and practical Catholics? "Clericals" "clericals" always, that is, "anti-Liberals!" How then can we expect to find good faith on the part of a Liberal Catholic when orthodoxy is so distinctly and completely opposed to Liberalism? Those who are capable of comprehending the principles of the question can readily satisfy themselves on its merits by its intrinsic reasons; those who cannot so comprehend have an extrinsic authority [The Catholic Church] more than sufficient to form an accurate judgment for them, such as it should be in every good Christian in matters touching the Faith. Light is not wanting; those who will, can see well enough. But alas! Insubordination, illegitimate interests and the desire to take and make things easy are abundantly at hand to prejudice and to blind. The seduction of Liberalism is not of the kind that blinds by a false light, but rather by the seduction which, in sullying the heart, obscures the understanding. We may therefore justly believe, except perhaps with very rare exception, that it requires a very vigorous effort of charity to admit in our day, in accordance with true moral principles, the excuse of "good faith" in a Catholic who entertains Liberal principles.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Liberalism and Free Thought |
| 01.20.04 (2:35 pm) [edit] |
In our day the Catholic world, with as much justice as reason, attributes impiety as a quality of free-thought, whether in a person, a journal or an institution. "Free-thinker" is an odious epithet which few are willing to accept, but which many justly bear in spite of their protestations. They chafe under the appellation of the word, but find no inconvenience in being all that it implies. Persons, societies, books, governments which reject, in matters of faith and morals, the only and exclusive criterion--that of the Catholic Church--are Liberals. They acknowledge themselves to be Liberals. They feel honored to be so recognized and never dream of scandalizing anybody except us terrible "irreconcilables."
Now change the expression; instead of Liberals, call them free-thinkers. They resent the epithet as a calumny and grow indignant at the insult, as they term it. But why this excruciating tenderness, this delicate sensitiveness over the variations of a simple term? Have you not, dear friends, banished from your conscience, your books, your journals and your society all recognition of the supreme authority of the Church? Have you not raised up as the sole and fundamental criterion of your conduct and your thought your own untrammeled reason?
Very properly then do you say that you are Liberal, and no one will dispute the title with you. But you should remember that the very principle which makes you Liberal constitutes you free-thinkers. Every Liberal, no matter of what degree or shade, is ipso facto a freethinker, and every freethinker, as odious as the title may seem according to social conventionalities, is only a logical Liberal. He is simply a Liberal following his premises to their conclusions. This doctrine is as precise and as exact as a mathematical proposition. It is based on the laws of the strictest logic. It is a simple syllogism, whose premise is Liberalism and whose conclusion is free-thought.
Let us illustrate. You are a Catholic more or less open to false allurements, and as a punishment for your sins, you belong to a Liberal society, say, of a literary character. Consider a moment and ask yourself the following question: Would I continue to belong to this atheneum if tomorrow it should proclaim itself publicly and boldly a society of free-thought? What response would your conscience and your shame dictate? Would you not at once withdraw from its membership? As a Catholic you could take no part in its proceedings. Again, you subscribe to a journal and read it without scruple, although it bears a Liberal title and speaks and reasons accordingly. Would you continue your subscription if all of a sudden it should place upon its title page the following heading: journal of Free-Thought. Well, this moderate or violent Liberal journal has been for years nothing more nor less than a free-thinker, and you have been imbibing its poison under the delusion of a word.
Ah, of how many prejudices would we rid ourselves if we only reflected a little on the meaning of words! Every society, whether scientific, literary or philanthropic, constituted on Liberal lines, is free-thinking. Every government Liberally organized is free-thinking. To reject with distrust the name and not the substance is blindness. Any institution, no matter what be its character, established in complete independence of the magisterium of the Faith, is free-thinking. Catholics cannot, consistently with their faith, belong to them. Membership there means rebellion against the Church.
In all such institutions Liberalism reigns and, in consequence, free-thought. No Catholic can remain a Catholic and affiliate with them. We are Catholics all-in-all--or not at all. We cannot dwell in an atmosphere where God is not. There is no true spiritual life where Jesus Christ is not, and He has given His promise to be with His Church forever. He who abides not in Him lives in the outer darkness.
How much do perverse Catholics serve the devil by obstinately clinging to such associations and participating in their works! In the folly of their ignorance, which they assert against the wisdom of the Church, they harden their consciences to the practical guidance of the Holy See and blindly enlist in the service of an enemy whose cunning deludes them into the slavery of Hell--under the disguise of freedom! They forget that the Truth alone makes them free. To know and serve God is the only freedom, and Liberalism completely severs the bond which links man to God. With a just and rational horror does a good Catholic regard Liberalism. Ultramontanism will never cause you to loose your soul; Liberalism is a broad road to the infernal abyss.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| The Name "Liberalism" |
| 01.20.04 (2:34 pm) [edit] |
May a good Catholic take the term "Liberalism" in good part, and may he regard it creditable to be a Liberal? What harm, it may be urged, is there in the usage of these terms, as long as there is no actual acceptance of the Liberal creed. Why should not Catholics use the terms with a good sense injected into them? Let us see if there be validity in this claim.
It is certain that in the present age the word "Liberalism" signifies something not entirely in accord with true Catholicity. It cannot be said that we describe the situation in exaggerated terms. It must be admitted that in the current acceptation of the word, Liberalism and Catholic Liberalism have been explicitly condemned by Pius IX. Leaving aside for the moment those who pretend to profess a certain Liberalism without wishing it to be known as such, there is no doubt that the Liberalist current in Europe and America is anti-Catholic and rationalistic. Pass the world in review; what is meant by the Liberal party in Belgium, in France, in Germany, in Holland, in Austria, in Italy, in the South American Republics? Are they not anti-clerical, anti-Catholic? What is meant by their current language when they speak of the Liberal criterion: a Liberal atmosphere, Liberal thought, etc.? Look at the leaders of these parties, both in Europe and America; do not ninety-nine percent of them understand by Liberalism the application of a pure and mild rationalism, at least to social science? Do they not regard as their sole and most potent enemy what they contemptuously term "Clericalism" "Ultramontanism" and do they not describe the Church as medieval, reactionary, the opponent of progress and the nurse of superstition? When then the term is so intimately associated with a Rationalism so radically opposed to the Church, how may Catholics use it with any hope of separating it from its current meaning?
In vain may some half dozen people imagine that they have given a different signification to a thing currently understood to bear the unmistakable stamp of anti-Catholicity. Beyond all dispute, common usage, the arbiter and judge of language, persists in regarding Liberalism as the implacable foe of Catholicity. In spite, then, of a thousand distinctions, exceptions and subtleties, you cannot fashion for yourself alone a Liberalism which has nothing contrary to the Faith in the opinion of most people, nor can you call yourself Liberal in any sense without being classed with all the other Liberals of that great family of Liberalism, such as the world understands it. The journal that seeks to be Catholic and at the same time has the name or reputation of Liberal becomes in the general opinion an ally of those who, under the Liberal banner, combat the Church in front and rear. Vainly will the editor of such a journal explain himself; his excuses and his explanations grow wearisome. To profess to be Catholic and yet subscribe himself to be Liberal is not the way to convince people of the sincerity of his profession. The editor of a journal purporting to be Catholic must be Catholic, not only in the profession he makes, but in spirit and in truth. To assume to be Liberal and then to endeavor to appear Catholic is to belie his faith; and although in his own heart he may imagine that he is as Catholic as the Pope (as several Liberals vaunt themselves), there is not the least doubt that his influence on current ideas and the march of events is thrown in favor of the enemy; and, in spite of himself, he becomes a satellite forced to move in the general orbit described by Liberalism.
And all this comes of a foolish desire to be estimated Liberal. Insane illusion! The usage of the word Liberal makes the Catholic who accepts it as his own one with all that finds shelter in its ominous shadow. Rationalism is the toadstool that flourishes in its dark shades, and with Rationalism does such a journalist identify himself, thus placing himself in the ranks of the enemies of Jesus Christ!
Moreover, there is little doubt that the readers of such journals are little prepared to distinguish the subtle limitations drawn by editors of this character between Liberalism and Liberalism. Most readers know the word in its common usage and class all things Liberal in a lump. When they see an ostensibly Catholic journal practically making common cause with the Liberal creed by sanctioning its name, they are easily led into the dangerous belief that Liberalism has some affinity with their faith, and this once engrafted in their minds, they become ready adepts of Rationalism.
Let us illustrate. There is in our day a sect which calls itself "The Old Catholics' " Suppose that we, who are in the true sense of the word "old Catholics" "for our Catholicity dates from Calvary and the cenacle of Jerusalem" (which are proofs of its antiquity), suppose we should establish a journal with the equivalent title: Review of the Old Catholics. Could it be said that this title is a lie? No, for we are old Catholics in the best sense of the words. But could it not be properly objected that this is a false-sounding title, inasmuch as it is in our day the cunning device of a schismatical sect? Certainly it would give occasion to well-informed Catholics to believe that we were schismatic and to the schismatics, who style themselves "Old Catholics" occasion to welcome us as new comrades in their rebellion against the Church. Why thus scandalize the faithful? But we use the word in a good sense. So be it! But would it not be better altogether to avoid the use of a term in so important a matter, which, under existing circumstances, is readily interpreted in a bad sense?
Now this is exactly the situation with those who consider inoffensive the term Liberal--reprobated by the Pope. Why should they take particular pains to employ a term requiring confusing explanations and which cannot but excite suspicion and cause scandal? Why rank themselves, for the sake of a term, with the enemy and carry his device--if, at bottom, they are Catholic? But it may be said that words are of little importance--why quibble in this way over the meaning of a term? We protest; words are of paramount importance, especially in our own day, when intellectual confusion so obscures fundamental truths in the modern mind. Words represent ideas. That is their value and their use. Modern error largely owes its success to its use of terms of an ambiguous character, or rather, by injecting a meaning into its words which hitherto carried a different signification. Agnosticism and Positivism have thus retained a Christian phraseology without the Christian meaning. They speak of God and sanctity and holiness and duty and freedom, but they have eviscerated the Christian meaning. Still these terms, with their former meanings, pass current in the public mind and so half-disguise the fatalism and paganism of the agnostic and positivist schools. Socialism has adopted the terms "liberty," "equality" and "fraternity" as its watchwords, where in reality they mean "revolution "destruction" and "despotism '" Yet it deceives the simple by thus disguising its real intent.
So has it always been. All heresies have begun in verbal disputes and ended in sanguinary conflicts of ideas. St. Paul exhorts Timothy to be on his guard, not only against false science ("Oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae"), but also against profane novelties of words ("profanas vocum novitates"). What would the Great Apostle of the nations say if today he saw Catholics decorating themselves with the title of Liberal, when that term stands in such violent and open antithesis to all that is Catholic? It is not merely a question Of words, but of what words represent. It is a question of truth and salvation. No, you cannot be a Liberal Catholic; incompatibles cannot be reconciled. You cannot assume this reprobated name, although you may be able by subtle sophisms to discover some secret way of reconciling it with your faith. Christian charity will not defend you, although you may repeatedly invoke it and would make it synonymous with the toleration of error. The first condition of charity is not to violate the truth, and charity cannot be the snare with which to surprise faith into the support of error. While we may admit the sincerity of those who are not Catholic, their error must always be held up to reprobation. We may pity them in their darkness, but we can never abet their error by ignoring it or tolerating it. Beyond dispute, no Catholic can be consistently called "Liberal."
Most to be feared, however, is not he who openly boasts his Liberalism, but he who eschews the name and, vehemently denying it, is yet steeped to the lips in it and continually speaks and acts under its inspiration. And if such a man be a Catholic by profession, all the more dangerous is he to the faith of others, for he is the hidden enemy sowing tares amidst the wheat.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Like Liberalis but Not Liberalism, Liberalism but Not Like It |
| 01.20.04 (2:31 pm) [edit] |
To effect a confusion of ideas is an old scheme of the devil. Not to understand clearly and precisely is generally the source of intellectual error. In time of schism and heresy, to cloud and distort the proper sense of words is a fruitful artifice of Satan, and it is as easy to lay snares for the intellectually proud as for the innocent. Every heresy in the Church bears testimony to Satan's success in deceiving the human intellect by obscuring and perverting the meaning of words. Arianism was a battle of words and owed its long-continued success to its verbal chicanery. Pelagianism and Jansenism showed the same characteristic, and today Liberalism is as cunning and obscure as any of its heretical predecessors.
For some, Liberalism consists in certain political forms; for others, in a certain tolerant and generous spirit opposed to despotism and tyranny; for others again it means simply civil equality; for many it becomes a vague and uncertain sentiment, which shapes itself into opposition to all arbitrary government. Although already defined, it will not be amiss to define Liberalism again.
In the first place, no political form of any kind whatsoever, whether democratic or popular, is of itself (ex se) Liberalism. Forms are mere forms and nothing more. Forms of government do not constitute their essence. Their forms are but their accidents. Their essence consists in the civil authority by virtue of which they govern, whether that authority be in form republican, democratic, aristocratic, monarchical; it may be an elective, hereditary, mixed or absolute monarchy. These various forms of themselves have nothing to do with Liberalism. Any one of them may be perfectly and integrally Catholic. If they accept beyond their own sovereignty the sovereignty of God, if they confess that they derive their authority from Him, if they submit themselves to the inviolable rule of the Christian law, if they hold for indisputable in their parliaments all that is defined by this law, if they acknowledge as the basis of public right the supreme morality of the Church and her absolute right in all things within her own competency, they are truly Catholic governments, whatever be their form, and the most exacting Ultramontanism cannot reproach them.
History offers the repeated example of republican powers which have been fervently Catholic:
Such was the aristocratic republic of Venice; such the merchant republic of Genoa; such in our day are certain Swiss cantons. As examples of truly Catholic mixed monarchies, that of Catalognia and Aragon (the most democratic and at the same time the most Catholic of the Middle Ages), the ancient monarchy of Castile up to the advent of the House of Austria, the elective monarchy of Poland up to the time of the iniquitous dismemberment of that most religious realm. To believe that monarchies are of themselves (ex se) more religious than republics is an ignorant prejudice. The most scandalous examples of persecution against Catholicity in modern time have been given by monarchies; for instance, by Russia and by Prussia.
