Radicalize the Pro-Life Movement

Some of you who knew me during my college years may recount what seems to be a fierce dichotomy in my character. On the one hand, I have a profound, indeed religious appreciation for art, while on the other, I may become violently passionate with righteous furor when abortion is mentioned.

You might recall the days I spent in front of the new cafeteria, constantly accosting our fellow students: "Will you join us in peaceful protest at a Charlotte abortion clinic?" How many refusals. Stranger yet, how many assented and did not follow through? 100 signatures. Less than 20 protesters.

Others of you who read my blog may one day see a contemplative review of a film by Kieslowski. On another day, a declamation on our guilt as a society.

My heart is tender for beauty. It is of steel for violence.

Or some of my male peers may remember a controversial Facebook challenge to which they did not respond, the challenge that said we are black as hell if we do nothing to stop this horror.

Here we are amidst the horror.

In 8 years of being someway involved in the Pro-Life Movement, I have often asked the question: "Why do we allow this to continue when we have the power to stop it?" It is a simple question -- thus the significance of its persistence, the problem of its remaining unanswered.

I remember when we founded the pro-life apostolate, Crusaders for Life, at my parish church. One of the first events we organized was a training by the archdiocesan sidewalk counseling ministry. We were told of these mythological creatures (including priests) of the past who chained themselves to clinic doors, who -- unfortunately, we were told -- gave the movement a reputation of radicalism. We should never attempt any sort of rescue, for fear of reinstating this reputation.

Thus, for the last near-decade, I have stood, I have prayed, I have conversed kindly and calmly with the Watchers at the Gate.

But as I see the same structure that taught non-intervention (that is, an avoidance of physical protection for the unborn, an avoidance of peaceful civil disobedience) clothed in fine linen suits at their brunches with legislators, I wonder again: "Why do we allow this to continue when we have the power to stop it?" The man power. 300,000 strong at the so-called March for Life.

Even we in the pro-life movement have been a force for the dehumanization of the unborn. How? In refusing to acknowledge the gravity of murder -- the murder of even that first legally slaughtered child. What are we afraid of? asks Stephanie Gray in a LifeSite opinion piece. I would ask the same of her. Why do we stop at "speaking up"? Would you merely "speak up" to a Nazi official who wouldn't listen, especially if you could raise a free army of 300,000 to blast the gas chambers standing within the reach of your arm, to liberate those emaciated figures you observe as they stumble towards the ovens?

Is your reaction sufficient? Is this an adequate response to the evil you see at hand? If you fail at your appeal, will you turn your back as the murders continue, ready to chat it up another day? Did American soldiers ask the Nazi governors to stop the killings, or did they move in and stop them?

Well, America is worse off than Nazi Germany. We have achieved new heights in the field of human extermination. We cannot see it, and so even those who deem themselves "pro-life" allow themselves to relax for a day -- go shopping, play video games, have a beer with friends, scroll for hours on Facebook, vacation, have me-time. We have killed far more, and we protect our consciences from effect by expressing indignation at the Nazis and the Republicans [sic].

This piece seems too detached for my liking, and I am sick of being deprived of action. I am sick of the entire structure, but this does not excuse me from first concentrating on the evil which is first in the world: abortion. And I must do at all times what I can.

LISTEN! Open your ears! You have been at war, and you have let the enemy into your beds. The child of your mating is already aborted. Look at the impotence, 300,000 strong!

Remember the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. What was it for?

Remember the beheading of John the Baptist. What was it for?

Remember the Crucifixion of Christ. What was it for?

What is the definition of modern sacrifice? A weekend stroll round the telephone pole with a sign in your hands and a diaper in your pants? It is long past the time to act. The night has darkened on our souls. We have been 40 years a slave to the fear of humiliation, the fear of degradation, the fear of reprise, the fear of harm to our persons. We have let fear drive us to the rationalization that the very system that allows tyranny to reign and bloodshed to flourish would pander to our delicacies.

And fear, as is its wont, has affected our reason so severely that we value our own safety and livelihoods before the very lives of others.

But fear not, for "Actions done under stress of fear, unless of course it be so intense as to have dethroned reason, are accounted the legitimate progeny of the human will, or are, as the theologians say, simply voluntary, and therefore imputable." If we omit, then we commit. It is time to rise, lift up our mats, and walk.

