Simplifying the Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage Debates (With Flowcharts!)

Political debates consist of highly opinionated individuals screaming at each other and misunderstanding (often deliberately) their opponents' arguments. Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than during debates over abortion and same-sex marriage.
But these debates are surprisingly simple upon careful reflection. Out of the goodness of my heart (and a desire to protect my sanity from increasingly inane slogans and rhetoric), I am simplifying the abortion and same-sex marriage debates down to their barest essentials.

Regarding abortion: Is the fetus in a woman's womb human life or not?

If yes, then abortion should be outlawed, unless you go the Peter Singer or Mary Elizabeth Williams route and argue that terminating human life is acceptable in certain circumstances. 

If no, then abortion should clearly be permitted. 

If a fetus becomes a child at some point within the womb, then you permit abortion before it becomes a child, and outlaw it after that point.
Here's a flowchart explaining the abortion debate...

Regarding same-sex marriage: For secular purposes (yes, I know Catholics like me consider marriage a sacrament, but we don't live in a society where Catholicism is the law of the land), is marriage an institution designed to encourage the procreation of children within stable families, or is it a legal contract recognizing the legitimacy of partners in a consensual relationship?

If marriage is a contract granting legal recognition to a consensual relationship, then same-sex marriage (and, for that matter, any consensual relationship) should be permitted by secular authorities.

If marriage is an institution designed to encourage the stable rearing of children, does the gender of the parents matter in the creation and raising of children?

If so, then same-sex marriage should be banned. If not, then same sex marriage should be permitted. 

To illustrate this debate, here's a handy flowchart.

A World Without Discrimination, and Other Fairy Tales

Eliminating government discrimination is an undesirable impossibility.
In an ideal world, people would agree to defend a specific list of rights. That way, individual conceptions of what constitutes "rights" would not conflict with one another, and the charge of discrimination would be impossible to make. Of course, it isn't an ideal world, and in practice, functional governments must practice some discrimination in some form.
Governments do not and indeed cannot outlaw personal discrimination in a world where people disagree on what constitutes a "right." But governments can and do choose which actions to discriminate against. Certain groups of like-minded individuals will always have the applications of their views limited by government.
Some forms of government discrimination are obvious and necessary. Obviously, governments discriminate against those whose belief systems encourage evils such as ritual murder, by not allowing those individuals to put their practices into action. Belief systems promoting actions harmful to life, liberty, and property are discriminated against by government.
There are other belief systems that are not directly harmful to life, liberty, and property that also face widely accepted government discrimination. Racism is a perfect example of a belief system that is (rightfully) discriminated against. Before the Civil Rights Era, a web of laws discriminated against people of color. Now, the shoe is on the other foot - businesses cannot, by law, discriminate against people because of their race.
Racist business owners could validly complain that they are being "discriminated against" by government. Their freedom to act in a manner which unfairly judges others based on the color of their skin would indeed be limited by law. And 95% or more of the US population would rightfully ignore their complaints, viewing discrimination based on race as detrimental to society.
Questions of discrimination are still being resolved in other areas. The members of the same-sex marriage movement are rapidly coming into conflict with defenders of religious liberty; the supposed "freedom to marry" is clashing with religious freedom.
These two freedoms cannot coexist peacefully. Society will be therefore forced to choose between upholding the old freedom of religious liberty, as outlined in the First Amendment, and the new "freedom to marry." And in making this choice, society must necessarily practice discrimination against one of these two groups. Either individuals in homosexual relationships will not have the freedom to marry, or the members of religious institutions will be forced to facilitate actions they oppose on religious grounds.
When government is forced to choose between two conflicting conceptions of rights, the defenders of at least one of these conceptions of rights will complain of discrimination.

The Tyranny of the Moment

Like many American males, I love sports, and watch my favorite teams almost obsessively. (Especially the Denver Broncos.) I justify this mild obsession in many ridiculous ways, one of which is that sports often serves as a mirror of society as a whole.
One of the biggest trends in sports that society far too frequently mimics is the trend of living in the moment. For the narrative in sports is always the present. Rarely is the past dwelt upon, and the future is rarely considered by sports fans. 
The obsession of the sports fan for immediate victory is almost legendary. This team is now in a 20-game winning streak. That team is 8-8 now, despite the fact it won the Super Bowl last year. Fans are a notoriously impatient bunch, calling for the heads of excellent coaches after one losing year. One fluke play can make the difference between a championship and a heartbreaking loss, between a great year and a nightmare year.
Of course, in sports, championships are not won overnight. Bad teams go through rebuilding years. (Some teams, like the Raiders, go through seemingly eternal rebuilding phases. No, I am not sorry for that gratuitous shot at that useless team.) Teams often have what are called windows - periods when they must win championships before their aging veteran stars retire. Good teams are often forced to build their championships in lean years, by getting rid of overpriced, mediocre players and by stocking up on young talent. Rabid fans will complain about immediate losses, but teams which placate their fans and shoot for success by overspending will attain mediocrity at best.
The tyranny of the now inherent in sports is similar in many respects to the attitude of society today. We want this expensive toy, and we want it now. I'll sin now, and take the consequences later. If we don't get a boatload of funding for this inefficient project, people will lose their jobs. And so on and so forth.
Thought is rarely given to the future and towards what must be done to survive in the long term. Short-term gratification is the order of the day. And we build up debt or bad habits or bad memories until we collapse under their weight. We mortgage the future for a few moments in the present.
It is rarely, if ever, the quick change that makes a long-term impact. Championships are built upon the slow, steady build-up to success; success in human endeavors is also founded upon determined emphasis on virtue. And the path to societal suicide is rarely a quick, spectacular downfall; it is the coagulation of a confluence of mistakes. 