A government, whatever be its form, is Catholic if its constitution, its legislation, and its politics are based on Catholic principles; it is Liberal if it bases its constitution, its legislation, and its politics on rationalistic principles. It is not the act of legislation--by the king in a monarchy, by the people in a republic, or by both in a mixed form of government--which constitutes the essential nature of its legislation or of its constitution. What constitutes this is whether it does or does not carry with it the immutable seal of the Faith and whether it be or be not conformable with what the Christian law imposes upon states as well as upon individuals. just as amongst individuals, a king in his purple, a noble with his escutcheon or a workman in his overalls can be truly Catholic, so states can be Catholic, whatever be the place assigned them in the scale of governmental forms. In consequence, the fact of being Liberal or anti-Liberal has nothing whatever to do with the horror which everyone ought to entertain for despotism and tyranny, nor with the desire of civil equality between all citizens; much less with the spirit of toleration and of generosity, which, in their proper acceptation, are Christian virtues. And yet all this, in the language of certain people and of certain journals, is called Liberalism. Here we have an instance of a thing which has the appearance of Liberalism and which in reality is not Liberalism at all.
On the other hand, there exists a thing which is really Liberalism and yet has not the appearance of Liberalism. Let us suppose [i.e., imagine] an absolute monarchy like that of Russia, or of Turkey, or better still, one of the conservative governments of our times, the most conservative imaginable; let us suppose that the constitution and the legislation of this monarchy or of this government is based upon the principle of the absolute and free will of the king or upon the equally unrestricted will of the conservative majority, in place of being based on the principles of Catholic right, on the indestructibility of the Faith, or upon a rigorous regard of the rights of the Church; then, this monarchy and this conservative government would be thoroughly Liberal and anti-Catholic. Whether the free-thinker be a monarch, with his responsible ministry, or a responsible minister, with his legislative corps, as far as consequences are concerned, it is absolutely the same thing. In both cases their political conduct is in the direction of free-thought, and therefore it is Liberal. Whether or not it be the policy of such a government to place restraints upon the freedom of the press; whether, no matter under what pretext, it grinds its subjects and rules with a rod of iron; a country so governed, though it will not be free, will without doubt be Liberal. Such were the ancient Asiatic monarchies; such are many of our modern monarchies; such was the government of Bismarck in Germany; such is the monarchy of Spain, whose constitution declares the king inviolable, but not God.
Here then we have something which, without seeming to resemble Liberalism, really is Liberalism, the more subtle and dangerous precisely because it has not the appearance of the evil it is.
We see, then, what care must be used in treating questions of this kind. It is of great importance above all that the terms of the discussion be carefully defined and that equivocations be studiously avoided which would favor error more than the truth.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Liberalism Has Been Condemed by the Pope Many Times |
| 01.20.04 (2:27 pm) [edit] |
Liberalism has been condemned by the Pope in many and various documents. From these let us select a few ephithets which stigmatize it with unsparing emphasis. They will bring out in striking relief the perfidious character of this cunning heresy.
In his Brief to Mgr. de Segur in regard to the latter's well-known work Hommage Aux Catholiques Liberaux [Hommage to Liberal Catholics], the Pope calls it a "perfidious enemy",-- in his allocution to the Bishop of Nevers, "the present real calamity"; in his letter to the Catholic Circle of St. Ambrose of Milan, "a compact between injustice and iniquity"; in the same document he speaks of it as "more fatal and dangerous than a declared enemy"; in his letter to the Bishop of Quimper, "a hidden poison"; in the brief to the Belgians, "a crafty and insidious error"; in another brief, to Mgr. Gaume, "a most pernicious pest." All these documents from which we quote may be found in full in Mgr. Segur's book, Hommage Aux Catholiques Liberaux.
But Liberalism is always strategically cunning. It rejected these very plain condemnations on the ground that they had all been made to private persons, that they were, therefore, of an entirely private character, by no means ex cathedra, and, of course, not binding. Heresy is always sophistically obstinate; it clings to the least pretext, seeks every excuse to escape condemnation. Barricading itself behind these technical defenses, Liberalism practically defied the authority of the Church. Its perfidy was short-lived. A solemn official public document of a general character and universally promulgated would sweep away the cobwebs with which Liberal Catholics had endeavored to bind the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. The Church could not refuse a formal and decisive word to relieve the anxiety of her children. That word was spoken; it was The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.
All faithful Catholics hailed it with an enthusiasm only equaled in intensity by the paroxysm of fury with which the Liberals received it. Liberal Catholics thought it more prudent to strike at it covertly by overwhelming it with artificial interpretations. The Liberals denounced it with unsparing bitterness; the Liberal Catholics whittled it away by all manner of emasculating explanations. It was a document fatal to both; they had reason to fear it, the one execrating it, the other seeking with desperate subtlety to parry the blow, for the Syllabus is an official catalog of the principle errors of the day in the form of concrete propositions placed under the formal ban of the Church. In it will be found, succinctly formulated, the various errors which are met within the current literature of the times. The Syllabus crystallizes all these errors and stamps them with the seal of the explicit and formal condemnation of the Church. Here we have in detail all the Liberal dogmas. Although Liberalism may not be expressly named in any one of the propositions, most of its errors are there placed in pillory. From the condemnation of each of the Liberal errors results a condemnation of the whole system. Let us briefly enumerate them.
Condemnation of liberty of worship (propositions 15, 77 and 78); of the placet of governments (propositions 20 and 28); of the absolute supremacy of the State (proposition 38); of the secularization of public education (proposition 45, 40 and 48); of the absolute separation of Church and State (proposition 15); of the absolute right to legislate without regard to God (proposition 56); of the principle of non-intervention (proposition 62); of the right of insurrection (proposition 63); of civil marriage (proposition 73 and others); of the liberty (license) of the press (proposition 79); of universal suffrage as the source of authority (proposition 60); of even the name of Liberalism (proposition 88).
There have been books, pamphlets, and articles innumerable written on the proper interpretation of the propositions of the Syllabus. But the most authoritative interpretation ought to be that of its radical enemies, not of course in the absurdities of their misunderstandings or perversions, like Mr. Gladstone's unfortunate attempt to distort some of its propositions into a sanction of civil disloyalty, a position from which he has since withdrawn, we are glad to be able to say. But outside of such patent misconstructions, we may rely upon the interpretation given by Liberals of all shades, especially in those points wherein we see them wince under its uncompromising phraseology. When Liberals regard the Syllabus of Errors as their most detestable enemy, as the complete symbol of what they term Clericalism, Ultramontanism and Reaction, we may rest assured that it has been well interpreted in that quarter. Satan, bad as he is, is not a fool, and sees clearly enough where the blow falls with most effect. Thus, he has set the authority of his seal--which after God's is most reliable--on this great work, the seal of his inextinguishable hate. Here is an instance in which we can believe the Father of Lies. What he most abhors and defames possesses an unimpeachable guaranty of its truth.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Liberalism Began with the French Revolution |
| 01.20.04 (2:24 pm) [edit] |
Liberalism of every degree and all forms has been formally condemned--so much so that outside of the motives of its intrinsic malice, it stands under the formal ban of the Church, which is sufficient for all faithful Catholics. It would be impossible for an error so widespread and so radical to escape condemnation.
Upon its appearance in France at the time of the Revolution [1789-1799], the famous Declaration of the Rights of Man--which contains in germ all the follies of Liberalism--was condemned by Pius VI (1775-1799). Later, the baneful doctrine infected all the countries of Europe. In Spain it first took the name of Liberalism, under which it has since been known everywhere.
Upon the occasion of the appearance of the first errors of De Lamennais, Gregory XVI (1831- 1846), in his encyclical Mirarl Vos, explicitly condemned Liberalism as it was then understood, taught, and practiced by the constitutional governments of Europe. Later on, when the full tide of the deplorable deluge had submerged all Europe, carrying all before it, God raised up to His Church Pius IX (1846-1878), who has justly passed into history as the "Scourge of Liberalism."
Liberal error, under all its forms, shapes, and shades, has been unmasked by this Pope. That his words might carry, as it were, more authority on this question, Providence has willed that these reiterated condemnations of Liberalism should fall from the lips of a Pontiff who, at the beginning of his pontificate, was hailed by Liberalists as their own. But he left no refuge to which their error might have resort. The numerous briefs and allocutions of Plus IX have clearly shown to Christian peoples what this baneful heresy is, and The Syllabus of Errors (1864) has put on the final seal of condemnation. Let us see the principal contents of some of the Pontifical documents. Amongst all that we might place before our readers, we will cite only a few.
On the 18th of June, 1871, responding to a deputation of French Catholics, Pius IX spoke thus:
'Atheism in legislation, indifference in matters of religion, and the pernicious maxims which go under the name of Liberal Catholicism are the true causes of the destruction of states; they have been the ruin of France. Believe me, the evil I denounce is more terrible than the Revolution, more terrible even than The Commune. I have always condemned Liberal Catholicism, and I will condemn it again forty times over if it be necessary."
In a brief, 6th of March, 1873, addressed to the Circle of St. Ambrose of Milan, the Sovereign Pontiff thus expresses himself:
"People are not wanting who pretend to form an alliance between light and darkness and to associate justice with iniquity in favor of those doctrines called Liberal Catholicism, which, based on the most pernicious principles, show themselves favorable to the intrusion of secular power upon the domain of spirituals; they lead their partisans to esteem, or at least to tolerate, iniquitous laws, as if it were not written that no one can serve two masters. Those who thus conduct themselves are more dangerous and more baneful than declared enemies, not only because, without being warned of it, perhaps even without being conscious of it, they second the projects of wicked men, but also because, keeping within certain limits, they show themselves with some appearance of probity and sound doctrine. They thus deceive the indiscreet friends of conciliation and seduce honest people, who would otherwise have strenuously combatted a declared error."
In the Brief of the 8th of May of the same year, speaking to the Confederation of the Catholic Circle of Belgium, the same Holy Father said:
"What we praise above all in your religious enterprise is the absolute aversion which, as we are informed, you show towards the principles of Liberal Catholicism and your intrepid determination to root them out as soon as possible. In truth you will extirpate the fatal root of discord and you will efficaciously contribute to unite and strengthen the minds of all in so combatting this insidious error, much more dangerous than an open enemy because it hides itself under the specious veil of zeal and of charity, and is so endeavoring to protect the people in general from its contaminating influence. Surely you, who adhere with such complete submission to all decisions of this Apostolic Seat and who know its frequent reprobations of Liberal principles, have no need of these warnings."
In the Brief to the La Croix, a Belgium journal, on the 24th of May, 1874, the Pope expresses himself thus:
"We cannot do less than to praise the design expressed in this letter, which we know your journal will satisfactorily fulfill, the design to publish, to spread, to comment on and inculcate in all minds all that the Holy See teaches against the perverse or at least false doctrines professed in so many quarters, and particularly against Liberal Catholicism, bitterly striving to conciliate light with darkness and truth with error."
On the 9th of June, 1873, Pius IX wrote to the president of the Council of the Catholic Association of Orleans, and without mentioning its name, depicts pietistic and moderated Liberalism in the following terms:
"Although you have not, strictly speaking, to combat impiety, are you not perhaps menaced on this side by as great dangers as those of the group of friends deceived by that ambiguous doctrine, which, while rejecting the last consequence of error, obstinately retains the germs, and which, not willing to embrace the truth in its fullness, and not daring to abandon it entirely, exhausts itself in interpreting the traditions and teachings of the Church by running them through the mold of its own private opinions."
In an address to the Bishop of Quimper, and speaking in reference to the general assembly of the Catholic Association of that diocese, the Pope said:
"Assuredly these associations are not wanting in the obedience due to the Church, neither on account of the writings nor the actions of those who pursue them with invectives and abuse; but they might be pushed into the slippery path of error by the force of those opinions called Liberal; opinions accepted by many Catholics who are otherwise honest and pious, and who, even by the very influence which gives them their piety, are easily captivated and induced to profess the most pernicious maxims. Inculcate, therefore, Venerable Brother, in the minds of this Catholic assembly that, when we have so often rebuked the sectaries of these Liberal opinions, we have not had in view the declared enemies of the Church, whom it would have been idle to denounce, but rather that those of whom we are speaking are such as secretly guard the virus of Liberal principles which they have imbibed with their mother's milk. They boldly inoculate this virus into the people's minds, as if it were not impregnated with a manifest malice, and as if it were as harmless to religion as they think. They thus propagate the seed of those troubles which have held the world in revolution so long. Let them avoid these ambuscades. Let them endeavor to direct their blows against this perfidious enemy, and certainly they will merit much from their religion and their country."
With these utterances from the mouth of the Vicar of Jesus Christ our friends as well as our enemies must see that the Pope has said in diverse briefs, and particularly in the last citation, in a general way all that can be said on this question, which we are studying in its details.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Shadow and Prenumbra of Liberalism |
| 01.20.04 (2:21 pm) [edit] |
When we review the field of history in the vast stretch of time from the beginning of Christianity to our own day, the various heresies that have from time to time appeared seem clearly and distinctly marked off from the environment of the orthodox faith. We seem to be able to draw a geometrical line around about their respective areas, sharply dividing the camp of truth from that of error, separating the light from the darkness. But in this we are deceived; it is an illusion caused by distance. The distinction appears so clear, so definite only because we stand on the eminence of the present, from whose vantage ground we see, in large outline, the massed movements of peoples in the vast panorama of the past. A closer study, placing us in intellectual contact with these epochs, enables us to observe that never, in any period of history, were the dividing lines between truth and error defined with such geometrical exactness (not that, in reality, truth was not clearly and distinctly formulated in the definitions of the Church but) because, in its acceptation and its exterior profession by the generations of the past interested in these definitions, more or less confusion and looseness characterized their manner of taking them. Error in society is like a stain upon some precious tissue. It is easily distinguished, but it is very difficult to define its limits. These limits are as indefinite as the twilight which merges the departing day into the coming night or as the dawn which blends the shadows of the spent darkness with the newborn light. So do the limits between error and truth in the actual affairs of men mingle in shadowy confusion. Error is a somber night; its limits fringe away from it like a huge penumbra, which is sometimes taken for the shadow itself, faintly brightened by some reflections of the dying light, or rather by the luminary yet enveloped and obscured by the first shades of evening.