There is no need for us to walk alone. We are all brothers. Let us spread the word, the word which is difficult, and which, because of this, seems all the more to be true. Speak, my friends, and act, and count not the cost upon yourselves. As Dr. King said, "the first question that the Levite asked was, ‘If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?’ But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: ‘If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?’"A noble cause calls good men to act.

As always, I stand with Pope Francis on non-violence: "it is licit to stop the unjust aggressor. I underline the verb: stop. I do not say bomb, make war, I say stop by some means. With what means can they be stopped? These have to be evaluated. To stop the unjust aggressor is licit."

  

Fear and Freedom

Healing the Hurts of the Earth, and Resisting the Orcs

Lúthien Tinúviel, Allan Lee

I recently signed a petition that constitutes a sort of "please cease and desist" request from two private individuals to their local Planning Department. The story need not be told here, but, in summary, the local government very clearly overstepped its bounds and intruded upon the peace of honest citizens as they made an act of good faith by attempting to confirm the legality of their living situation.

We have been seeing this sort of intimidation very often recently, and it has become more and more apparent that government positions are increasingly attractive to power-minded individuals, those who would "lord it over" their fellow man: "Dominion and service, egoism and altruism, possession and gift, self-interest and gratuitousness: these profoundly contrasting approaches confront each other in every age and place" (Homily, Benedict XVI, St. Peter's Basilica, 18 Feb. 2012).

Not all would agree with the theological account of "the beginning", but many in this day and age agree that a certain stewardship of the earth, a relationship with nature that is mutually beneficial, is laudable, and may, in its various forms, be the one appropriate vocation of man.

It just so happens that the persons at the center of the story mentioned above were seeking to grow vegetables, raise chickens and goats, and otherwise live a very "green" lifestyle from a converted, off-grid school bus. They were seeking to perform a deeply human function, following deeply human desires. They were doing no different from the first people of this country, English immigrants in America, the frontier families, and indeed many peoples in various countries, cultures, and economies throughout the world today. It seems odd that their quiet, unobtrusive, and humble lifestyle should cause any stir whatsoever.

It should cause no stir unless it be an inspiration to live in like manner.

That county officials sought to extend the tentacle of arbitrary conformation is a clear sign that America is no longer free, and that the government has made itself an enemy of humankind and of nature, enforcing -- and thereby merely postponing the certain demise of -- a flailing social and economic doctrine.

Why should we expect fear and intimidation when we seek to do the simplest of things, when we choose to do that for which we were made? Why should we balk at the idea of freedom?

Before even it has become illegal to practice one's religion in this country (an impending doom, no doubt), it is illegal to own private property. You are certainly allowed to hand over your life's saving for a deed, title, and other proofs of nominal ownership, but you are not permitted to do as you will with the earth that you cultivate. Instead, the agents of cookie-cutter suburbia come knocking at your door, demanding some blathering nonsense.

The environs are foggy, but the choice is clear.

The current state of affairs, the current tone of local government (and certainly state and national government) effectively precludes any chance of overcoming absurd legal boundaries on an individual basis. What can one man do? He can do something. A foundational principle of the American nation was that a man can't tramp all over you merely because he has the bigger stick. We no longer live in that nation. We live in a state of passive-aggressive cold war with our governing bodies.

And we must put up a rampart of defense against what is clearly an infringement upon our rights as human persons, which include the right to produce food for our own sustenance and shelter against the elements, without restrictions based on our means or some pitiable norm of "success". It is not a moral wrong to be poor. It is a moral right to care in the best way one may for oneself and one's family.

It is time for persons and families of like mind and similar pursuits to band together and live as they see fit, and to reject all unreasonable molestation as well as the consequences of that rejection. We must no longer allow ourselves to be punished for the basic activities required of existence. We must no longer allow arbitrary policies to define our very nature.