The Dangers of Drones

Anyone with a rudimentary awareness of American politics knows about the proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles, better known as drones, in American warfare. Republican Senator Rand Paul’s 12+ hour old-school filibuster provoked a strong debate over the American usage of drones that is even now making political waves.

It is important to remember that drones, in and of themselves, are not evil devices. Indeed, the use of drones will prove to be incredibly useful in future warfare. Unmanned drones are increasingly accurate, inexpensive, and small enough to avoid radar. More importantly, they will be unmanned – meaning the risk of friendly casualties will be greatly reduced, if not eliminated, during future wars. Drones will also prove to be incredibly useful for espionage, serving as effective unmanned reconnaissance vehicles due to their small size.

The problem with drones is not that they are evil, per se. Indeed, drones are a technological innovation that, properly used, could save thousands of lives. The advantage of having an unmanned aerial force is incalculable; thousands of lives could be saved.

However, it is clear that drones are devices which can be easily abused. There is little to no risk of “friendly fire,” so there is a greater opportunity for governments to engage in “trigger happy” behavior. There is the problem of that drones can invade foreign airspace with impunity. There is also the problem of anonymity: a drone can swoop out of the sky and kill without warning, with no one the wiser as to the identity of the aggressor. Already, multiple governments use drones in their arsenals. Drones may even get so cheap that they may become viable weapons for rich individuals and corporations, as well as by governments.

Drones are not evil in and of themselves, but they must be used very carefully, else grave harm will result. And fallen human nature being what it is, the leaders of governments will find ways to use them for evil.

How to Destroy a Worthy Cause

The surest way to set back a worthy cause is to mingle utter stupidity with truth. This is one of the many reasons why good causes are so unpopular these days.

This sad excuse for an editorial provoked this jeremiad. Some of the statements contained within this article are true; others are absurd. A few tenuously related facts slapped together, and… wham! Instant conspiracy.

The writer of this piece will make headlines – and not in a good way. A horde of activists and “neutral” journalists in America will turn their guns on him, and he won’t have anything except a web of disconnected facts and a few outright whoppers to defend himself.

The depressing thing is that there is an element of truth in what he wrote. There is indeed a concerted effort to sabotage the family. Some of those promoting this destruction are homosexual activists. Marxism did aim to destroy the family. But the slapdash manner in which he phrased his statements destroyed his own argument. (For example, homosexuality pre-dates Marxism by thousands of years.)

The most famous example of self-destruction in a good cause: Todd Akin. Akin, a pro-life Missouri congressman, rightfully opposed abortion in all cases. He also managed to set back the pro-life movement with one incredibly uninformed comment about women and rape that he couldn't defend.

Patently absurd statements are suicidal. It’s a world of gaffes, where one foolish statement can ruin a career. And we live in a world where those in positions of power seek to punish men who fight for good causes, and will seize upon any awfully worded statement (or phrase taken out of context) to do so. The last thing the enemies of goodness need is live ammunition in the form of poorly thought out "arguments" from good men.

Is all this unfair? Of course. But it’s not a fair world. Jesus commanded us to practice prudence in our earthly endeavors, lest our enemies get the better of us. “Behold, I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves.” (Matt 10:16)
Either speak the truth with charity and wisdom, or speak it not at all.

Disagreement Does Not Equal Hatred

There is an idiotic assumption that has taken deep root in our society that disagreement is synonymous with hatred. According to this notion, if I disagree with someone on political policy or matters of faith, that signifies that I hate that person, so therefore my opinion is not worthy of a hearing.

Accordingly, opponents of same-sex marriage are treated as though they hate all homosexuals and seek their destruction. Proponents of birth control mandates argue that opposition to their policies is part of a "war on women." Opponents of social welfare programs are accused of starving the poor. Foes of atheism are treated as opponents of reason and the forward march of civilization itself.

This "disagreement equals hatred" notion is complete and utter nonsense. Disagreement over the best way to love homosexuals or how to best take care of the poor or on the truth the Catholic faith or any other subject, by itself, does not constitute hatred. Hatred implies a deliberate desire to cause harm to another. The mere holding of unpopular ideas does not constitute hatred. 
The implication of "disagreement equals hatred," of course, is that holding certain ideas is tantamount to a direct attack on another. This creates a sort of groupthink where dissent against the prevailing intellectual currents is treated as hatred and is deemed worthy of being stamped out.
If mere disagreement equaled hatred, anyone who disagreed with anyone would be guilty of hatred. A mother could be said to “hate” her child for not giving her son cookies. Intellectual argument would be rendered impossible, and the world would be one giant cesspool of hatred.

The "disagreement equals hatred" claim becomes even more transparently foolish when one takes into account the fact that members of the “victim classes” often oppose policies meant to “help” them (E.g., women who oppose abortion and birth control). 

Claiming that one “hates” someone because he disagrees with a particular policy or faith is incredibly destructive. At best, adopting this tactic is an instinctive suspension of reason in the service of ideology. At worst, it is a cynical and deliberate method of dodging debate and attacking intellectual opponents.