So too, all error clearly formulated in Christian society is, as it were, surrounded by an atmosphere of the same error, but less dense, more rarified and tempered. Arianism had its Semi-Arianism, Pelagianism its Semi-Pelagianism, Lutherism its Jansenism, which was nothing else than a modified Lutherism. So in our own times, Liberalism has its Semi-Liberalism, which is nothing else than Catholic Liberalism. This is what the Syllabus terms modern Liberalism, that is, Liberalism without the boldness of its unvarnished first principles and stripped of the horrors of its last consequences; it is the Liberalism of those who are still unwilling not to appear to be Catholics or at least not to believe--themselves Catholics. Liberalism is the baneful twilight of the truth, beginning to be obscured in their intelligence, or heresy, which has not yet taken complete possession of them. On the other hand, we should not fail to note that there are those who are just emerging from the darkness of error into the twilight of truth.
This class has not fully penetrated into the domain of truth. That they will ever enter the city of light depends upon their own sincerity and honesty. If they earnestly desire to know the truth in its fullness and seek it with sincere purpose, God's grace will not fail them. But they are in a dangerous position. On the borderland between the realms of light and darkness, the devil is most active and ingenious in detaining those who seem about to escape his snares, and he spares nothing to retain in his service a great number of people who would truly detest his infernal machinations if they only perceived them. His method, in the instance of persons infected with Liberalism, is to suffer them to place one foot within the domain of truth, provided they keep the other inside the camp of error. In this way they stand the victim of the devil's deceit and their own folly. In this way those whose consciences are not yet entirely hardened escape the salutary horrors of remorse; so the pusillanimous and the vacillating, who comprise the greater number of Liberals, avoid compromising themselves by pronouncing themselves such openly and squarely; so the shrewd and calculating (according to the measure of expediency--how much time they will spend in each camp), manage to show themselves the friends and allies of both; so a man is enabled to administer an official and recognized palliative to his failings, his weaknesses and his blunders. It is the obscurity that arises from the indefiniteness of clearly defined principles of truth and error in the Liberalist's mind that makes him the easy victim of Satan. His boasted strength is the very source of his weakness. It is because he has no real solid knowledge of the principles of truth and error that he is so easily deluded into the belief of his own intellectual superiority. He is in a mental haze--a fog which hides from him the abyss into which his vanity and pride, cunningly played upon by Satan, are invariably drawing him.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Intrinsic Liberalism |
| 01.20.04 (2:20 pm) [edit] |
Strange as may seem that anomaly called Liberal Catholicism, its reason is not far to seek. It takes its root in a false conception of the nature of the act of faith. The Liberal Catholic assumes as the formal motive of the act of faith, not the infallible authority of God revealing supernatural truth, but his own reason deigning to accept as true what appears rational to him according to the appreciation and measure of his own individual judgment. He subjects God's authority to the scrutiny of his reason, and not his reason to God's authority. He accepts Revelation, not on account of the infallible Revealer, but because of the "infallible" receiver. With him the individual judgment is the rule of faith. He believes in the independence of reason. It is true he accepts the Magisterium of the Church, yet he does not accept it as the sole authorized expounder of divine truth. He reserves, as a coefficient factor in the determination of that truth, his own private judgment. The true sense of revealed doctrine to him is not always certain, and human reason therefore has something to say in the matter, as for instance, the limits of the Church's infallibility may be determined by human science. Within lines thus prescribed, the declarations of the Church to him are infallible, but these limits are not to be determined by the Church herself. Science will do that for her. She is of course infallible, they say, but we will determine when and in what she shall speak infallibly. Such is the absurdity which the Liberal Catholic falls into by placing the formal motive of faith in human reason.
The Liberal Catholic calls himself a Catholic because he firmly believes Catholicity to be the veritable revelation of the Son of God; he calls himself a Liberal Catholic because he believes that no one can impose upon him any belief which his individual judgment does not measure as perfectly rational. What is not rational he rejects; he is intellectually free to accept or reject. What appears good he assents to, but he is intellectually bound to no one. Thus, unwittingly, he falls an easy victim to the snare set by the devil for the intellectually proud. He has substituted the naturalistic principle of free examination for the supernatural principle of faith. As a consequence, he is really not Christian, but pagan. He has no real supernatural faith, but only a simple human conviction. In the acceptance of the principle that the individual reason is thus free to believe or not to believe, Liberal Catholics are deluded into the notion that incredulity is a virtue rather than a vice. They fail to see in it an infirmity of the understanding, a voluntary blindness of the heart, and a consequent weakness of will. On the other hand, they look upon the skeptical attitude as a legitimate condition wherein intellectual freedom is preserved, the skeptic remaining master of himself to believe or deny. They have a horror of any coercive element in matters of faith; any chastisement of error shocks their tender susceptibilities, and they detest any Catholic legislation in the direction of what they are pleased to call intolerance. The Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX is a nightmare to them, a most inopportune, dominating, harsh, and peremptory document, calculated to offend the sensibilities of the Protestant and modern world; it need not be accepted as an infallible utterance, and, if accepted, must be taken in a very modified sense. The ultramontane interpretation to him is violent and extreme, and does much more harm than good by driving back the well-disposed at such a show of illiberality.
Close upon this squeamishness in regard to the pronouncement of Catholic doctrine follows an abhorrence of antagonizing the convictions of others, no matter how directly opposed to revealed truth, for with Liberal Catholics the most erroneous are as sacred as the truest convictions, being equally founded upon the principle of intellectual liberty. Thus they erect into a dogma what is called the principle of toleration. The differences of belief are, after all, they complacently argue, due to differences of temperament, education, etc.; we will not exactly approve them, but we should at least condone them.
The first conception of faith being naturalistic, in the development and application of that conception, either to the individual or to society, the same naturalistic element evolves itself. Hence it follows that the Liberal Catholic's appreciation of the Church has no foundation in its supernatural character. The Church does not address herself to his sympathies as a supernatural society whose first and supernatural end is the glory of God and the salvation of souls. It is on her social and human side that he regards her with affection. It is as the great civilizing and humanizing power which has lifted so many people from a state of barbarism, as the guardian of the ancient arts and letters, as the promoter of learning, that she wins his applause and approbation. She is first, not because she is first in herself by divine right, but first in virtue of the approval of his own great intellect. Under this false conception, apologies have been written in our times, and with strange inconsistency the Church is often lauded as the great promoter and preserver of civilization in the past, while her regressive tendencies are deplored in the present (as if an institution, which alone, by divine constitution, has the perennial force of progress, could ever weaken or fail in her mission of human regeneration). Under the glamor of an advance towards the mirage of a false happiness in the desert of this life, our Liberal Catholics are proclaiming the shadow while rejecting the substance. True progress, which can only be achieved through an advance toward God, can never be effected save through that agency divinely appointed to lead us to God. This the Church of Jesus Christ alone can do, for she, under His institution, is as He Himself, the way, the truth, and the life.
Forgetting the divine and supernatural character of the Church (and she is nothing if not divine and supernatural), Liberal Catholics talk and write about her as a simple human development, accepting, in the blindness of their false conception, the naturalistic definition of faith. They thus eviscerate the Church, making her the mere husk of what she really is.
Piety itself does not escape the action of this pernicious naturalistic principle; it converts it into pietism--that is to say, into a parody of true piety, as is painfully seen in the pious practices of so many people who seek in their devotions only the sentimental emotions of which they themselves are able to be the source. They are devout over themselves, worshiping their own little sentiments and offering incense to idols graven after their own image. This is simply spiritual sensualism, and nothing else. Thus we see in our day in so many souls the degeneration of Christian asceticism (which is the purification of the heart by the repression of the appetites) and the falsification of Christian mysticism, which is neither emotion, nor interior consolation, nor any other epicurean foible of human sentiment, but union with God through a supernatural love for Him and through absolute submission to His holy will. Therefore it is that the Catholicity of a great number of people in our times is a Liberal Catholicity, or rather, a false Catholicity. It is really not Catholicity, but mere naturalism, a pure rationalism; it is in a word paganism disguised in Catholic forms and using Catholic language.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Catholic Liberalism or Liberal Catholicism |
| 01.20.04 (2:18 pm) [edit] |
Peace in war is an incongruity. Foes in the midst of battle cannot well be friends. Where the pressure of conflicting forces is intensest, there is little opportunity of reconciliation. Yet this absurdity and contradiction we find in the odious and repulsive attempt to unite Liberalism with Catholicism. The monstrosity resulting is what is known as the Liberal Catholic or the Catholic Liberal. Strange as it may seem, Catholics with good intentions have paid tribute to this absurdity and indulged the vain hope of peace with the eternal enemy. This fatal error has its source in the vain and exaggerated desire of reconciling and harmonizing in peace, doctrines utterly incompatible and hostile by their very nature.
Liberalism is the dogmatic affirmation of the absolute independence of the individual and of the social reason. Catholicity is the dogma of the absolute subjection of the individual and of the social order to the revealed law of God. One doctrine is the exact antithesis of the other. They are opposites in direct conflict. How is it possible to reconcile them? Opposition here necessarily means conflict, and the two can no more harmonize than the square can be made one with the circle.
To the promoters of Catholic Liberalism the thing appears easy enough. "It is admirable," they say, "for the individual reason to be subject to the law of God if it so wishes, but we must distinguish between the public and the private reason, especially in an age like ours. The modern State does not recognize God or the Church. In the conflict of different religious creeds, the public reason must stand neutral and impartial. Hence the necessary independence of the public reason. The State as State can have no religion. Let the simple citizen, if he wishes, submit to the revelation of Jesus Christ, but the statesman and the man in public life must comport himself as if no Revelation existed." Now all this means civil or social atheism. It means that society is independent of God, its Author; that while individuals may recognize their dependence on the divine law, civil society should not--a distinction whose sophism is founded on an intolerable contradiction.
It is clear that, if the individual reason is obliged to submit to the law of God, the public and the social reason cannot logically escape the same duty without falling into an extravagant dualism by virtue of which men would be forced to submit to the law of two contrary and opposed consciences. Privately, men would have to be Christian; publicly they would be free to be atheistic.
Furthermore, the road is open to an odious tyranny, for if the public conscience were independent of the Christian law and ignored it, there would be no public recognition of the obligation by the civil arm to protect the Church in the exercise of her rights. Nay, more, the civil power would readily become the means of persecution, and rulers hostile to the Church, condemning divine law, could actually, under cover of authority, legislate against Christianity. Nor is this a fanciful picture, for France and Italy, legislating today [1886] on the basis of the sovereign independence of the social and public reason, have enacted odious laws which hold the Church in those countries in distressful legal bondage. And the Holy Father himself is now a prisoner within the walls of the Vatican on account of the violent usurpation of his domains by an atheist government. [This refers to the elimination of the Papal States, a central portion of Italy governed by the Popes, as civil rulers, from the year 800 to 1878, when modern Italy was constituted.--Editor, 1992.]
But the results of the fatal distinction do not stop with the functions of legislation and administration subjecting the Church to social and civil persecution; in modern times it has gone further still and extends its baneful influence to the schoolroom, propagating itself by placing the education of youth under its dominating influence. It forms the conscience of youth, not according to the divine law, which acknowledges the will of God, but upon a premeditated and careful ignorance of that law. It is as secular education that it seizes upon the future and breeds atheism in the hearts of the coming generations. The Catholic Liberal or the Liberal Catholic, admitting this fatal distinction between the private and the public reason, thus throws open the gates to the enemies of the faith, and posing as a man of intellect with generous and liberal views, stultifies reason by his gross offense against the principle of contradiction. He is thus both a traitor and a fool. Seeking to please the enemies of the Faith, he has betrayed his trust, the Faith itself; imagining he is upholding the rights of reason, he surrenders it in the most abject way to the spirit of denial, the spirit of untruth. He has not the courage to withstand the derision of his cunning foe. To be called intolerant, illiberal, narrow, ultramontane, reactionist, is gall and wormwood to his little soul. Under this epithetical fire he gives way and surrenders his birthright of faith and reason for a mess of Liberal pottage.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| The Degrees of Liberalism |
| 01.20.04 (2:16 pm) [edit] |
As a system of doctrines, Liberalism may be called a school; if we regard it as an organization of adepts for the purpose of spreading and propagating its doctrines, it may be called a sect; inasmuch as it is a group of men seeking the political enforcement of its doctrines, it may be called a party. But in whatever aspect we consider it--whether as a school or sect or party (it presents itself in various degrees or shades), yet it is still nonetheless Liberalism because variant, for with specific and logical unity there may be a multitudinous variety.
Now the unity of Liberalism is not positive but negative; it has no unity of its own; it is by virtue of its opposition to truth, which is essentially one, that Liberalism becomes accidentally one. As the vis-a-vis [or opponent] of truth, it possesses the unity of opposition: The different degrees of its denial will constitute the degrees of its opposition and so give us the varieties in the negative unity of its denial. Denial is its unity in general, and this ranges through the entire realm of negation, the degree of denial being determined by the degree of truth denied. If men were absolutely logical and followed to their ultimate conclusions the premises which they lay down, they would become angels or devils in working out the consequences according to the goodness or badness of their first principles. But men are not always logical; they often stop short of the consequences logically flowing from the premises preceding. We, therefore, as a rule, see the good as only half good and the bad as not altogether bad. Hence we find few out-and-out Liberals. Not many go the full length of their principles. They are nevertheless true Liberals, that is, veritable disciples, partisans or followers of Liberalism, ranging themselves under its banner, either as a school, a sect or a party.