We are human beings born in a place, and this is no crime. We have every right to preserve our existence in this place without interference, especially if we obtain property and cultivate it to our liking. It is time to take a stand, and to reject unjust discrimination by a nihilistic society pressured by a police state. It is time for "the adornment of Arda and the healing of its hurts" (Tolkien, quoted in Patrick Curry's "Iron Crown, Iron Cage ..."). It is time to raise happy families to join in the work that has been set out before us. It is time to reject the jealousy of Cain, and justly preserve the pursuit of innocence.

Freedom in a Culture of Hotdogs and Scapegoats

Self Portrait, Istvan Ilosvai Varga

Rene Girard speaks of a tension that necessarily arises in society with many individuals seeking the same thing. This tension, for Girard, has most evidently in ancient cultures involved a scapegoat. For instance, in Aztec culture, a scapegoat was offered up to the gods in satisfaction. In turn, those who offer the sacrifice require a remediation of their hurts and the bestowal of what they desire.

When we think of this current in American culture, we may encounter some fairly astounding revelations regarding our use of scapegoats and the ends we seek by external sacrifice. The world has its own Lent, its own process by which it seeks to approximate itself to the things it values. America, in brief, values a peculiar definition of freedom. 

This concept of freedom is manifested more or less materially: the trappings of pleasure (e.g. boys and cars, girl and boats, the NFL), laws protecting entitlement (e.g. welfare, separation of church and state, and the incoming so-called “gay marriage” laws), and convenience (e.g. internet, pre-nuptial agreements, contraception).

Freedom involves sacrifices. Egotism threatens freedom; violence threatens freedom; intellectual oppression destroys freedom – these are not welcome in a free society. Quite often, however, we conflate two different concepts, and in doing so place human rights in danger of utter loss. These two concepts are 1) free will and 2) freedom. 

Free will refers to the inherent and obvious capacity of a human being to choose one thing or the other: a sandwich or a smoothie (not green). 

Freedom refers to a state of being in which the human is able to make the best possible choice without hindrance (e.g. “I will better myself and no one can stop me”). The concept of “freedom” thus involves the moral idea of goodness, whereas the concept of “free will” allows for both good and evil. This is simply a matter of defining terms. 

Many Americans use “freedom” in the sense of “free will”, and truly believe that they may do as they please whilst they dwell in this country. Of course, they will enter into argument about how their sense of “freedom” depends upon the cultural context in which they were raised. However, this cultural context is ever-shifting: the argument means nothing if the concept of “freedom” can change at the whim of the masses. How can we define “freedom” if the word becomes unmanageable due to uncertain content? 

And America has multiple cultural contexts! Oh, the rabbit trails we could run.

We could ask the contextualist, “And so ‘freedom’ could refer to a position of complete oppression depending on the context in which it is used? This is simply a matter of language, then. You are using one word which previously had one meaning to refer to another. How can one know what he values, then? How can we discuss this thing called a ‘cultural value’? And if we assert that freedom is changing, how can we decry the dictatorship?” Indeed, we do not decry the dictatorship.

What the American is truly trying to say is that he has the right not to be bothered by any doubt of his correctness in living how he chooses to live, and he will deflect any doubts with whatever means necessary, including casting doubt upon the value of language and its ability to order our world. Language even becomes a scapegoat. When language becomes a scapegoat (it hasn’t worked with us), this is a sign that the self is willing to sacrifice his communion with other human beings in order to have whatever he craves. The autonomous self – the dead self.

In the end, the sense intended is this: “Freedom”, for many Americans, refers to uninhibited will.

However, as we see in effect today, this uninhibited will often clashes with the will of others. What is needed to mollify the escalating anxiety caused by the infringement upon our will by another? A scapegoat. To preserve a semblance of peace, the members of society come together at various points – waves reach over the sandbar and touch. As long as the scapegoat is there, society may go on with its mediocre state of temporary pacification. When the scapegoat disappears, war – the waves clash.

And what preserves our American stasis, our lone wolf syndrome of doing what one likes? What preserves our pleasure, entitlement, convenience?

• We all believe that love can and should die.
• We all believe that children can and should die if they interrupt our particular phase of life.
• We all believe that the enemies of uninhibited will should be scorned and defaced.
• We believe in the dead self, a hatred of self sold as a love of self.

And if these things hold our society together, they are like the abyss that opens in the ground, so that the walls of earth seem to join as they collapse, falling inward upon themselves. We commune only when we wish to break apart, and we shall break apart if we do not commune.