Why Abstinence-Only Education “Doesn’t Work”

Everyone (except MTV television executives) views teenage pregnancy out of wedlock as something to be avoided. But there is widespread disagreement on the best method of combating teen pregnancy.

Abstinence is the only 100% effective method of preventing pregnancy and STDs, assuming it is faithfully practiced. It also comes free of the emotional and moral consequences of teenage premarital sex. Because of this, cultural conservatives often argue that abstinence should be taught to students in the classroom.

Others claim that hormonal urges dictate that teenagers will have sex anyway, and that promoting abstinence merely delays the inevitable and needlessly fills teenagers with guilt. Besides, since the magic pill known as hormonal contraception infallibly protects against pregnancy, and since sex is merely a pleasurable biological spasm, abstinence deprives teenagers of free fun. 

The opponents of teenage abstinence cite a host of “scientific studies” to claim that abstinence-only education doesn’t work. And a dutiful media touts these studies as proof that abstinence-only education is a bad idea.

Strange as it may seem, the results of these studies are fairly obvious to any impartial observer. Abstinence-only classroom education – at least as it is currently understood and practiced – is at best a valiant but doomed attempt to combat a very real problem.

“Abstinence-only” education doesn’t work because it is countermanded at every turn by a culture which celebrates permissiveness. For the classroom is not the only or even the most important place where children learn about relationships. There are four major sources of this education: upbringing, peers, education, and culture.

Since the natural impulse of fallen humanity is to engage in promiscuity, all of these elements must support morality for “abstinence-only education” to “work” effectively. If children receive no education from their parents about relationships or choose friends who encourage casual relationships, abstinence-only education will do little except temporarily scare and annoy students. If education encourages students to engage in “safe sex,” then students will act accordingly. And considering the prevalence of broken families and latchkey children in American society, such education is often difficult to come by. 

But even if teenagers are raised with a good moral code, choose good friends, and receive “abstinence-only education,” there is a fourth element present in modern society that militates against the other three. This element is culture, which is ever-present. Those who shun popular culture find themselves unable to communicate with their peers (which is part of the reason I spend so much time mocking modern excuses for Christian art).

American culture is adamantly opposed to abstinence. Movies, music, television, even advertisements – all of these use copious amounts of sex (and violence) to get their message across. Those who embrace chastity are mocked as either strange or unable to get dates.

A culture which celebrates promiscuity stands in direct opposition to abstinence education. In a culture where movies, TV, music, and magazines constantly inundate teenagers with the notion that extramarital sex is consequence-free and fun, of course abstinence-only education doesn’t work! It is the equivalent of setting up anti-drug programs next to posters advertising the location of drug dealers.

Society (thankfully) can do little to change two sources of relationship education. Parents can’t be changed, except in the rare, unfortunate, and highly undesirable instances of death or extreme abuse. Teenagers freely choose which friends they associate with. However, society can choose how it chooses to educate its children, and can choose what forms of culture it embraces.

Schools which promote “abstinence-only education” (and I shudder to think of what that actually entails in our silly modern age) fight tooth and nail against a culture which mocks and militates against abstinence. Even scientific studies criticizing abstinence-only education reference this fact. One report says: “Like it or not, sexual activity is a reality for teens in America, and it is hard to imagine a schoolbased intervention which will magically undo the media pressures (emphasis mine) and natural hormonal urges that young people experience.” 

The problem with abstinence-only education isn’t that it “doesn’t work,” per se. The problem is that in today’s society, such an education doesn’t exist, except among those few who shun modern culture. Children are reared in a culture which says that abstinence is impossible and undesirable and mocks those who value purity. A quote from Chesterton comes to mind: “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”

So is this true with Christian morality – and its societal applications. Abstinence-only education is not lacking (at least not from a logical standpoint); but it requires the inculcation of the virtue of self-control which modernity utterly rejects. It has been found difficult and left untried.

Why Compromise Is Impossible

Many people wonder why America is so polarized and why there is perpetual gridlock in Washington. I am surprised that America hasn’t descended into civil war yet.

For political polarization is a given in any civilized society – there will always be conflict between multiple competing factions in any political system. But the widespread acceptance of moral relativism has widened the divide between the two dominant political factions in America today.

One of two “major” political movements in America argues that their opponents are murderers who assist in the murder of children in shootings by advocating the right to bear arms, destroyers of the earth by pushing environmental destruction, and heartless Scrooges who starve children by not supporting anti-poverty social programs.

The other “major” political movement argues that their opponents are murderers who advocate the murder of children for the sake of personal convenience, the destruction of the family through the redefinition of marriage, and the encouragement of permanent dependency and laziness by providing endless handouts and disincentivizing work.

And then there are iconoclastic bomb throwers yelling “a pox on both your houses” and condemning both factions as corrupt and evil.

It is very difficult for any man, even a politician, to compromise with those he considers murderers. The only saving grace, at least from the standpoint of political violence, is that most of our politicians don’t care enough about abortion or marriage or gun control to do anything about them around the edges, or to really fight for them. Politicians (thank God) are still politicians, more concerned about maintaining their own power than about their ideals.

But the era of polarization will mean that more hardline politicians will be elected. God help America when the politicians that represent Americans actually start believing the rhetoric their constituents embody. For then there truly will be conflict.