There are Liberals who accept its principles but reject the consequences, at least those most repugnant or extreme. For instance, there are men who believe that the Catholic Church is the great enemy of modern progress, the one great object in the way of the triumph of their principles. Why not then openly persecute the Church and endeavor to wipe her off the face of the earth, as a Nero or a Domitian sought to do? No, they would not go to this extreme, although it is the practical consequence of their premise. Or again, if they shrink from the terrors of bloodshed and the horrors of assassination, why do they not close our Catholic schools, the nurseries of the Faith? To permit the existence of these schools is to allow the active and rapid propagation of the Faith. If Catholicity be the evil they affirm it to be, would they not be perfectly logical in nipping it in the bud, that is, in the schoolroom? But no, they would not go so far. Yet the suppression of the Catholic parochial school is the surest means to strangle the Faith in our midst. Why should there be any compunction in rooting out the greatest evil--in their estimation--which afflicts our age, the one great dyke against the flood of human "liberties" (now rising almost to the level of the opposing barrier)? It is because these Liberals are inconsistent; they shrink from the logic of conclusions. Again, there are Liberals who accept such and such conclusions, or their application, but scrupulously repudiate the principles whence they flow. They believe, for instance, in absolutely secularizing education, and yet reject the doctrine of atheism, which is the only soil congenial to its growth. They applaud the result, while they repudiate the cause.
Some would apply Liberalism only to education; others only to the civil order; and others still, only to political life.
It is the most advanced alone who seek to apply it to everything and for everything. The attenuations and mutilations of the liberal Credo are as many as the interests advanced or balked at by its application. It is generally supposed that men think with their heads, but their intelligence often has less to do with it than their hearts--and not infrequently their stomachs determine their conclusions. Liberalism is thus often measured out by the dose, according to the taste of the consumer, as liquors are to drinkers, according to the appetite of each. This one, in comparison to his more advanced neighbor (who appears to him a brutal demagogue), is no Liberal at all; whereas, his less advanced neighbor is, in his eyes, an out-and-out reactionary, rooted in a stagnant past. It is simply a question of degree, whose grades slide variously along the liberal scale, some nearer some farther from the abyss. From the baptized or even surpliced Liberal, who boasts his breadth of mind in his easy toleration of error, to the avowed atheist, who hurls his open defiance against God, the difference is only one of degree. One simply stands on a higher rung of the same ladder than the other. Observe, when pushed to the wall, how all alike claim the same denomination of liberal. They may even regard each other with aversion, but all invoke the same appellation as finally descriptive of each. Their common criterion is "liberality" and "independence of mind"; the degree of application will be measured by the individual disposition, more or less depending upon the variety of elements in the makeup of the individual and his surroundings: self-interest with one, temperament with another, education with a third, impeding a too-rapid gait on the road to absolute Liberalism; human respect may moderate another, serving as a balance--weight to his rashness; family or school or business relations may clog the footsteps of a fourth. A thousand and one things may serve as a brake to a too-accelerated descent, not to mention that satanic prudence which counsels a conservative advance in order not to alarm the timid. This last fashion of procedure often serves as a mask to the most advanced Liberals, who hide their designs under the appearance of a frank demagoguery. Sometimes Liberalism stalks along in the careless trappings of an easy-going good nature or a simplicity of character, which invites our affection and allays our suspicion. Its very candor in this guise is an aggression difficult to resist. It does not appear responsible and excites our compassion before it has awakened our aversion. We seem to forgive it before we accuse it. But all the greater is the danger when it appears least possible.
Such are the various fashions of Liberalism. Its disguises are many, its degrees various. Withal, however, it is the same evil, though motley be its trappings. Liberalism is one; whereas Liberals, like bad wine, differ in color and taste.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Liberalism Is a Mortal Sin |
| 01.20.04 (2:11 pm) [edit] |
Liberalism is a mortal sin. But Catholic theology teaches us that all sins are not equally grave, that there is even a distinction of degree in venial sins. There are also degrees in the category of mortal sin, just as there are in the category of meritorious works. The gravity of sin is determined by the object at which it strikes.
Blasphemy, for instance, which directly attacks God Himself, is a sin of much graver character than theft, which directly attacks man. With the exception of formal hatred against God, which constitutes the deadliest of all sins and of which the creature is rarely culpable--unless he be in Hell--the gravest of all sins are those against faith. The reason is evident. Faith is the foundation of the supernatural order, and sin is sin insofar as it attacks this supernatural order at one or another point; hence that is the greatest sin which attacks this order at its very foundations. To destroy the foundations is to destroy the entire superstructure. To cut off the branch of a tree will not kill it, but to lay the axe to the trunk or to the roots is fatal to its life. Henceforth it bears neither blossom nor fruit. St. Augustine, cited by St. Thomas, characterizes sin against faith in these words: Hoc est peccatum quo tenentur cuncta peccata. "This is the sin which comprehends all other sins."
The Angel of the Schools [St. Thomas Aquinas] expresses himself with his usual clearness on this point: "The gravity of sin is determined by the interval which it places between man and God; now sin against faith separates man from God as far as possible, since it deprives him of the true knowledge of God; it therefore follows that sin against faith is the greatest of all sins."
When sin against faith is simply a culpable privation of the knowledge of God, it has not the same gravity as a direct and formal attack upon dogmas expressly defined by divine Revelation. In this latter case, sin against faith, so grave in itself, acquires that degree of gravity which constitutes heresy. It then contains all the malice of infidelity and becomes an express protestation against the teachings of faith or an express adherence to a teaching which is condemned as false and erroneous by the Faith itself. Besides the deadly sin against faith itself, it is accompanied by hardness of heart, obstinacy, and the proud preference for one's own reason over the reason of God Himself. Hence, heretical doctrines--and works inspired by them--constitute the greatest of all sins, with the exception of formal hatred against God, of which only the demons in Hell and the damned are capable. Liberalism, then, which is heresy, and all the works of Liberalism, which are heretical works, are the gravest sins known in the code of the Christian law.
Liberalism is, therefore, a greater sin than blasphemy, theft, adultery, homicide, or any other violation of the law of God, save in such case as where one acts in good faith, in ignorance, or without thought.
It is true that modern naturalism does not so regard or understand the case. But the law of the Church in matters of morals and doctrines is unchangeable; it ordains today as it did yesterday, and heresy is always heresy, no matter what the shape it takes. Appearances may be fair, and the devil may present himself as an angel of light.
The danger is the greater as the outward show is more seductive. Heresy has never been so insidious as under its present form of Liberalism. Its range is so wide that it touches upon every note in the scale and finds an easy disguise in its protean facilities. But its most fatal shaft is in its plea for "liberality of mind." This, in its own eyes, is its cardinal virtue. "Intellectual freedom from dogmatism" is its boast, a boast in reality the mask of ignorance and pride. To meet such an enemy requires no ordinary courage, which must be guarded by a sleepless vigilance. When encountered, it is obligatory upon the Catholic conscience to resist it with all the powers of the soul. Heresy and all its works are sins; Liberalism is the root of heresy, the tree of evil in whose branches all the harpies of infidelity find ample shelter; it is today the evil of all evils.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| What Begets Liberalism? |
| 01.20.04 (1:51 pm) [edit] |
Physical science tells us that floating through the atmosphere are innumerable disease germs seeking a suitable nidus in which to settle and propagate and that we are constantly breathing these germs into the lungs. If the system be depleted or weakened, the dangerous microbe takes up its abode with us, and propagating its own kind with astonishing rapidity, undermines and ravages our health. The only safeguard against the encroachments of this insidious enemy, which we cannot escape, is a vigorous and healthy body with adequate powers of resistance to repel the invader.
It is equally true that we are subject to like infectious attacks in the spiritual order. Swarming in the atmosphere of our spiritual lives are innumerable deadly germs, ever ready to fasten upon the depleted and weakened soul and, propagating its leprous contagion through every faculty, destroy the spiritual life. Against the menace of this ever-threatening danger, whose advances we cannot avoid in our present circumstances, the ever-healthy soul alone can be prepared. To escape the contagion, the power of resistance must be equal to the emergencies of the attack, and that power will be in proportion to our spiritual health. To be prepared is to be armed, but to be prepared is not sufficient; we must possess the interior strength to throw off the germ. There must be no condition in the soul to make a suitable nidus for an enemy so insidious and so efficacious as to need only the slightest point of contact whence to spread its deadly contagion.
It is not only through the avenues of disordered passions that this spiritual disease may gain an entrance; it may make its inroad through the intellect, and this under a disguise often calculated to deceive the unwary and incautious. The Trojans admitted the enemy into their walls under the impression that they were actually securing a valuable acquisition to their safety, and today their fatal experience has come down to us in the proverb--"Beware of the Greeks when they bring gifts." Intellectual torpidity, inexperience, ignorance, indifference, and complaisance, or even virtues, such as, benevolence, generosity, and pity may be the unsuspected way open to the foe, and lo, we are surprised to find him in possession of the citadel!
That we may know our danger, we must appreciate the possible shapes in which it may come. Here is just the difficulty; the uniform of the enemy is so various, changeable, sometimes even of our own colors, that if we rely upon the outward semblance alone, we shall be more often deceived than certain of his identity. But before laying down any test by which we may distinguish friend from foe in a warfare so subtly fought within the precincts of our own souls, let us first reconnoiter the respective positions of either camp, and to do this best, we shall consider the origin and sources of the danger which surrounds us, for we may be asked: "Where is this foe described as so intangible as scarcely to be apprehended by ordinary mortals?" Or it may be urged: "Is the danger as proximate, as frequent and [as] fearful as you allege? Whence is it anyhow? Point it out! If we know from what direction the enemy comes, we may better appreciate the peril."
As we are addressing ourselves to those who live amidst the peculiar circumstances of our American life, and as the spiritual and moral conditions which obtain in this country make up the moral and spiritual atmosphere in which we have our being, it is in the relation of our surroundings to ourselves as well as of ourselves to our surroundings that we shall find the answer to our question. Let us then consider these surroundings in a general way for the moment.
First, as to some patent facts: The population of this country is at present something over 260 million. [1990 census]. Of these, 60 million are Catholics, and according to their claim, 80 million are Protestants, leaving a population of 120 million or more who do not profess any form become mere differences of private opinion, dependent upon nothing but the caprice or choice of the individual.
Outside of these various bodies of loosely professed Christians stands a still larger mass of our population who are either absolutely indifferent to Christianity as a creed or positively reject it. In practice, the distinction is of little moment whether they hold themselves merely indifferent or positively hostile. In other words, we have here to reckon with a body, to all practical purposes, that is infidel. This mass comprises over 45 percent of our population, holding itself aloof from Christianity, and in some instances virulently antagonistic to it. In distinct religious opposition to this mass of infidelity and Protestantism [now in excess of 76 percent of our population, but currently enhanced to an even more frightening percentage by the vast majority of Catholics today--1993--who either do not practice their faith at all or who are ignorant of its teachings (especially with regard to morality) or in practice simply disregard those teachings--bringing the total of practical non-believing and infidel people to probably just over 90 percent, if we can presume there to be today approximately 25 million believing, practicing Catholics], Catholics find themselves sharply and radically opposed. Heresy and infidelity are irreconcilable with Catholicity. "He that is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12:30) are the words of Our Lord Himself, for denial of Catholic truth is the radical and common element of both heresy and infidelity. The difference between them is merely a matter of degree. One denies less, the other more. Protestantism, with its sliding scale of creeds, is Simply an inclined plane into the abyss of positive unbelief. It is always virtual infidelity, its final outcome open infidelity, as the 120 million unbelievers in this country stand witness.
We live in the midst of this religious anarchy. Some 235 million of our population can, in one sense or other, be considered anti-Catholic [1990 figures]. From this mass--heretical and infidel--exhales an atmosphere filled with germs poisonous and fatal to Catholic life, if permitted to take root in the Catholic heart. The mere force of gravitation, which the larger mass ever exercises upon the smaller, is a power which the most energetic vigor alone can resist. Under this dangerous influence, a deadly inertia is apt to creep over the souls of the incautious and is only to be overcome by the liveliest exercise of Catholic faith. To live without enervation amidst an heretical and infidel population requires a robust religious constitution. And to this danger we are daily exposed, ever coming into contact in a thousand ways, in almost every relation of life, with anti-Catholic thought and customs. But outside of this spiritual inertia, our non-Catholic surroundings--a danger rather passive than active in its influence--beget a still greater menace.
It is natural that Protestantism and infidelity should find public expression. What our 200 million non-Catholic population thinks in these matters naturally seeks and finds open expression. They have their organs and their literature where we find their current opinions publicly uttered. Their views upon religion, morality, politics, the constitution of society are perpetually marshaled before us. In the pulpit and in the press they are reiterated day after day. In magazine and newspaper they constantly speak from every line. Our literature is permeated and saturated with non-Catholic dogmatism. On all sides do we find this opposing spirit. We cannot escape from it. It enfolds and embraces us. Its breath is perpetually in our faces. It enters in by eye and ear. From birth to death, it enslaves us in its offensive garments. It now soothes and flatters, now hates and curses, now threatens, now praises. But it is most dangerous when it comes to us under the form of "liberality." It is especially powerful for seduction in this guise. And it is under this aspect that we wish to consider it. For it is as Liberalism that Protestantism and Infidelity make their most devastating inroads upon the domain of the Faith. Out of these non-Catholic and anti-Catholic conditions thus predominating amongst us springs this monster of our times, Liberalism!
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Media Gives Way Too Much Info Sometimes |
| 01.19.04 (3:55 pm) [edit] |
Shut Up!!
The real art of conversation is not only to say the right thing in the right place, but to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment. -Dorothy Nevill
We hear kids say it all the time, “TMI!!... TMI!!... Too Much Information!” So why are kids the only ones saying it?