The self is not autonomous. It depends upon its intricate bonds to other members of society for survival, comfort, and even personality. When it begins to sever these bonds for the cry of mere inclination, it ceases, in unsustainable ways, to be human. It distorts nature and bends her to its will like Kim Jong Un, Hussein, Hitler. Imagine the horror and the isolation of an entire nation of “autonomous selves”, each attempting to sacrifice each because of the turmoil caused within, until the scapegoat becomes the self in that final surfeit of guilt that is yet a selfish act. Alone in a bunker with cyanide.

And true guilt? The answer that G.K. Chesterton gave to the question, “What’s wrong with the world?”:

 “I am.”

This is freedom.




"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish"
-- Mother Theresa of Calcutta

The Savage

I recently shared midday meals and time with strangers during a training course near the Gulf coast in Texas that I attended for work. As the training involved a supposedly "universal" incident management program, there were individuals present from both government agencies and private industry.

On the second day, I shared lunch with one man, a trainer in operations with the army. He was stationed in the area. And soon I realized that neither of us were sitting at that table for any particular reason.

He had been in California, Louisiana, Kansas, New York. I had been in Louisiana, North Carolina -- these for birth and family, education and joy. To Texas came I for sustenance, which in this State (i.e. the U.S.A.), must come from money.

After lunch we sat in my car, waiting through the 2-hour period so irregular for us, perhaps not so for the others, who were public servants. Like me, one of his enjoyments is music in the Irish tradition. We both know of Julie Fowlis.

Yet as we sat and spoke of music -- and listened -- I could not dispel the feeling that neither of us were at all capable of interesting the other. Neither of us were at all capable of engagement, cordiality, connection.

"Yes, I know this artist you speak of. Do you know this one?" And a dry exchange ensues.

He had a humility and honesty about his eyes and speech, but perhaps the iciness of Statism or the gray sky or the cold unshakeable tool of capitalism that makes its will ever known to our fears came like a silent wave and shook our plastic & leather capsule til we were subdued and wanted escape -- not from the truth but from the reminder of the truth in a man's eyes, heart, tongue.

Here in Houston, we are all killers. On the roads, we are seldom hot and angry, just full metal coolness and murder. To every man a compensatory pick-up truck. But the object dissipates as we climb into our vehicles and the desire to inflict upon mad drivers the panic only comprehended as hatred overthrows the possibility of temporal despair. And we are all lost in the welling hell.

Once back to the plastic and leather capsule of our holes, we dive into the filtering shell that seems to be an outlet but really is a thief in saving us from saving harm.

And paradoxically, you should watch The Matrix and try with good will to see how we are hastening the loss of the human. And paradoxically I will write on, aware of the death clinging to my words unless you let them live.

I do not want the grace of doctrine. If my mind is free, but every act refutes its call to free my body, my mind is in chains.

I want not to be a slave. I do not want my fruit taken with assumed justice unless I see it's worth the price. And I cannot see it. And unlike God the United States of America merits no Mystery.

What is to become of us? What is to be done, my dear fellow slaves? Dare we raise our heads and cry to God the shame upon the heads of those who bend our noses to mirrors on the ground? Dare we cry shame upon our own heads as we bend them to the ground?

God save us and have mercy.

If I were not drawn with fear and harsh words saying I neglect responsibility, I would drop this sordid towel that mops the drops gushing from the staunched fountain. Death and love and freedom rather than ongoing.

God did not make these walls.

Will someone shoot you for saying "I am a man, and will forage for food. I am a woman, and will feed my child. I am a man, and will farm this land you leave wanton and fallow. I am a woman, and will tend this house you leave neglected"? Perhaps it is best to be shot.

Shots can not harm us as we walk through the fields, feeding a living act of God's love with grain on the Sabbath.

I would invite any and all to contemplate these shots and those rocks that come in through the window in Trois Couleurs: Rouge. See earlier post for viewing information.