America already was racked with a Civil War over the issue of slavery (or, more accurately, states’ rights, which were prompted by slavery). How will America be punished for its embrace of child murder?

In Defense of Being Right

Most posts on this blog are fairly technical pieces directed at my fellow Catholics. This post will be sightly more controversial.

To the non-Catholics among you: My Catholic religion is better than yours.

This statement may seem rather shocking at first, but I do not apologize for giving offense. For you believe that your religion is better than all other religions. (Or, if you are an atheist, you hold your irreligion to be better than any religion.) Otherwise, you would not adhere to that religion which you practice, or at the very least believe.

Please do not insult your intelligence and mine with the idiotic assertion that “one religion is as good as another.” For if that were the case, all religions would be equally true (or equally false, depending on which way you looked at the question). And a true religion is better than a false one, since it better reflects reality.

But one religion claims that Jesus is God; another holds the existence of many gods; another believes there is no such entity as god. One religion claims Jesus is divine, another a demigod, another simply a good human. Even among different types of Christianity, there is irreconcilable division – one holds that Jesus established one Church, another posits personal interpretation of the Bible. They can’t all be true.

The moral codes of each religion are wildly different and contradictory. Some religions uphold divorce, others forbid the practice. One approves abortion, another rejects it. One religion permits suicide, another opposes same-sex marriage, still another forbids the eating of pork. Again, they can’t all be true.

And there are a host of reasons why Catholicism is superior to other religions. Catholicism, the only faith that can credibly claim to stretch back to the time of Christ, has taken shots from every earthly entity for 2000 years – persecution from without and within, confusion as to its basic principles, and the corruption and outright stupidity of many of its leaders – and emerged from every battle stronger than ever and unchanged in its basic teaching. (Judaism is something of an exception, but the Jewish people wait in vain for a Messiah who has already come.)

My Catholic religion is a haven for the holy and surrounded in sanctity. Catholicism is characterized by miracles in spades. My religion is lived out in its fullest expression by a multitude of saints.

My Catholic religion embraces the reality of the realms of the intellectual and the spiritual. It makes sense that humans would not fully understand a God who is by necessity beyond us. It makes sense that humans could use reason to come to a limited understanding of the Maker of the universe and the architect of natural law. It makes sense that God would wish to supplement what we can know about Him by reason through revelation. Christianity is rational and mystical; Catholicism successfully navigates both realms.   

To a much lesser extent, one can assert the superiority of one political ideology over another. In the political sphere, the analogous statement to “one religion is as good as another” is “Don’t enforce your moral views on me.” But the enforcement of moral views is the entire point of law; the laws a society adopts and enforces reflect both its moral vision and (theoretically) its cultural consensus.

Thus, all laws reflect some form of morality. Legalized abortion is the enforcement of a view which holds that the freedom of the mother to do as she wishes with “her body” trumps any right of that which grows within her. Redistributive taxation implies a moral vision that government has an obligation to take care of the poor in part by taking from the resources of the rich. The Second Amendment implies that people have the right to defend themselves, using means that could be turned to evil.

Of course, politics is much less dogmatic than religion, despite the hysteria of many political commentators and politicians. There is revealed truth in religious matters; there is no such revealed truth as to how to run a government. There can and should be disagreement about political matters, and the person who claims infallible knowledge of what political course to take is either the second coming of Solomon or a clueless narcissist.

Nonetheless, I do hold definite political views, and believe that those views should be enforced through the proper legal channels. Accordingly, I vote for candidates that hold similar views. If that constitutes “imposing my moral views,” so be it. Presumably, you vote for candidates that support your views. If you wish me to stop pushing my moral views on you, convince me that my views are wrong. 

So I can only say to those who demand that I remain silent and stop pushing for the implementation of my moral views on society: “I believe my ideas are better than your ideas, and will vote accordingly to implement them. So do you. If you wish to convince me concerning an issue, I will listen to you with an open mind – I’ve been persuaded before. Please extend me the same courtesy.” 

Why Placing Women in Combat Roles is a Terrible Idea

The geniuses running the Defense Department have made the brilliant decision to allow military women to serve in combat roles. (To some extent, this is already a fait accompli, since women already serve on naval warships. That does not make it a wise decision.)

Allowing women into combat situations is an incredibly stupid idea. The first and most obvious reason why this is so is simple: women, as a group, simply don’t have the physical strength that men possess. Combat (especially combat infantry) is physically demanding, and requires strength and endurance that many women simply do not have. The military recognizes this fact – the qualifying standards for men and women for the military are very different. Allowing women into combat positions dilutes the strength and integrity of the military, needlessly risking the lives of soldiers.

Let’s assume that women will only be allowed to drive tanks, or fly planes, or whatever. Let’s assume that some semblance of sanity prevails, and women wouldn’t be allowed into ground combat units, or would have to pass the same standards as men in order to enter those units. (I’m not holding my breath.)

But there are numerous other reasons why allowing women in combat roles is foolish. There is the problem of facing enemies which mistreat captured female prisoners. (Imagine how poorly America would have weathered the Vietnam years with female combat soldiers.) There is the problem of women getting pregnant before deployment. (Update: Read my comment for more.)