In the days since the New York City blackout, I’ve learned more about the general function of the average electric grid than I ever wanted to, just by watching the news. So who else is watching the news? Are we unwittingly educating terrorists as to how to conduct their next major strike? Have we broadcast too much information?
When you provide aid and comfort to the enemy, it’s called treason. What’s it called when you provide them with R&D, intel, and the incentive to launch a strike? Apparently it’s called “journalism.”
This week’s focus: Shut Up!!
The media is a wonderful thing. Technically, I’m part of the media since I’m able to bring you this. However, I usually (most of the time anyway) think twice before I speak or write. As I’ve said before, I’ll never publish a terror attack scenario, nor will I provide information that would useful in the wrong way to the wrong people.
In fact, I helped shut down one website whose owner seemed sincere in his statement that the reason he was posting attack scenarios was so that people would know what to watch out for. He may have been telling the truth, but in reality he was providing too much information. He didn’t know when to just shut up!
The general media needs to learn to do the same since TMI has become all-too-common bad habit.
Electric grids notwithstanding, I also saw within the past couple of weeks a news piece about a new type of shoe bomb that apparently has been “uncovered.” News crews were on hand at a shoe-bomb testing demonstration where a commercial aircraft’s fuselage was set up and then neatly demolished when this bomb was detonated. Sensational journalism and good news fodder, sure, but it also tells the enemy just how effective their weapon is.
Another example can be found in some of the reports about the bombing of the UN building in Baghdad. A tasty piece of intel (which we’ll not go into here) was made part of the news story, and if the wrong people were paying attention, it could help them in future attacks of the same nature.
Our project du jour is to contact news networks and others any time we see too much information going out over the airwaves. Be sure to contact your local station, the parent network, and if all else fails, be sure to contact your congressional reps in DC, and the FCC’s “Mass Media Enforcement” department. Their contact info can be found on www.fcc.gov.
Freedom of the press is one thing, the people’s right to know another, but providing intel and R&D to the enemy needs to be curtailed.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Some Voters Will Go to Hell |
| 01.19.04 (12:29 pm) [edit] |
Anyone who knowingly or through indifference
votes irresponsibly is not a practicing believer.
Only practicing believers are admitted into Heaven.
Hell exists! Religious belief or non belief is irrelevant.
A grave offense against God is committed when someone votes for anyone who is pro-abortion or pro-choice from the instance of conception. A candidate who is not morally for innocent life should not be expected to be just in civil affairs. One who votes favorably for such a candidate is guilty as an accomplice in murder against the Commandments of God.
Of the 25 below listed disqualifications for public office, at any level of government, this is seen as the best summary consideration for it supports the prime commandment of God, "Be fertile and multiply." [Gn. 1:28] If a candidate fails to state he is anti-abortion under all circumstances he may not be voted for. No social consideration may ever be considered as being more important than that of innocent life. In the sight of God starvation or other materialistic consideration is never a reason for murdering the unborn.
As long as elections are a high stakes money game, an honest man has little or no chance of being elected, nor do honest people have any real choice between candidates who are often promoted and financed by secret organizations. (See Funding below.)
Secret societies, associated and offshoot Organizations:
Freemasons (Masons), Bildebergers, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Illuminati, Skull and Bones Society, Rhodes Scholars, B'nai B'rith, Communists, Marxists, Mormons, Bohemian Grove Club Members, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslim Extremists, Etcetera.
Voters who go to Hell. This is directed at anyone who claims belief in one eternal God (Godhead). It would be well if these offensive conditions where formatted into a questionnaire to be answered by every person seeking any sort of public office.
Approximately two weeks before any election the results should be distributed by mail to every residence along with statements by every candidate concerning his position on pertinent issues.
Funding for this publishing should come from the monies collected by governments on income tax forms. These funds are now distributed only to specially ranked candidates. This would give every candidate, rich or poor, a realistic opportunity to be elected to public office. Formal published candidate statements, organized into a single mailing, would tend to alleviate corruption now associated with elections.
No collected funds should be distributed to any candidate or political party for any reason.
If seen as being beneficial, a series of three or four such leaflets could be distributed beginning about two months before elections. This would give candidates an opportunity to respond to statements made against them or concerning positions needing clarification.
How one votes can mean the difference between going to Heaven or to Hell. Those who are not careful about who they vote for rate as being offensive to God.
Those who vote for any of the following and fail to sincerely repent before death –an event that can take place at any stage of life– should expect to spend eternity suffering in hell:
Someone who has ever been a pederast, pedophile, or ephebophile (includes anyone who has sexually approached someone under 20 years of age, or, if under 22 then someone more than two years younger than them self).
Someone who is known to have ever been homosexually active, or practices or does not oppose the practice of bestiality (a sodomite).
Someone who has willingly had, performed, assisted, or been otherwise directly involved with a procured abortion. This includes anyone who has paid for, transported to, legalized, or maintained the legalization of abortion (heads of any level of government, congressmen and equivalent, law enforcement officials, district attorney's, prosecuting attorneys, judges, media producers, directors, publishers, editors, actors, commentators, etc).
Someone who has practiced or approves of research or experimentation on a fertilized ovum (egg).
Someone who has practiced or approves of in vitro fertilization or any form of unnatural fertilization.
One who has committed an act of murder (murder is the willful killing of an innocent person – innocent person excludes anyone involved at the time with criminal activity and those guilty of a capital crime.)
Someone who is either pro abortion or pro choice (no difference).
Someone who approves of suicide (self murder) – any act that kills oneself while not having the immediate result of saving one or more innocent lives. Included are acts or endorsements of self-killing by any culture or religious belief that encourages or rewards acts of suicide regardless of motivation (Jews who give honor to acts of suicide such as took place at Masada in 73 A.D. – mass suicide of all 400 defenders of a hilltop fortress to avoid capture by the Roman army. This remains as an unparalleled political symbol of Jewish solidarity and resistance preference for humanistic values over spiritual values; Muslims who approve of suicide bombing, etc.).
Someone who is involved with or approves of any form of devil or idol worship.
Someone who is or has been a member of a Secret Society. This includes all levels of freemasonry, break off or modeled after organizations, the illuminati, and others.
Someone who is known to have ever committed or approved of adultery.
Someone who has committed incest or is known not to oppose incest.
Someone who has committed rape or believes rape can be used as a means of punishment.
Someone who practices bigamy or polygamy, or belongs to a belief system that approves of either.
One who has been divorced or does not oppose divorce.
Someone who approves of male and female non marriage live together arrangements or coed dormitories.
Someone who has not or will not oppose pornography or public nudity.
Someone who opposes the belief that the Constitution only states that government may not form a religion or endorse a particular religion; or opposes the concept that sound Christian religious principals or beliefs in a holy God may not be endorsed.
Someone who approves of non murderous forms of birth control or population control.
Someone who is a repetitious fornicator (an unmarried person known to have had sex upon more than one occasion with a person of the opposite sex).
Someone who endorses socialism (a welfare state).
Someone who does not believe in a good, holy, and eternal God.
Someone who has ever or would ever appoint any of the foregoing to public service.
Someone who is a member of a religion or pseudo religion that approves of any evil acts.
Someone who does not hold to a clearly defined doctrine of belief that is available in the public forum.
Have you or will you vote for someone whose voting record or platform supports any form of sin?
Do not let politicians or media divert attention to less important issues no matter how important they may seem at the moment.
Positions supporting welfare, education, public works and so forth. All of these positions are of non importance when it comes to the question of righteous voting (voting not leading to eternal damnation).
Righteous people voted into office will look for the long term good of all people. The unrighteous are deceivers only interested in their own welfare, regardless of public positions taken.
Those who by reason of party affiliation vote for someone without checking the candidates personal position on issues are to be thought of as indifferent to God's will and are not likely to get into Heaven.
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Can Catholics and Liberals Ever Unite? |
| 01.19.04 (12:02 pm) [edit] |
A question very pertinent to our times and our surroundings is, "Should Catholics combine with the more moderate Liberals for the common end of resisting the advance of the revolutionists or extreme Liberals?" With some, this is a golden dream; with others, a perfidious snare by which they seek to paralyze our powers and divide us.
What should we think of these would-be unionists, we who wish above all things the wellbeing of our Holy Religion? In general, we should think such unions are neither good nor commendable. Liberalism, let its form be as moderated or as wheedling as possible, is by its very essence in direct and radical opposition to Catholicity. Liberals are the born enemies of Catholics, and it is only accidentally that both can have interests that are truly common.
It is possible, however, in very rare cases, that a union on the part of Catholics with a Liberal group against the Radicals may prove useful under given conditions. Where such a union is really opportune, it must be established on the following basis:
1. The bond of union should never be neutrality or the conciliation of interests and principles essentially opposed, such as are the interests and principles of Catholics and Liberals. This neutrality or conciliation has been condemned by the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and is, consequently, a false basis. Such a union would be a betrayal, an abandonment of the Catholic camp by those who are bound to defend it. An instance would be to compromise Catholic education with Secularism by banishing religious instruction and influences from the school room. The basis of such conciliation is false, as it necessarily sacrifices Catholic interests and principles. It concedes to Secularism what is essential to the integrity of Catholic education, viz., the formation of the Catholic character in children, and admits the validity of the principle of neutrality. It can never be said, "Let us abstract from our differences of doctrine, etc." Such a loose abdication of principle can never obtain in the Catholic estimation. It would be the same as to say, "In spite of the radical and essential opposition of principles between us, we can, after all, agree in the practical application of these principles." This is simply an intolerable contradiction.
2. Much less could we accord to the Liberal group, with whom a temporary and accidental alliance is formed, the honor of enrolling ourselves under its banner. Let each party keep distinct its own proper device, or let the Liberals in question range themselves under our ensign, if they wish to fight with us against a common enemy. We can never assume their emblem under any circumstances. In other words, let them unite themselves to us; we can never unite ourselves to them. Accustomed as they are to a varying and motley ensign, it cannot be difficult for them to accept our colors. For us there can be but one flag-the one emblem of the one, unvarying Faith which we ever profess.
3. We must never consider this alliance constant and normal. It can never be anything else than a fortuitous and transient condition, passing away the moment the immediate exigency of its existence ceases. There can be no constant and normal union, except between homogeneous elements. For people of convictions who are radically opposed, to harmonize for any length of time would require continual acts of heroic virtue on the part of both sides. Now heroism is no ordinary thing, nor is it of daily exercise. Such ra ica incompatibility would simply expose the undertaking to lamentable failure and would build upon contradictory opinions, whose only accord is accidental. For a transistory act of common defense or attack, such an attempt at a coalition of forces is permissible-and even praiseworthy and extremely useful-provided, however, that we never forget the conditions or rules we have already laid down as governing the exceptional circumstances obtaining in a given case; these rules are an imprescriptible necessity. Outside of these conditions, not only should we hold that such a union with any group, for any enterprise whatever, would be unfavorable to Catholics, we should also hold that it would be actually detrimental. Instead of augmenting our forces, as would be the case in the union of homogeneous elements, it would paralyze and nullify the vigor of those who would be able, if alone, to do something for the defense of the truth. Without doubt, as the proverb runs, "Unhappy the one who walks alone' " But there is another proverb equally true which says, "Better seek solitude than bad company." It was St. Thomas, we believe, who said, Bona est unio sed potior est unitas, "Union is good, but unity is better." If we have to sacrifice true unity for the sake of an artificial and forced union, not only is nothing gained, but much is lost.
Experience has always shown that the result of such unions, outside of the conditions just laid down, is barren. Their result always renders the strife even more bitter and rancorous. There is not a single example of such a coalition which served either to edify or consolidate.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Journalism and Liberalism |
| 01.19.04 (12:01 pm) [edit] |
The press has grown so omnipresent nowadays that there is no escape from it. It is therefore important to know exactly how to steer our course amidst the many perils that beset Catholics on this score. How then are we to distinguish between journals that merit or do not merit our confidence? Or rather, what kind of journals ought to inspire us with very little and what with no confidence? In the first place, it is clear that such journals as boast of their Liberalism have no claim to our confidence in matters that Liberalism touches on. These are precisely the enemies against whom we have constantly to be on guard, against whom we have to wage perpetual war.
This point then is outside of our present consideration. All those who in our times claim the title of Liberalism, in the specific sense in which we always use the term, become our declared enemies and the enemies of the Church of God.
But there is another class of journals less prompt to unmask and proclaim themselves, who love to live amidst ambiguities in an undefined and indefinite region of compromise. They declare themselves Catholic and aver their detestation and abhorrence of Liberalism, at least if we credit their words. These journals are generally known as Liberal Catholic. This is the class which we should especially mistrust, and we should not permit ourselves to be duped by its pretended piety. When we find journals, Catholic in name and in profession, strongly leaning to the side of compromise and seeking to placate the enemy by concessions, we may rest assured that they are being drawn down the Liberal current, which is always too strong for such weak swimmers. He who places himself in the vortex of a maelstrom is sure in the end to be engulfed in it. The logic of the situation brings the inevitable conclusion.
The Liberal current is easier to follow. It is largely made up of proselytes and readily attracts the self-love of the weak. The Catholic current is apparently more difficult; it has fewer partisans and friends and requires us constantly to row against the stream, to stem the tide of perverse ideas and corrupt passions. With the uncertain, the vacillating and the unwary, the Liberal current easily prevails and sweeps them away in its fatal embrace. There is no room, therefore, for confidence in the Liberal Catholic press, especially in cases where it is difficult to form a judgment.
Moreover, in such cases, its policy of compromise and conciliation hampers it from forming any decisive or absolute judgment, for the simple reason that its judgment has nothing decisive or radical in it; on the contrary, it is always overweighted with a preponderating inclination towards the expedient. Opportunism is its guiding star. The truly Catholic press is altogether Catholic, that is to say, it defends Catholic doctrine in all its principles and applications; it opposes all false teaching (known as such) always and entirely, opposite per diametrum ["diametrically opposed"], as St. Ignatius says in that golden book of his exercises. Arrayed with unceasing vigilance against error, it places itself on the frontier, always face-toface with the enemy. It never bivouacs with the hostile forces, as the compromising press loves to do.