On the Limits of Freedom

The state of Virginia currently has the tightest laws when it comes to speed limits in America.  The interstate limit is 70 mph, which granted, is high, but the state enforces it to a tee.  Virginia is the only state that outlaws radar detectors.  Virginia also greets its visitors with much love and affection - I received a bouquet of flowers from a state trooper last time I crossed its borders.  Oh, wait, I’m thinking of another state.  Virginia greets its visitors with signs like this:

On the surface, this gripping restriction on speed seems like an abhorrent violation of our freedom.  And yet anyone who complains that their freedom is being limited because they can’t drive their BMW at 150mph is clearly not thinking logically.  Of course there needs to be speed limits, and of course they need to be enforced, sometimes strictly, in order for those BMW drivers to understand that it isn’t a speed suggestion.

But why?  Why do we insist that there needs to be limits on our freedom when it comes to things like speed, but we complain about institutions limiting our freedom when it comes to things like sexual morality?  What does it mean to really be free?  The answer, surprisingly, has nothing to do with the kind of “freedom” that is promoted throughout the Western world today.  Indeed, it’s ironic how one of the few things most valued in our society is perhaps the one thing society gets so wrong.

The key to understanding our common misconception with freedom is that we wrongly use the word interchangeably with license.  We lie to ourselves with idioms like, “I’m free to do what I want,” without comprehending the cliche, spitting it out to excuse ourselves of some behavior that tugs at our conscience.

We only need to apply the idiom to practical examples to see its absurdity.  If I am really “free to do what I want,” can I take your laptop for myself if you leave it unattended for a minute at a coffee shop?  Can I drive at 150mph on the interstate if it’s a free country?  The best answer I have received for these rhetorical questions was actually quite perceptive: “Of course not,” one man once told me on an internet forum.  He explained, “you are free insofar as it does not harm other people.”

Herein lies the rub - if freedom is limited to the wellbeing of other people, freedom is therefore trumped by a hierarchy of goods.  Make no mistake: it is very good indeed that we have the ability to choose.  However the question must be asked, “choose what?”  In the examples above, we choose the good of our neighbors’ wellbeing.  Our neighbors are infinitely more good than the good we would achieve by getting a new computation device, or getting to work five minutes early.  By not stealing the laptop and not speeding on the interstate, one sees a good for himself, but then acts in accordance with freedom to choose a higher good.  This is the proper use of human freedom, and fits perfectly with the definition given by the great doctor, Thomas Aquinas: freedom is the ability to choose the good.

Understanding freedom in this context brings us to a stark conclusion: the only hope there is to maintain a truly free society is to enable laws that protect the greater good.  If the greater good is not chosen and men continue to abuse freedom without repercussion, then society will be doomed to fail.  It will be an archetype of what freedom does not look like.

Stay tuned for a follow up post where I mention love, virtue, vice, and the odd proposition that slavery may be better than freedom.

Relativism: The Scourge of the West

Relativism is, surely, a loaded term in the West today. Generally, when spoken, the word carries a negative connotation; even those who believe in some strain of relativism do not like the label. I find this topic interesting largely because of the way the phenomenon of relativism has seized western culture, while relativism as a philosophy has experienced a less than robust life. Up until the last couple of centuries, serious minded thinkers viewed relativistic thought as a nonviable way to understand and describe reality. With modern science and the spreading compartmentalization of knowledge, and modern philosophy and its replacing of God with the self, relativism began its forceful and flattening march on western culture.

One might look around now and easily find at least a couple manifestations of relativism – the one, paralyzing, the other, emboldening. Before continuing, let us have a general definition of relativism from which to build our discussion: the idea that any truth or knowledge is relative to a specified framework (i.e. culture, history, society). Of the two manifestations, the former follows very closely the definition above. The relativist of this manner may be a somewhat thoughtful person. Seeing the irrefutable fact that different peoples in different times and places have formed varying beliefs and behaviors, the relativist concludes that his judgments about other cultures or societies or the good or ill therein are nullified by the fact that all he believes is relative to his own time and place. There may be knowable truths, and judgments that follow, within his specific framework, but he does not believe that “his truth” applies to those outside his framework, thus he is paralyzed and unable to act. As one narrows the appropriate realm of human reason, one widens the chasm between himself and truth.