Is there really an urgent necessity that requires women to be placed into combat situation? Is there really a public outcry for women to join such units? Or is this just another push to assert the absurd myth of the "equality" (translation: sameness) of men and women? 

Women can’t do everything men can do. Men can’t do everything women can do. Men and women are not interchangeable, despite a society that desperately tries to forget that fact.

The move to put women into combat roles is another assertion of the idiotic notion that men and women are “equal” – or more accurately, that gender doesn't matter. And America's military will suffer because some people want to make this point.

The Misnomer of Political "Conversation"

Faithful readers of this blog have noticed that I’ve gone on a truth binge when it comes to linguistics. This emphasis on linguistic truth is partially based upon my obsessive love of honesty, to the detriment of other virtues. 

But this emphasis on truth is also because words have meanings. When words are misused (deliberately or otherwise), confusion reigns. A society where even language becomes a source of confusion is a polarized society, where partisans can scream the same words at each other but mean completely different things.

Thus, when the term “conversation” gets tossed around when talking about certain political issues (gun control comes to mind), I get incredibly annoyed. Political operatives don’t want “conversation” when dealing with political topics. They want their own position made into law. When a politician or activist demands “conversation” about a subject, what he really means is that he wants the position he supports made official public policy.

Now, open advocacy of a position is more than acceptable – everyone has opinions, and everyone has the right to argue those opinions. But calling such advocacy "conversation" is ridiculous.

For “conversation” in this day and age far too often is the equivalent of a monologue or a shouting match. Both sides of certain issues remain locked in their respective bunkers and scream at one another from the safety of their ideological foxholes. 

On other issues, one side has all the microphones, and shouts talking points at their foes until the political enemy is cowed into submission. 

Either way, "conversation" is increasingly a misnomer, when it comes to political speech.

Rational Argument's Disappearing Act in Modern Politics

The political world is growing dumber. Put another way (and slightly more diplomatically) politicians and voters are less inclined to use intellectual argument in making their decisions.

Electoral politics has always relied heavily on emotion as a tool to sway voters. But fueled by a culture which encourages rapid collection of and dissemination of information, technology which encourages swift and poorly defended debate, and an increasingly polarized culture, modern society increasingly displays an absence of rational argument in political debate.

Technology has played the decisive role in this trend. Television and the Internet have effectively shortened the attention span of individuals by increasing the amount of information available to average citizens. This influx of information has accelerated to the point where people find it difficult to concentrate on long arguments. Television, Facebook, and Twitter are most effective at quickly transmitting short, easily digestible bites of information to large audiences.

Winning candidates need to get their message out quickly in an age where information spreads like wildfire - and adjust the length of their messaging accordingly. In modern politics, speed is life – in journalism and politics. Arguments over policies get reduced to soundbites, memes, and slogans. Stories and articles get shorter and shorter. Longer, more reasoned discourse often gets swallowed up in the sea of quick, easily digestible stories and blog posts.

The same-sex marriage debate is a prime example of this phenomenon. Proponents of gay marriage simply assert that those who oppose gay marriage are bigots who seek to make all homosexuals miserable out of spite. Opponents of same-sex marriage warn that monkeying with the definition of marriage will result in an immediate end to society as we know it. Both sides completely (and often deliberately) misunderstand the other side's arguments, preferring sound bites and mutual misunderstanding to real debate.

This was not always the case in a pre-electronic age, where information could not be transmitted rapidly. Political debates and speeches were often long, drawn-out affairs. Politicians needed to inform and entertain their audiences in an era where information was harder to come by. This made for more rhetorical flourishes - and the opportunity for longer, more discursive argument.

No longer. The skilled modern politician merely needs to get off a catchy thirty-second soundbite, and with luck (and media help) will have instant fodder for television cameras. The bane of the modern politician is the gaffe - five bad seconds or twenty mis-phrased words which can ruin a campaign.

As modern political debate is reduced to soundbites and gaffes, rational argument becomes increasingly difficult to come by in political decision-making.

Post-Election Musings

The presidential election is all over but the shouting. President Barack Obama just won his second term in office.

Make no mistake - his re-election is one of the worst things that Catholics in America have ever faced. The next four years will be very rough for the Church.

For Barack Obama merely introduced his attacks on the Catholic Church - most notably the HHS mandate - in his first term. He now has four more years to implement his attacks on the Catholic faith - his signature plan, healthcare, will take full effect in the next four years. And those attacks will come thick and fast.

But we must also remember that our strength is in God, and that we must avoid putting our full trust in princes such as Romney. God is our master, not men; we are servants of God, and not of government. And our home and our treasure is in heaven, and not here on earth.

When politicians such as Obama seek to persecute us and destroy us, always remember that God is on our side. Whatever may come, God is in control.

The Coming American Persecution

A persecution of Catholics in America is swiftly approaching. Obama’s HHS mandate, which actively seeks to force Catholics to pay for moral evil, is merely the first shot in the coming secular war against the Church and the principles She upholds. We Catholics must prepare for it, or else be swept away by the coming evil tide.

This coming election will determine when the persecution of Catholics begins in earnest in America. If President Obama wins re-election, he will have four years to implement his policies of persecution of the Church. If Romney wins, his election will merely delay the inevitable future persecution (if indeed his promises are true).

The persecution of Catholics was a long time in coming. American culture is rapidly becoming more crass, more arrogant, more concerned with itself and its pleasure than with fostering virtue - and has now for generations. 