Its opposition is definite and determined; it is not simply opposed to certain undeniable maneuvers of the foe, letting others escape its vigilance, but watches, guards, and resists at every point. It everywhere presents an unbroken front to evil, for evil is evil in everything, even in the good which, by chance, may accompany it.
Let us here make an observation to explain this last phrase, which may appear startling to some, and at the same time explain a difficulty entertained by not a few.
Bad journals (we include doctrinally unsound journals under this head) sometimes contain something good. What are we to think of the good thus imbedded with the bad in them? We must think that the good in them does not prevent them from being bad, if their doctrine or their character is intrinsically bad. In most cases this good is a mere artifice to recommend, or at least disguise, what in itself is essentially bad. Some accidentally good qualities do not take away the bad character of a bad man. An assassin and a thief are not good because they sometimes say a prayer or give alms to a beggar. They -are bad in spite of their good works, because the general character of their acts, as well as their habitual tendencies, is bad and if they sometimes do good in order to cloak their malice, they are even worse than before.
On the other hand, it sometimes happens that a good journal falls into such or such an error or into an excess of passion in a good cause and so says something which we cannot altogether approve. Must we for this reason call it bad? Not at all, and for a reverse although analogous reason. With it the evil is only accidental; the good constitutes its substance and is its ordinary condition. One of several sins do not make a man bad-above all, if he repent of them and make amends. That alone is bad which is bad with full knowledge, habitually and persistently. Catholic journalists are not angels; far from it; they too are fragile men and sinners. To wish to condemn them for such or such a failing, for this or that excess, is to entertain a pharisaical or jansenistic opinion of virtue, which is not in accord with sound morality!
To conclude, there are good and bad journals; among the latter are to be ranked those whose doctrine is ambiguous or ill-defined. Those that are bad are not to be accounted good because they happen to slip in something good, and those that are good are not to be accounted bad on account of some accidental failings.
Good Catholics, who judge and act loyally according to these principles, will rarely be deceived.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| How to Distinguish Faithful From Liberal Work? |
| 01.19.04 (11:57 am) [edit] |
Qui male agit odit lucem--"Everyone that doth evil hateth the light" (John 3:20)--said our Divine Lord. Iniquity works in obscurity. It is not difficult to discover an enemy who comes to meet us in the broad daylight, or not to recognize as Liberals those who frankly declare themselves to be such.
But this sort of frankness is not ordinary to the Liberal sect. On the contrary, it is usually very clever and cautious in concealing its real meaning in various disguises. We may add that often the eye that ought to discover the imposture is not the clearsighted eye of a lynx. There should therefore be some easy and popular criterion to distinguish, at every instant, the Catholic cry from the infernal birdcall of Liberalism.
It often happens that some project or enterprise is put on foot, some sort of a work is undertaken, whose bearings Catholics cannot promptly or easily apprehend. It may appear indifferent or even innocent enough, and yet it may have its roots in error and be a mere artifice of the enemy-flying our colors to allure us into an ambuscade. It may speak the language of charity, appealing to us from the tenderest side, and ask us to associate ourselves with it in the name of a common humanity. "Sink all differences of creed and let us fraternize on the broader plane of brotherly love" is often its most insidious appeal. Such instances are arising every day of our lives. "Consult the Church" some may say; "its word is infallible and will dissipate all uncertainty." Very true, but the authority of the Church cannot be consulted at every moment and in every particular case. The Church has wisely laid down certain general principles for our guidance, but it has left to the judgment and prudence of each of us the special application of these principles to the thousand and one concrete cases which we have to face every day. Now a case of this kind presents itself to be determined according to our own judgment and discretion. We are asked to give a contribution to such and such an undertaking, to Join such and such a society, to take part in such and such an enterprise, to subscribe to such and such a j'ournal, and all this may be for God or the devil; or what is worse, it may be evil cloaked in the garb of holy things. How shall we guide ourselves in such a labyrinth?
Here are two very practical rules of ready service to a Catholic who is walking on slippery ground:
1. Observe carefully what class of people are the projectors of the affair. Such is the first rule of prudence and common sense. It is based on that maxim of Our Lord: "A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit." Liberalism is naturally bound to produce writings, works and deeds impregnated with the spirit of Liberalism, or at least tainted with it. Therefore, we must carefully scrutinize the antecedents of the person or persons who organize or inaugurate the work in question. If they are such that you cannot have entire confidence in their doctrines, be on your guard against their enterprises. Do not disapprove immediately, for it is an axiom of theology that not all the works of infidels are sinful, and this axiom can be applied to the works of Liberals. But be careful not to take them immediately for good; mistrust them, submit them to examination, await their results.
2. Observe the kind of people who praise the work in question. This is an even surer rule than the preceding. There are in the world two perfectly distinct currents: the Catholic current and the Liberal current. The first is reflected for the most part by the Catholic press; the second is reflected by the Liberal press. Is a new book announced? Are the beginnings of a new project published? See if the Liberal current approves, recommends and accounts them its own. If yes, the book and the project are judged: they belong to Liberalism.
It is evident that Liberalism has inspired them, distinguishing immediately what is injurious or useful to it, for Liberalism is never such a fool as not to understand what is opposed to it or to be opposed to that which is favorable to it. The sects, religious or infidel, have an instinct, a particular intuition (olfactus mentis), as philosophers say, which reveals to them a priori what is good or what is bad for them. Repudiate, then, whatever Liberals praise or vaunt. It is evident that they have recognized-by its nature or by its origin, or as a means or as an end-something in the object so praised that is favorable to Liberalism. The clairvoyant instinct of the sect cannot deceive them. Certain scruples of charity and the habit of thinking well of our neighbor sometimes blind good people to such an extent as to lead them to attribute good intentions where unhappily they do not exist. This is not the case with falsifiers.
They always send their shot right to the center; they never credit good intentions where there are none, or even where there are. They always beat the bass-drum in favor of all that advances in any way their own nefarious propaganda. Discredit, therefore, what you see your known enemies proclaiming with hallelujahs.
It seems to us that these two rules of common sense, which we can call rules of good Christian sense, suffice-if not to enable us to judge definitively every question-at least to keep us from perpetually stumbling over the roughnesses of the uneven soil which we daily tread and where the combat is always taking place. The Catholic of the age should always bear in mind that the ground on which he walks is undermined in every direction by secret societies, that it is these who give the keynote to anti-Catholic polemics, that unconsciously and very often these secret societies are served even by those who detest their infernal work. The actual strife is principally underground and against an invisible enemy, who rarely presents himself under his real device. He is to be scented, rather than seen; to be divined by instinct, rather than pointed out with the finger.
A good scent and practical sense are more necessary here than subtle reasoning or labored
theories.
|
|
1 Comments
|
| |
| How to Avoid Liberalism |
| 01.19.04 (11:54 am) [edit] |
How may Catholics, who are perpetually surrounded by the snares of Liberalism, guard themselves securely against its dangers?
1. By the organization of all good Catholics, be their number great or small: They should become known to each other, meet each other, unite together in every locality-every city, town or village, should have a nucleus of Catholic men of action. Such an organization will attract the undecided, give courage to the hesitating and counteract the influence of hostile or indifferent surroundings. If you number only a dozen men of spirit, no matter. Found societies, especially of young men. Put yourselves in correspondence with older societies in your neighborhood, or even at a distance. Link your associations togetherassociation with association-as the Roman legions used to form the military tortoise, by uniting shield with shield over their heads. Thus united, be your number ever so small, lift on high the banner of a sound, pure and uncompromising doctrine, without disguise, without attenuation, yielding not an inch to the enemy. Uncompromising courage is always noble, commands sympathy, and wins over the chivalric. To see a man battered by the floods, yet standing firm as a rock, upright and immovable, is an inspiring sight! Above all, give good example, give good example always.
What you preach, do! You will soon see how easily you force people to respect you; when you have gained their admiration, their sympathy will soon follow. Proselytes will be forthcoming. If Catholics only understood what a brilliant secular apostolate they could exercise by being open, straightforward, uncompromising practical Catholics, in word and deed, Liberalism and heresy would die a quick death.
2. Good journals: Choose from among good journals that which is best, the one best adapted to the needs and the intelligence of the people who surround you. Read it; but not content with that, give it to others to read; explain it; comment on it, let it be your basis of operations. Busy yourself in securing subscriptions for it. Encourage the reluctant to take it; make it easy for those to whom it seems troublesome to send in their subscriptions. Place it in the hands of young people who are beginning their careers. Impress on them the necessity of reading it; show them its merits and its value. They will begin by tasting the sauce and will at last eat the fish. This is the way the advocates of Liberalism and impiety work for their journals; so then ought we to work for ours. A good Catholic journal is a peremptory or imperative necessity in our day. Whatever be its defects or inconveniences, its advantages and its benefits will outweigh them a thousandfold. The Holy Father has said that "a Catholic paper is a perpetual mission in every parish." It is ever an antidote to the false journalism that meets you on every side. In general, do all in your power to further the circulation of Catholic literature, be it in the shape of book, brochure, lecture, sermon or pastoral letter. The weapon of the crusader of our times is the printed word.
3. The Catholic school: With all your power support the Catholic school, in deed and in word, with your whole heart and your whole soul. The Catholic school has become in this age the only secure bridge of the Faith from generation to generation. In our own country, we have been compelled to establish our own schools, unaided and alone. The prejudice and intolerance of Liberalism has refused us common justice. While we protest against the wrong and never cease demanding our right, our clear and peremptory duty is to provide the best possible schools of our own, where our children may be educated in the full and only true sense of the word. Where Catholic schools are needed, build them, build them, build them! Never tire in this absolutely necessary work. Bend every energy to it. Archbishop Hughes said, "Not until I have built my school shall one stone of my Cathedral be laid upon another' " This great prelate fully realized what every Catholic today should take as his motto, "The foundation of the parish church is the schoolhouse'" Be the support of the school a burden, be it built and perpetuated at a great sacrifice, its value is beyond estimation, the burden and the sacrifice are featherweights in comparison to the good that arises from the Catholic school. The spiritual life of a parish without a school is tepid, neither hot nor cold. Let the school be the best possible. Too much time or too much care cannot be given to it, for Catholic education amidst the deluge of Liberalism-which has overwhelmed the world-is the ark of salvation. Speak out fearlessly on this matter of education. Say squarely and frankly that irreligious education leads to the devil. An irreligious school is the school of Satan. Danton, a celebrated French revolutionist, continually cried, "Boldness! More boldness!" But we, for our part, must let our constant cry be, "Frankness! Frankness! Light! Light!" Nothing will more quickly put to flight the legions of Hell, who seduce only under the shelter of darkness.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| The Permanent Causes of Liberalism |
| 01.19.04 (11:51 am) [edit] |
Liberalism is spread around us like a network.
Its web is being constantly spun round about us as spiders weave their meshes for insects. Where one is brushed away, two are multiplied. What is the reason for this?
Philosophy teaches us that the same sources which produce also preserve and increase things.
Per quae gignitur, per eadem et servatur et augetur.
What then are the permanent causes of Liberalism?
1. Corruption of morals: The theater, literature, public and private morals are all saturated with obscenity and impurity. The result is inevitable; a corrupt generation necessarily begets a revolutionary generati .on. Liberalism is the program of naturalism. Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES. Liberalism in the intellectual order is license in the moral order. Disorder in the intellect begets disorder in the heart, and vice-versa. Thus does Liberalism propagate immorality, and immorality Liberalism.
2. Journalism: Incalculable is the influence exercised without ceasing by the numerous publications which Liberalism spreads broadcast. In spite of themselves, by the ubiquity of the press, people are forced to live in a Liberal atmosphere.
Commerce, the arts, literature, science, politics, domestic andforeign news, all reach us in some way through Liberal channels and come clothed I.n a Liberal dress. UNLESS ONE IS ON HIS GUARD, HE FINDS HIMSELF THINKING, SPEAKING AND ACTING AS A LIBERAL. Such is the tainted character of the empoisoned air we breathe! Poor people, by very reason of their simple good faith, absorb more easily the poison than anyone else; they absorb it in prose, in verse, in pictures, in public, in private, in the city, in the country, everywhere.
Liberal doctrines ever pursue them and, like leeches, fasten onto them, never to relax their hold. Its work is rendered much more harmful by the particular condition of the disciple, as we shall see in our third count.
3. General ignorance in matters of religion: In weaving its meshes around the people, Liberalism has applied itself to the task of cutting them off from all communication with that which alone is able to lay bare its imposture-the Church. For the past two hundred years, Liberalism has striven to paralyze the action of the Church, to render her mute, and-especially in the Old World-to leave her merely an official character, so as to sever her connections with the people. The Liberals themselves have avowed this to be their aim: to destroy the religious life, to place every hindrance possible in the way of Catholic teaching, to ridicule the clergy and to deprive them of their prestige. In Italy and France today, see the thousand and one artificial arrangements thrown around the Church to hinder and hamper her actions, to render ineffectual her opposition to the flood of Liberalism. The concordats, such as are observed at the present time, are so many iron collars which Liberalism has placed around her neck to stifle her. Freemasonry in Europe and South America are constantly seeking to bind her hand and foot, that she may be put at its satanic mercy.