The second manifestation of relativism magnifies the narrowing effect seen above, for the framework in which one is locked is no longer one’s culture, society, or position in history but one’s self. The threat of this relativism is far more than the frustrating experiences of hearing someone say, “Well, that’s just your opinion.” If we take the proportionality statement above, this second kind of relativism creates even more separation from the truth, and therefore, is more dangerous than the first. With all things relative to the self, the self becomes radically independent, disconnected from others and society.

It should be clear why this phenomenon of relativism continues to spread and take hold: it is easy, convenient, requiring only a weak mind, and a weaker will. This kind of relativism is what Joseph Ratzinger once called “a dictatorship of relativism.”¹ With nothing definite, there is nothing demanded, and so this relativism brings forth an illusion of freedom while in reality, the independent and distorted self turns inward and becomes enslaved to its own desires.

We find ourselves under this “dictatorship of relativism” today – the battle for men’s souls rages. As man narrows his horizon and moves further from the truth, the question of what is to be done becomes more difficult still. One answer, one hope, is beauty. Somehow, the relativist must experience ecstasy, must come out of himself. The artist, then, is charged with the highest of tasks: making men free. Beauty has the power to awaken in man new desires, to turn his gaze upward towards heavenly things, to crack his hardened heart so that the light of truth might begin to shine through. In his unique relationship to the Beautiful, the artist plays a central role in broadening the narrow vision of the relativist. The relativists are correct that we all live, think, and interact within a specified framework – how small have you made yours?

Religious Freedom or Toleration: Which one is American?

We talk much about religious freedom both in public debate and in common conversation in America. What does religious freedom mean in the United States? How did our founders understand it? For a Catholic wishing to enter into dialogue on the topic of religious freedom in the United States, these questions become highly important, as the Lockean “doctrine of toleration” written into our law by the founding fathers and others thereafter differs from the idea of religious freedom that grows out of a respect for the inherent dignity of the human person as a child of God. These differences cause much of the frustration that arises when the government – technically acting within the bounds of law in the spirit of toleration – encroaches on true religious freedom.

The idea of toleration is a great political idea, at least for the development of a smooth functioning secular state. The so-called “doctrine of toleration” one finds in Locke’s Second Treatise seems very reasonable: rather than muddy itself in the affairs of religion – as it did for many years before – the state will simply tolerate all forms of religion. I can worship in my way, you can worship in yours, and the state will stay out of it all (sort of). At this point, Locke and the Church seem pretty well aligned, at least until one asks, “Why should men be given religious freedom?”

For Locke, men should be given religious freedom because men are radically free in their natural state. There is no real end to the toleration found in Locke; it is largely determined by political practicality. You will not find objective standards against which to measure the worth of one religion or religious practice to another, because men are simply free to worship and congregate as they sit fit. Not much of an anthropology happening there. Locke offers a kind of religious freedom because it allows him to dismiss the more difficult question of how to incorporate the role of religion into the common welfare. The Church, however, has a different end in mind for human and religious freedom.

After trudging through the pages of Locke’s Treatise, one will find delight in the grand vision of humanity found in Dignitatis Humanae. In this document promulgated by the Second Vatican Council, there is a beautiful declaration on religious freedom beginning with the fundamental proposition that at the core of the human person an irremovable dignity arises from the joint gifts of reason and free will. The primary task of men is to respond in worship to the Creator and Grantor of such gifts, and “immunity from coercion in civil society” (i.e. religious freedom) is required for that response. Religious freedom or human freedom as such, is not an end in itself; rather, freedom from coercion creates the atmosphere necessary for the quest for truth, a quest that freedom, in turn, demands. 

The doctrine of toleration guiding lawmakers yesterday and today falls short of the full vision of man, the freedom given him and the right response to it. So often, the United States is associated with Christianity – for good reason, mind you – but that association does not mean that we are a Christian nation. We look back at our founders with awe and reverence – again, for good reason – but their guide was much more Locke than it was the Catholic Church. Our nation is a great product of Enlightenment thought, not of a rich theological tradition. Understanding these fundamental differences between the philosophical groundwork of our nation and the theology of the Christian tradition will help to limit the frustration often directed toward our government when good law comes in conflict with the interests of Christians. Maybe its not the way you would like, but our government is working just as intended.