Such a culture must inevitably reform itself, or participate in its own self-destruction.

But before any culture destroys itself, it will come to abhor and seek to destroy the very institutions that keep it intact. Marriage, children, religion – relentlessly, pressures are being brought to bear on these institutions holding society together, in attempts to fundamentally alter them or even destroy them. And the Church, the guardian of these institutions, is the first target of these secularizing forces which seek their destruction. 

And this persecution will be intense. As Cardinal George of Chicago famously declared: “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in a public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the Church has done so often in human history.”

But in a way, this is the natural state of the Church. The Church, peculiarly, always fights best when She is fighting off Her back. Broken, defeated, persecuted – it is then that She stands most powerful. The gates of Hell will never prevail against Her.

And they are coming. 

Rant Concerning a Romney Ad

I have tried to avoid discussing politics on this blog (I have another blog dedicated to my musings on politics), and have largely refrained from inflicting upon my political rants upon you.
So I apologize in advance from this piece, but I need to say this somewhere.

I recently saw this ad from Mitt Romney's campaign.

This was my reaction to the ad. (WARNING: Mild profanity alert.)

It's not that I don't understand the logic of this ad. From a political standpoint, it changes nothing. Every careful watcher of this presidential campaign already knew that Romney supported abortion in cases of rape and incest.
And I understand the logic behind Romney's decision to air the ad. Romney wishes to blunt the idiotic "war on women" nonsense that the Obama campaign has accused him of. He also has adopted the common political tactic of "running to the center," which involves seeking to get moderates to vote for him and emphasizing his "centrist" political positions. He seeks to emphasize positions that appeal to "moderate" voters, since he figures that his base will vote for him anyway.
I must state right away that my opinion of Romney as a candidate remains unchanged by his choice to run this ad; I will still vote for Romney this November.

And yet, the ad still bothers me immensely, for two reasons. 

The first problem with this ad is a political one: in a base election (and in this polarized America, this is an election where candidates increasingly rely on their base), why on earth would you advertise to your supporters that you support abortion, even in some cases? I can already picture individuals (Mark Shea comes to mind) already opposed to Romney seizing upon this ad to argue that Romney is simply another Obama, and convincing others to do the same. I can also picture devoted pro-lifers being so turned off by the fact that Romney supports any abortions whatsoever that they refuse to vote.
But the second objection is far more important, for it is moral in nature. For if the fetus in the womb is really a child, then a voter or politician must oppose abortion in all cases. ALL CASES. Nothing justifies the murder of an innocent victim - not even the horror of rape.
For Mitt Romney to advertise that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape and incest is for him to advertise that he is not truly pro-life. He does not hold that the child in the womb is truly a human worth protecting in all cases.
And this bothers me immensely. Where is the candidate who will say that ALL life is sacred and must be protected, no matter the cost?
I will still vote for Mitt Romney because I disapprove of Obama's evil policies. But I do so with a very heavy heart.

A Contrarian Take on Cardinal Dolan’s DNC Prayer

Media outlets went crazy with the "news" that Cardinal Timothy Dolan gave a “conservative” prayer to close the Democratic National Convention. They based this view on the fact that his prayer included calls for protecting life, true marriage, and religious freedom.

I read Cardinal Dolan’s prayer at the Democratic National Convention which caused such fuss, and strongly disagree with the assessment that the prayer was "Republican" or "conservative." Dolan certainly called for respect for those “waiting to be born, that they may be welcomed and pursued.” This, of course, stood in stark contrast to the fixation on abortion at the Democratic National Convention.

But Dolan merely reiterated basic Christian principles in his prayer - principles which the Democratic platform rejected. His prayer served as a simple yet elegant reminder to those present of the principles that true Christianity entails, which transcend politics.

As I noted in an article that appeared on Catholic Exchange, the Church is neither “liberal” or “conservative” – the Church is Catholic. The Church is not beholden to either party.

But the Church stands for certain principles, such as the right to life and the preferential option for the poor, that come into conflict with various elements of political platforms. When these principles are attacked, it is the duty of the Christian to offer fraternal correction in a spirit of loving charity, and to remind those who reject those principles of their Christian duty.

Cardinal Dolan’s prayer was a loving reminder that Christianity demands respect for certain basic rights - and a call for those present to reexamine their consciences. It was not a "conservative" prayer. It was a Christian prayer.

Catholicism in the Public Square

There are many who claim that religion should be removed from the public square in a modern society. A religiously pluralistic society should be secular, where no one should be allowed to impose their religion on others in the public square, since people of other faiths would be offended by the introduction of religion into the public square.

Never mind the fact that this policy effectively imposes irreligion in the public square. (Never mind that irreligion offends me.)

If adopted, such an attitude wages war against the very nature of the Catholic faith.

For Catholicism cannot merely be practiced only on weekends or in silence. Catholicism is a way of life, to be practiced in private AND in public.

Forcing religion out of the public square means that Catholicism becomes little more than a hidden, arcane ritual to be performed every Sunday. This type of Catholicism is a caricature of the Faith.

Real Catholicism is not dead doctrine and arcane ritual; it is living reality. Real Catholicism drives the daily lives of its followers. Real Catholicism demands charity towards neighbors, obedience to a moral code, and first and foremost fidelity to God above all.