By open and secret means, this organization has sought to undermine her discipline in every country where it has obtained a footing. Between her and the people, it seeks to dig a deeper and deeper abyss of hate, prejudice and calumny. NATURALISM, THE DENIAL OF THE SUPERNATURAL, IT INCULCATES EVERYWHERE. To divorce the entire life of the people from her influence-by the institution of civil marriage, by civil burial and divorce, by teaching the insidious doctrine that society as such has no religious relations or obligations and that man as a social and civil being is absolutely independent of God and His Church and that rel' ion is a mere private opi .nion to be entertained or not entertained, as one pleasessuch is the program, such is the effect, and such, in turn, is the cause of Liberalism. But the most pernicious-because the most successful and lasting-propagator of Liberalism is:
4. Secular education: To gain the child is to secure the man. To educate a generation apart from God and the Church is to feed the fires of Liberalism to repletion. When religion is divorced from the school, Liberalism becomes its paramour. Secularism is naturalism, the denial of the supernatural. When that denial is instilled into the soul of the child, the soil of the supernatural becomes sterilized. Liberalism hasrealized the terrific power of education and with satanic energy is now striving, the world over, for the possession of the child. (With what success we have only to look around us to realize.) In its effort to slay Christ, it decrees the slaughter of the innocents. "Snatch the soul of the child from the breast of its mother the Church," says Liberalism, "and I will conquer the world." HERE IS THE REAL BATTLEGROUND BETWEEN FAITH AND INFIDELITY. HE WHO IS VICTOR HERE IS VICTOR EVERYWHERE.
|
|
1 Comments
|
| |
| How Faithful People Fall Into Liberalism |
| 01.19.04 (11:48 am) [edit] |
Various are the ways in which a faithful Christian is drawn into the error of Liberalism.
Very often corruption of heart is a consequence of errors of the intellect, but more frequently still, errors of the intellect follow the corruption of the heart. The history of heresies very clearly shows this fact. Their beginnings nearly always present the same character, either wounded self-love or a grievance to be avenged; either it is a woman that makes the heresiarch lose his head and his soul, or it is a bag of gold for which he sells his conscience.
Error nearly always has its origin, not in profound and laborious studies, but in the triple-headed monster which St. John describes and calls Concupiscentia carnis, concupiscentia oculorum, superbia vitae 'Concupiscence of the flesh, concupiscence of the eyes, the pride of life." Here are the sources of all error, here are the roads to Liberalism. Let us dwell on them for a moment. 1. Men become Liberal on account of a natural desire for independence and for an easy life. Liberalism is necessarily sympathetic with the depraved nature of man, just as Catholicity is essentially opposed to it. Liberalism is emancipation from restraint; Catholicity the curb of the passions. Now, fallen man, by a very natural tendency, loves a system which legitimatizes and sanctifies his pride of intellect and the license of passion. Hence, Tertullian says, "The soul, in its noble aspirations, is naturally Christian." Likewise may it be said that man, by the taint of his origin, is born naturally Liberal. Logically then does he declare himself a Liberal in due form when he discovers that Liberalism offers a protection for his caprices and an excuse for his indulgences.
2. Men become Liberal by the desire for advancement in life. Liberalism is today the dominating idea; it reigns everywhere and especially in the sphere of public life. It is therefore a sure recommendation to public favor.
On starting out in life, the young man looks around upon the various paths that lead to fortune, to fame, to glory, and sees that an almost indispensable condition of reaching the desired goal is, at least in our times, to become Liberal.
Not to be Liberal is to place in his way, at the outset, what appears to be an insurmountable obstacle. He must be heroic to resist the Tempter, who shows him, as he did Jesus Christ in the desert, a splendid future, saying: Haec omnia tibi dabo si cadens adoraveris me: "All this will I give thee, if, falling down, thou wilt adore me." Heroes are rare, and it is natural that most young men beginning their career should affiliate with Liberalism. It promises them the assistance of a powerful press, the recommendation of powerful protectors, the potent influence of secret societies, the patronage of distinguished men. The poor Ultramontane requires a thousand times more merit to make himself known and to acquire a name, and youth is ordinarily little scrupulous.
Liberalism, moreover, is essentially favorable to that public life which this age so ardently pursues.
It holds out as tempting baits public offices, commissions, fat positions, etc., which constitute the organism of the official machine. It seems an absolute condition for political preferment. To meet an ambitious young man who despises and detests the perfidious Corrupter is a marvel of God's grace.
3. Men become Liberal out of avarice, or the love of money. To get along in the world, to succeed in business, is always a standing temptation of Liberalism. It meets the young man at every turn. Around him in a thousand ways does he feel the secret or open hostility of the enemies of his faith. In mercantile life or in the professions he is passed by, overlooked, ignored. Let him relax a little in his faith, Join a forbidden secret society, and lo, the bolts and bars are drawn; he possesses the "open sesame" to success! Then the invidious discrimination against him melts in the fraternal embrace of the enemy, who rewards his perfidy by advancing him in a thousand ways. Such a temptation is difficult for the ambitious to withstand. Be Liberal, admit that there is no great difference between men's creeds, that at the bottom they are really the same after all. Proclaim your breadth of mind by admitting that other religious beliefs are just as good for other people as your faith is for you; they are, as far as they know, just as right as you are; it is largely a question of education and temperament what a man believes; and how quickly you are patted on the back as a "broad-gauged" man who has escaped the narrow limitations of his creed. You will be extensively patronized, for Liberalism is very generous to a convert. "Falling down adore me, and I will give you all these things' " says Satan yet to Jesus Christ in the desert.
Such are the ordinary causes of perversions to Liberalism; from these all others flow. Whoever has any experience of the world and the human heart can easily trace the others.
|
|
1 Comments
|
| |
| Two Kinds of Liberalism |
| 01.19.04 (11:43 am) [edit] |
Philosophy and theology teach that there are two kinds of atheism, doctrinal (or speculative) and practical. The first consists in an open and direct denial of the existence of God; the second consists in acting and living without denying the existence of God, but yet as if He did not really exist. Those who profess the first are called theoretical or doctrinal atheists; those who live according to the second, practical atheists; the latter are the more numerous.
It is the same with Liberalism and Liberals. There are theoretical and practical Liberals. The first are the dogmatizers of the sect--the philosophers, the professors, the controversialists, the journalists. They teach Liberalism in books, in discourses, in articles, by argument or by authority, in conformity with a rationalistic criterion, in disguised or open opposition to the criterion of the divine and supernatural revelation of Jesus Christ.
Practical Liberalists are by far in the greater majority. Like a flock of sheep, with closed eyes, they follow their leaders. They know nothing in truth of principles and systems, and did they perceive the perversity of their instructors, would perhaps detest them. But, deceived by a false cry or shibboleth, they troop docilely after their false guides. They are nonetheless the hands that act, while the theorists are the heads that direct. Without them [i.e., the practical Liberals], Liberalism would never pass beyond the narrow bounds of speculation. It is the practical Liberalists that give it life and exterior movement. They constitute the prime matter of Liberalism--disposed to take on any form, ready for any folly or absurdity proposed by the leaders.
Amongst Catholic Liberals, many go to Mass, even make novenas, and yet when they come into contact with the world, they lead the lives of practical Liberals. They make it a rule "to live up to the times" as they call it. The Church they believe to be somewhat out-of-date, an old fogy, that she is held back by a certain set of reactionaries, ultramontanes; but they have hopes that she will in the course of time catch up with the modern spirit of progress, of which they are the van. The barnacles of medievalism still incumber the Bark of Peter, but time, they believe, will remedy this. The straw of medieval philosophy and theology they hope before long to thrash out by the introduction of the modern spirit into her schools.
Then will a new theology be developed, more in conformity with the needs of the times, more in harmony with the modern spirit, which makes such large demands upon our "intellectual liberty" [Unfortunately, we have witnessed all this come to pass in the wake of Vatican Council II, 1962--1965, with disastrous results. --Editor, 1993.] So they believe (or imagine they believe) that all is well. Is their responsibility before God therefore lessened? Assuredly not. They sin directly in the light of faith. They are less excusable than those Liberals who have never been within the pale of the Church. In short they sin with their eyes open.
Amongst Liberals we must not forget to include those who manage to evade any direct exposition or expression of the Liberal theory, but who nevertheless obliquely sustain it in their daily practice by writing and orating after the Liberal method, by recommending Liberal books and men, measuring and appreciating everything according to the Liberal criterion, and manifesting, on every occasion that offers, an intense hatred for anything that tends to discredit or weaken their beloved Liberalism. Such is the conduct of those prudent journalists whom it is difficult to apprehend in the flagrant advocacy of any proposition concretely Liberal, but who nevertheless, in what they say and in what they do not say, never cease to labor for the propagation of this cunning heresy. Of all Liberal reptiles, these are the most venomous.
|
|
1 Comments
|
| |
| Bashing Mel Gibson |
| 01.19.04 (8:02 am) [edit] |
The following quotes represent some of the most unfair statements on Mel Gibson and his film, "The Passion of the Christ." The selections in each category are in reverse chronological order.
Organizational Responses Commentary
Ad Hoc Committee *
American Jewish Committee
Anti-Defamation League
Simon Wiesenthal Center
Rabbinical Alliance of America
Columnists
Correspondents
Letters
Miscellaneous
News Stories
Organizational Responses:
Ad Hoc Committee of Catholic and Jewish Scholars *
*NEW* The Jewish Week (NY), December 26, 2003; Father John T. Pawlikowski:
[Fr. Pawlikowski, who has continuously responded to prelates' endorsements of the film by demanding nothing short of papal approval, now comments on the pope's approval of the film.] "...It is important to understand that this is hardly a magisterial pronouncement from the Pope that is above critique. I remain, as do others, very skeptical as to whether this ailing Pope was fully briefed about the concerns we and others have expressed" [emphasis added].
*NEW* The Jewish Week (NY), December 26, 2003; Michael Cook:
"The issue, I submit, is not Mel Gibson's movie at all but the future of Catholic-Jewish trust. Either the Vatican and/or the bishops are not tuned into this reality, or they don't care, or they do care but Jews are simply not as high on the priority list as Jews had hoped.
"...The question to be posed to the Bishops and the Vatican and the Pope is not, 'Say, is the movie great, or what?' but rather, 'If this film poses the threat of unraveling five decades of advances in Christian-Jewish relations, then what shall we say about it in that light?'
"...In their own sense of abandonment, Jews may very well abandon the venture of Catholic-Jewish understanding [and turn toward Evangelicals] ...a move I predict has already begun to spread nationwide.
"...As many have said to me, 'You know, it's just like what happened to us in the Six-Day War. Evangelicals may want to end us by converting us, but at least they won't abandon us.'"
Cybercast News Service, November 7, 2003; Sister Mary C. Boys:
"Boys noted that the movie is already 'dividing evangelicals and Catholics—Catholics and Catholics, and Christians and Jews.
"'I don't believe that [given the divisive] result that he [Mel Gibson] could claim that the Holy Spirit is behind this. ...
"'Our concern is what happens after people see the film? Will anti-Semitic actions happen or will attitudes against the Jews be exacerbated by this film?'"
Cybercast News Service, November 7, 2003; Paula Fredriksen:
"Paula Fredriksen ... believes Gibson's production will prove to be "an inflammatory movie.' ...
"Fredriksen said the movie continues the 'toxic tradition of blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus.
"'A movie like this could very possibly elicit violence against Jews.'"
National Catholic Register, October 5, 2003; "The Passion: Still a Sign of Contradiction," by Barbara R. Nicolosi:
"One of the scholars who started all the controversy by publicly lambasting an early version of the screenplay told me emphatically, 'The New Testament is undeniably anti-Semitic.'"
The New Republic, September 29, 2003; Correspondence by Paula Fredriksen:
"...Gibson has 'every right to decide for himself' how to present his movie. But does he have a 'right' to misrepresent what his movie is? Gibson has repeatedly claimed that 'The Passion' is both scripturally faithful (an 'accurate' rendering of the gospel material) and historically accurate (true to a plausible reconstruction of early first-century Jerusalem). In fact, it is neither. That is the problem. ...
"Finally, as the chronology in my article argued and as the four-minute trailer for the movie and subsequent reports from viewers have confirmed, the script that we saw was the script that Gibson shot from. That is how I know what the movie is about--though I am sure that the grisly makeup and Gibsonian gore make the visual experience even more lurid than was the script itself. ...
"I am still counting on the people in the pew who, when they view Gibson's movie, will not recognize any gospel known to them."
The Jewish Week, September 19, 2003; Sister Mary C. Boys:
"'One of the problems is people are going to see this film and are going to conclude that's the way it is because they don't know anything different, it's part of the religious illiteracy in our country,' Sister Boys said. 'We really have to find ways to educate them about interpreting Scripture more thoughtfully.'"
The Times Union (NY), September 19, 2003; Sister Mary C. Boys:
"'It's not understanding,' she said of Gibson's script. 'He wouldn't know a scholar if he ran into one.'"
The New Yorker, September 15, 2003; Paula Fredriksen:
"He [Mel Gibson] doesn't even have a Ph.D. on his staff."
The Evangelist (Diocese of Albany, NY), September 11, 2003; Sister Mary C. Boys:
"The average Christian goes to see this film, which is going to be incredibly graphic, and [thinks] the people that do this to Jesus are the Jews. This does not do well for Christian-Jewish relations."
National Public Radio, "All Things Considered," September 3, 2003; Sister Mary C. Boys:
"Will this film exacerbate divisions between Christians and Jews? Will this film exacerbate differences between traditionalist Catholics and those who see themselves more in the mainstream? Will this film exacerbate divisions between, say, Catholics and evangelicals? And I think if it does any of those, then I find it difficult to believe that the Holy Spirit is at work."
Philadelphia Inquirer, August 21, 2003; Paula Fredriksen:
"There is no plot, no character development, no subtlety. The bad guys are way bad, the good guys are way good."
Associated Press, August 9, 2003; Sister Mary C. Boys:
"For too many years, Christians have accused Jews of being Christ-killers and used that charge to rationalize violence.... This is our fear."
Kansas City Star, August 9, 2003; Sister Mary C. Boys:
"Our fear is that if the film is based on the script we read—which is possible but not necessarily the case—it could promote anti-Semitic sentiments."
Beliefnet.com, August 7, 2003; Amy-Jill Levine:
"I don't know if the film is ant-Semitic—I have only seen a version of the script—but the reaction to the scholars' objections could be interpreted as anti-Semitic. ...