And this Catholicism must be lived to the full, informing our every thought, word, and deed. Our lives are to be imbued with the spirit of Christian charity informed by our Faith, if we are to be truly Catholic. And this spirit cannot simply be cast aside in the public square.

There are times when I wish that Catholicism was less than all-consuming demand of service to God and neighbor. I wish that the Catholic religion was merely a ritual people could participate in every Sunday and be done. (I love compartmentalization.)

But deep down, I cannot separate my Catholic faith from my daily life – it is a part of me. If you force me to keep my religion under a bushel basket, you force me out of the public square altogether.

For I cannot – and will not – hide my faith in public. My Catholicism informs my thought processes, defines my actions, and directs my actions. If forced to abjure my Faith in the public square, I will withdraw from the public square altogether. 

Nor can the Church simply give up Her faith in the public square at the whim of the government. The HHS mandate forces the Church to either ignore one of Her moral teachings – or to stop giving charity altogether.

If government seeks to prevent Catholics from living out their faith in the public square, they effectively prevent Catholics (well, real Catholics, at any rate) from entering the public square.  

Religious Authority and "Forcing Religious Views"

Religious authorities (such as the Catholic Magisterium) are often accused of forcing their members to believe in specific religious teachings. They are also accused of seeking to "force" their views on others through political means.

In modern America, the first argument is wrong, and the second argument is a characteristic of the political process.

Religious authorities do not and indeed cannot force anyone to believe ANYTHING in modern America. Individuals are free to accept and reject the teaching of religious authorities as they wish.

The concept of force necessitates that one is impelled to do something by an external power. And religious authorities do not possess external means to impel obedience.

The “force” applied by churches is merely the threat of a) the social stigma of leaving a particular institution and b) future punishment in an afterlife. In a purely material sense, the force applied by churches on their members is non-existent.

Religious authorities can, however, assert that there are consequences for specific actions. They can and do claim that there are penalties, meted out by a supernatural power, for certain behaviors. But they actively cannot compel people to remain in their faith.

Those who wish to leave a specific church are perfectly free to do so in America, and face no penalty for doing so.  

This would not have been true years ago, when religious authorities and states were more unified. The Inquisition tried individuals and handed those it judged guilty over to secular authorities, for them to be dealt with accordingly. Protestant Geneva linked state and Church in a theocratic body, harshly punishing those it deemed malefactors.

In modern democratic states, the only way religious authorities can “force” anyone to do anything is to lobby the government and “force” their views on others through the political process. 

Governments can force individuals to do things or face penalties through its police power. If certain laws are not obeyed, the government can jail individuals or fine them. 

It is a clear misunderstanding of the word "force" when people claim that religious authorities “force” people to obey certain rules and believe certain doctrines. (And it is ironic from the same people who also claim that 98% percent of Catholic women use birth control and disobey the Catholic Church’s teachings!)

The complaint about religious authorities using “force” is in reality a complaint that secular views are not actively being “forced” upon others through the political process. The remedy for secularists is simple – gain political power!

The Necessity of God

President Obama recently made a controversial statement about the role of the individual in his own success, declaring: “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.” and “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
While the president’s implied argument falsely elevates government to the primary source of human activity, Obama is right to note that no one builds anything on their own. God is the source of each and every human activity. Without Him, we can truly do nothing. (John 15:5)
Nothing we do is, strictly speaking, our own individual achievement. God directs and provides the necessary tools for us to reach our goals in everything we do. Our intellect, ingenuity, and will are free gifts which God gives to us to accomplish tasks for His glory. Even our very existence is radically dependent on Him.
God places other men and women in our lives for our own benefit. He tells us that he will take care of our material needs. (Matthew 6:25-34)
We owe God a much greater debt than we could possibly owe the government. We human beings can survive without the help of government, but there is no possibility that we could survive without our Creator.
Our “fair tax” to our Creator should be our willingness to use these gifts in the service of God and neighbor, and to glorify Him as much as is possible in our every moment.

How Will the Church Respond to the Contraception Mandate?

The June 28, 2012 Supreme Court decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act (commonly termed Obamacare) quashed the hopes of conservative Catholics that a decision by the Obama administration to require religious employers to provide contraception might be repealed in the immediate future. In short, the mother of all clashes is brewing between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration.

On August 1, 2012, health plans for most organizations will be required to cover contraception, “emergency contraceptives,” and sterilization procedures. The mandate will be extended to non-profit religious employers on August 1, 2013. Narrow religious exemptions have been granted, but as Cardinal Wuerl has pointed out, not even Mother Teresa would qualify for these exemptions.

In other words, the Obama administration is forcing institutions affiliated with the Catholic Church to pay for coverage of contraceptives, “emergency contraception,” and sterilization. After being pressured by religious groups, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) tweaked the mandate so that insurance companies would be forced to provide contraception instead of Catholic institutions themselves. But Catholic institutions would be paying insurance companies to provide birth control to employees, so the religious objections of Catholics have not been resolved. (Besides, since many Catholic companies and dioceses self-insure, the major sticking point remains for Catholics in a host of cases.)

If the Church did comply and provided contraception coverage to its employees, it would signify that the Church’s moral teaching on contraception could be changed. And the Church would instantly lose all credibility if She reversed herself on contraception or any of Her other moral teachings; if She could reverse Herself on one critical teaching at the whim of the state, any of Her teachings would be mutable.