"Alas, fidelity, accuracy, and sensitivity were all lacking in the script I saw for Mr. Gibson's production."
ABC, "Good Morning America," August 5, 2003; Paula Fredriksen:
"I don't plan to pay money to see it. He's gotten enough of my time for free already."
Fox News Network, "The O'Reilly Factor," August 5, 2003; Paula Fredriksen:
"...I saw a later script, not an early script. So I do have a sense of what the film is about. The point is how you take that. We were just talking about the Jewish temple guard assisting Roman soldiers in arresting Jesus.
"And if you then say that the entire incentive for the action is at the motivation of the chief priest, and that the chief priest is leaning on Pilate, so that Pilate is very anxious, of course, to keep his Jewish subjects happy—I mean, it's a colonial power. Pilot doesn't have to run his office on popularity.
"Then you can foreground and overemphasizing you can foreground and overemphasize and distort [sic], and end up having all the heavy lifting done by the Jewish high priest and having it, it ends up being a fight between Judaism and Christianity."
MSNBC, "Buchanan & Press," August 4, 2003; Paula Fredriksen:
"I think it's inflammatory."
The New York Times, August 2, 2003; Sister Mary C. Boys:
"When we read the screenplay, our sense was this wasn't really something you could fix. All the way through, the Jews are portrayed as bloodthirsty. We're really concerned that this could be one of the great crises in Christian-Jewish relations."
The New York Times, August 2, 2003; Father John T. Pawlikowski:
"This was one of the worst things we had seen in describing responsibility for the death of Christ in many many years."
The New Republic, July 28, 2003 - August 4, 2003, "Mad Mel," by Paula Fredriksen:
"We knew that we were working against his [Mel Gibson's] enthusiasm, his utter lack of knowledge....
"Jews are the objects of anti-Semitism, but Catholics and other Christians, inspired by Gibson's movie, could well become its agents. (Indeed, on the evidence of the anti-Semitic hate mail that we have all received since being named as critics of Gibson's screenplay, this response is already in play.) ...
"When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to." [emphasis added]
Dramatizing the Death of Jesus: Issues that Have Surfaced in Media Reports about the Upcoming Film, The Passion; by Mary C. Boys, Philip A. Cunningham, Lawrence E. Frizzell, John T. Pawlikowski, June 17, 2003:
"We understood from the outset of our review of the script that our report did not represent an official statement of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops….
"Anyone who composes a script for a dramatic presentation of the death of Jesus must draw upon four distinct passion narratives in the four gospels in the New Testament. One cannot assume that by simply conforming to the New Testament that antisemitism [sic] will not be promoted."
New York Post, June 13, 2003; Mel Doesn't Stick to the Scripture in Crime of 'Passion' by Andrea Peyser:
"Dr. Paula Fredriksen of Boston University said: 'Jesus was Jewish. But with this story, it's easy to forget.'
"Gibson has said his film was to tell the true story of Jesus' death.
"There is still time, Mel, to tell the truth."
The Jewish Week, March 28, 2003; Sister Mary Boys:
"As a member of the Catholic Church, I regard his thinking as bizarre and dangerous, and suggest that Jews judge them similarly. ...
"We seem to have at best fringe Catholics if not heretical with ... a tragically twisted understanding of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. It is compounded by the arrogance great wealth makes possible in producing a film that will reopen wounds of history."
The Jewish Week, March 28, 2003; Michael Cook:
"Dr. Michael Cook, a professor of Judaeo-Christian Studies at Hebrew Union College, said, 'Gibson's film may reverse progress the Christian community has made' in reinterpreting anti-Jewish New Testament passages. ...
"'Were Jesus today to witness the hatred exuded and directed against fellow Jews by this film, might Jesus not construe the theaters showing it as modern 'temples' most in need of his cleansing?'"
The Jewish Week, March 28, 2003; Rev. John Pawlikowski:
"Father John Pawlikowski ... said he is 'naturally quite upset at the prospect of this film. ... Those who might see the film without much or any background in recent biblical interpretation will be terribly misled.'"
American Jewish Committee
Forward, September 26, 2003; Rabbi David Rosen, director of interreligious affairs:
"This is distressing because there is a battle between the more traditional and the more liberal wings within the Catholic Church, and the relationship with the Jewish community has become a football in this fight."
The Jewish Week (NY), August 15, 2003; Rabbi James Rudin, senior interreligious adviser:
"I came away very troubled because this movie as it stands has the potential to harm Christian-Jewish relations in many parts of the world."
Christian Science Monitor (MA), July 10, 2003; Rabbi James Rudin, senior interreligious adviser:
"Given that this is radioactive material - that's the only way I can describe it—I'm urging Mr. Gibson to follow what others have done and consult prior to release."
Anti-Defamation League
Cybercast News Service, November 7, 2003; Abraham Foxman, National Director:
"'I think he's infected—seriously infected—with some very, very serious anti-Semitic views. ...
"'[Gibson's] got classical anti-Semitic views.' ...
"Foxman claimed that 'hate crimes [against Jews] go up Easter week worldwide' because in many Christian churches, 'the sermon is given about the passion.'"
Associated Press, September 19, 2003; Abraham Foxman:
"Foxman said the actor 'entertains views that can only be described as anti-Semitic.'"
Daily News (NY), September 19, 2003; Abraham Foxman:
"...Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League said signs already are ominous.
"'We've been getting mail - ugly, ugly mail,' he said. 'If the debate has evoked such hate, what will that film do?'
"Foxman said Gibson's recent statements—portraying himself as the target of shadowy conspiracies and "anti-Christian" newspapers—highlighted his concerns.
"'He's painting a portrait of an anti-Semite,' he said. 'This is anti-Semitic stereotyping.'"
Daily Variety, September 19, 2003; Abraham Foxman:
"Foxman, who has requested to see but not yet screened the film, said of the cardinal's comments: 'It makes the film worse, more damaging, more threatening because what we thought we had eliminated with Vatican II is coming back in a film.'
"Foxman also charged that Castrillon Hoyos was attempting to appease traditionalist Catholics. 'It seems to be a conscious policy to bring them closer at our expense,' he said.
"Foxman emphasized that the ADL has had a very good relationship with American Catholic officials, collaborating on interfaith initiatives designed to combat anti-Semitism.
"'I guess we should now take this up with Rome,' Foxman said."
The Jewish Week, September 19, 2003; Abraham Foxman:
"'When you put those things together [Mel Gibson's statements],' said Foxman, 'that is a portrait of an anti-Semite. To me this is classic anti-Semitism.'"
Minnesota Public Radio, "Marketplace," September 9, 2003; Abraham Foxman:
"Can you imagine, if this film is not changed and it begins to play around the world, what—what it may possibly trigger?"
Daily News (NY), September 7, 2003; Abraham Foxman:
"Foxman, who survived the Holocaust because Catholic clergy baptized him to shield him from the Nazis, added, 'I think [Gibson] is on the fringes of anti-Semitism.'"
National Public Radio, "All Things Considered," September 3, 2003; Abraham Foxman:
"He said such things as he now understands what Jesus Christ felt like; he understands what it means to be persecuted. Well, finish that sentence. By whom? Or he says this will probably be the last film he's permitted to make. Well, who's going to stop him? It's unstated. Or he made this film and at a tremendous cost, but for some this is a great opportunity to make money. And again, he's talking about Jews, Jewish organizations."
Houston Chronicle, August 18, 2003; letter by Mark S. Finkelstein, chair, Anti-Defamation League, Southwest Region, Houston:
"It [the film] threatens to set back the decades of progress that has been made in inter-faith relations between Christians and Jews since the Holocaust."
Philadelphia Inquirer, August 13, 2003; Abraham Foxman:
"Abraham Foxman, the [Anti-Defamation League's] national director, had expressed concerns that if Gibson's 'message was tainted, [the movie] is dangerous. He is an icon. People will see this film without a guide, without their priest.'"
Anti-Defamation League Press Release, August 11, 2003; Abraham Foxman:
"We are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, will fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate....
"'We hope that Mr. Gibson and Icon Productions will consider modifying 'The Passion,' so that the film will be one that is historically accurate, theologically sound and free of any anti-Semitic message."
Anti-Defamation League Press Release, August 11, 2003; Rabbi Eugene Korn, ADL Director of Interfaith Affairs:
“Many theologically informed Catholics and Protestants have expressed the same concerns regarding anti-Semitism, and that this film may undermine Christian-Jewish dialogue and could turn back the clock on decades of positive progress in interfaith relations."
The Sun (NY), August 4, 2003; Op-Ed, by Abraham Foxman:
"In a world when anti-Semitism has undergone a frightening resurgence, one of the hopeful perspectives is the fact that the Church has changed so dramatically. We urge the makers of 'The Passion' to continue this important progress that has benefited Christians and Jews."
The Washington Post, July 22, 2003; Abraham Foxman:
"'I find this sad,' said ADL National Director Abraham Foxman, who hasn't been permitted to see the movie. 'Here's a man who appeals to the mass audience, but he feels he has to surround himself with a cordon sanitaire of people who back him theologically and maybe ideologically and will stand up and be supportive when the time comes.'"
Christian Science Monitor (MA), July 10, 2003; Abraham Foxman:
"We don't have the arrogance to say, 'You should make these changes,' or to censor it.... We'd just like an opportunity to sensitize him [Mel Gibson] about what history has taught us."
New York Post, June 21, 2003; Letter, Ken Jacobson, Assoc. National Director:
"We have good reason to be seriously concerned about Gibson's plans to retell the Passion. Historically, the Passion—the story of the killing of Jesus—has resulted in the death of Jews."
Daily News (NY), June 14, 2003; Myrna Shinbaum, spokeswoman:
"'Historically, treatment of the death of Jesus and the passion has led to the death of Jews,' ADL spokeswoman Myrna Shinbaum said. 'Since Vatican II in the 1960s, Catholics and Jews have worked very hard to move away from a literal interpretation [of the New Testament]. We would hope this film wouldn't set us back.'"
The Jewish Week, March 28, 2003; Abraham Foxman:
"'It's very serious,' warns Abraham Foxman, national director of Anti-Defamation League. 'The 'truth' he [Mel Gibson] is talking about has been used for 2,000 years to buttress anti-Semitism and to give a rationale for persecuting Jews.'"
Simon Wiesenthal Center
Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, August 24, 2003; Rabbi Marvin Hier, Dean:
"It's a headache we don't need. ...
"Now since the Romans are not here anymore, if you're upset with how Jesus died, there's only one people left to blame—and that's the Jews."
CNN, "CNN Live Sunday," August 10, 2003; Rabbi Marvin Hier:
"Jews have a right to be concerned. We're the ones that paid the bill in the last 20 centuries for the false charge of deicide causing millions of deaths."
Forward, August 8, 2003, Letter by Harold Brackman, Consultant:
"It is Christians who bear the responsibility, after 2,000 years of religious-inspired anti-Semitism, to inhibit rather than inflame the excesses of their own haters. When filmmakers with a Christological agenda fail to accept this responsibility, the blood that may result is indeed on their hands."
Newsday (NY), July 22, 2003; Rabbi Marvin Hier:
"This is a story for which millions of people throughout history paid with their lives. They were burned at the stake, killed in pogroms and the Inquisition, and it was also these ideas that served as the foundation of the Holocaust."
CNN, "Live From the Headlines," June 30, 2003; Rabbi Marvin Hier:
"What I am saying is that four Catholic scholars representing the Catholic bishops, joined five Jewish scholars, unanimously felt there was a great deal of anti-Semitism in the script."
Los Angeles Times, June 22, 2003; "Mel's Passion; Gibson's making a film on Jesus worries some Jews," by Rabbi Marvin Hier and Harold Brackman:
"Any film about such a sensitive subject would set off alarm bells. But a film by Gibson is particularly alarming. ...
"At this tinderbox moment in our new century, we need to be especially careful about a movie that has the potential to further ignite ancient hatreds."
MSNBC, Scarborough Country, June 11, 2003; Rabbi Marvin Hier:
Joe Scarborough, host: "Rabbi, if you read the four gospels - what do the four gospels in the New Testament say about the crucifixion of Jesus?"
Rabbi Marvin Hier: "Well, first, let me go right to the point. That's a lot of nonsense. Let me say..."
Scarborough: "What's a lot of nonsense?"
Heir: "That the Jews—first of all, crucifixion is illegal according to Jewish law. According to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) law..."
Scarborough: "What's a lot of nonsense, though?"
Heir: "To blame the—Christ was crucified. Crucifixion is not a Jewish method of punishment. Secondly, the event occurred on Passover night. If you could get one Rabbi to leave his Seder to participate in a judgment on Passover night, it would be like getting the Supreme Court to convene in the United States for a night trial. It is simply impossible."
Rabbinical Alliance of America
Jerusalem Post, September 12, 2003; Letter by Rabbi Abraham B. Hecht and Rabbi Joshua S. Hecht, Rabbinical Alliance of America:
"The Rabbinical Alliance of America, representing the united voice of 500 Orthodox rabbis serving Jewish communities throughout North America, strongly opposes The Passion, produced by actor and director Mel Gibson.
"The message of this movie—as widely reported by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles and by others who have reviewed the film—is highly problematic for its historical inaccuracy and its message of intolerance and overt anti-Semitic overtones."
Commentary
Columnists
The State (SC), November 20, 2003; "Pass on Gibson's Passion," by Rabbi Marc Howard Wilson:
"...The wacky perspective of a wacko Catholic will certainly not change their [Jewish] minds."
Village Voice (NY), November 7, 2003; "Mel Gibson's Jesus Christ Pose," by Jessica Winter:
"It may instigate violence..."
Palm Beach Post, October 24, 2003; "Gibson's film all about his own agenda," by Steve Gushee:
"Sure, Mel Gibson's film, The Passion, is probably anti-Semitic. The less obvious but more dangerous problem is that the movie about the death of Jesus is probably not Christian. ...
"Any version of the Crucifixion that blatantly ignores | |