Accordingly, the Catholic Church is treating the HHS mandate as a serious blow to religious freedom. Every single one of the Catholic bishops in America has sworn that the Church will not and cannot comply with the Obama administration’s mandate. President Obama refuses to budge on the matter. The Catholic Church is now celebrating a “Fortnight for Freedom” – two weeks of prayer and penance as part of a “great hymn of prayer for our country” – in response to the HHS mandate.

The Catholic Church can choose to respond to the HHS mandate in several different ways. Here is a brief overview of the ways the Church can choose to respond to it. This list will also examine historical precedents for these choices.

1)      The “Nuclear Option” – Shutdown  

If the Obama administration continues to force church-affiliated institutions to provide contraception to their employees, the Catholic Church may be forced to shut many facilities down. Rather than comply with the mandate, church authorities could shut down schools, hospitals, and charities.

In recent years, this has already taken place on a small scale. Rather than be forced to cater to homosexual couples, many affiliates of Illinois Catholic Charities shut their doors. Under similar pressure from the state to recognize homosexual couples, affiliates of Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington D.C. closed their adoption programs.

However, if Catholic schools and charities closed in large enough numbers, societal chaos would erupt. Tens of thousands of people are employed by Catholic-affiliated institutions, and millions of Catholics and non-Catholics alike are served by these institutions. The suffering wrought by the decision to close the Church’s affiliated institutions would be immense.

But the alternative for the Catholic Church is impossible. This would truly be the Church’s nuclear option – one She would take only if there were no other choice.

2)      Passive Resistance

The Church could take a path of passive resistance – refusing to close affiliated institutions, while at the same time refusing to pay the fines mandated by the government as a penalty for not complying with the mandate. This would force the government to punish these institutions in other ways.

Essentially, this option would be a form of civil disobedience – namely, the refusal to obey an unjust law. This has historical precedent in the civil rights movement. Civil rights figures adopted tactics of passive resistance to fight against racial discrimination, crowding jails, refusing to pay fines, and not obeying what they (rightfully) considered to be unjust and discriminatory laws.

This is a potentially rewarding strategy, but one fraught with peril. The danger is that the government would be able to effectively punish Catholics without media or public outcry. In that case, those adopting this strategy would be punished by the government with little fanfare.

However, this option could potentially to make the Obama administration look very bad. Catholic charities punished or shut down by the government, because they refused to deny a key teaching of their faith, would draw the sympathy of fair-minded outside supporters, and could spark a massive public outcry.

3)       Obama Caves

This, of course, would be the ideal outcome. President Obama could simply rescind the HHS mandate regarding Catholics and contraception, and no conflict of religious liberty would exist.

It is possible, but very unlikely, that this outcome will occur. If the Church and Her allies were able to bring enough pressure on Obama, he might be forced to bend, as he did with the issue of gay marriage. There is the possibility of an “October surprise” on the part of Obama; a decision to “give in” to the Church might take place to pacify recalcitrant Catholics near the election, if his poll numbers were bad enough.

However, this is very unlikely. Obama and his administration implemented this contraception decision in an election year. He has since sworn that he will not compromise on this issue. He and his feminist allies wanted this fight badly; he chose an election year to implement this decision.

This outcome would occur only if an incredible amount of pressure was brought to bear on the President.

4)      Paying the Fines

Those who refuse to obey the mandate will be penalized with fines. Church businesses could pay fines (of $2000 for each individual employee employed by the institution), so that they would not have to pay insurance companies to cover contraception, “emergency contraception,” and sterilization.

For historical comparison, one would have to go back to Elizabethan England. During the Elizabethan era, refusal to attend established Anglican Church services resulted in fines. At first, the fines for not attending state-sponsored services were small. Later, the governments increased the fines to massive amounts, and only extremely wealthy Catholics could afford to pay those fines.

The likelihood of Catholic businesses paying fines to the government on a large scale is slim, for two reasons. The first is that Church businesses simply don’t have enough money to afford paying the government fines; only wealthy Catholic businesses could utilize this option. Also, this option would legitimize the mandate, effectively subordinating religious institutions to the state.

5)      The Bishops Cave

Hypothetically speaking, the bishops could give in and permit Church-affiliated institutions to accept the HHS mandate. But there is absolutely no chance that this will happen.

As previously noted, every single Catholic bishop in the United States of America opposes the mandate. Besides, the Church could not defend Her teaching on contraception if Her institutions were forced to provide it to their employees. If the Church were to cave on this decision, She would immediately lose all moral authority.

So what will happen?

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago succinctly summarized the Church’s options, declaring: “A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the Church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the Church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. (I did not examine this option, because this could not be implemented in all cases, and the institutions in question would not remain Catholic.) 4) Close down.” 

So what will happen if the mandate remains in place? Individual Catholic businesses will adopt a combination of these paths. A few wealthy businesses may be able to pay fines to the government. Poorer, smaller Catholic-owned businesses may be forced to shut down. Charities may continue to operate and refuse to pay the fines, daring the government to shut them down.

However, it is difficult to say which option the majority of Church businesses will take, assuming the mandate remains in place until it is implemented. But this much is clear. The Obama administration’s HHS mandate is nothing less than a declaration of war against the Catholic Church and religious liberty – and the Church will defend Her teachings on the morality of contraception with Her very life.