Peaceful, Law-Abiding Outlaws

I have recently enjoyed two long email exchanges: one with an administrator at Abolish Human Abortion and another with a representative of Right to Life of M-----. The former was the result of an inquiry about starting a Houston chapter of the organization (toe-dipping, before I knew their biases), the latter a result of an attempt on my part to logically validate or invalidate certain methodologies and tactics.

It is difficult not to have respect for an organization like Abolish Human Abortion, whose leaders at least declare a no-compromise approach to the fight against organized genocide. They call themselves "abolitionists", and vigorously proclaim an "anti-abortion" message.

Likewise, one would be hard-pressed to discredit the legal work of the various Right to Life state organizations. In fact, I would go so far as to say that anyone who claims to be pro-life and yet discredits the important legal work of National Right to Life or its subsidiary chapters would be dishonest in his/her approach to this holocaust.

"Our way or the highway"

However, as my discussion with AHA developed, rather than being questioned about my pro-life -- or anti-abortion, in this case -- convictions and activities, I found myself pushed into an arduous and elaborate defense of my Catholic faith. It turns out that AHA will not accept anyone into its ranks who does not submit to its unique interpretation of the Gospel sola scriptura, and so its proposed message of 'no quarter and no compromise' is diluted by a strange compulsion to press its ideological Christianity on allies and fellow Christians. Rarely is it more evident that a corporation (a group of persons) may have religious convictions than in this instance, and rarely are those religious convictions more inappropriately applied.

Regardless, it would seem to me irresponsible to totally reject AHA's role in the fight against abortion. Displaying the truth by holding signs and offering alternatives is always necessary, as is constant prayer. But the effectiveness of one's mission to stop abortion, to "stop the unjust aggressor", might be questioned if he/she is constantly criticizing loyal and indispensable brothers-at-arms. But we need people to stand up and fight the good fight, to tell the world that they can no longer stop their ears and avert their eyes from over 40 years of mindless slaughter, and so we can support AHA as a valid moral voice insofar as it is doing just that.

The Myth of Time

My conversation with the very polite representative at Right to Life of M----- began with a question I had posed about RLM's position on civil disobedience. The policy of RLM states that they make no judgement about others who may participate in acts of nonviolent civil disobedience, and it also affirms that the mission of RLM is to pursue constitutional amendment. My goal was to clarify the implications of the phrase "make no judgement". While it is logical and reasonable to focus on the singular mission of one's organization, I wanted to be sure that RLM understood and endorsed the necessity of other forms of action, specifically the "nonviolent direct action" of Martin Luther King's conception.

In other words, I wanted to be sure there was no latent disapproval of nonviolent direct action within the organization. I wanted to be sure that RLM stands for life and allies itself with all of those who do so in a morally licit manner.

My contact at RLM was very legalistic in his language when providing details about the official policy, but, ultimately, he gave the following explanation (emphasis mine):

"RLM does not condemn non-violent civil disobedience, but we will not engage in it, approve it, or support it in any way. [...] It's impossible to run an effective organization that can not stay singularly focused on their mission. Unity is worthy, but our mission is not to unite or divide the prolife movement, it's a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

and

"What is worth condemning is abortion. But we say our four decades of wisdom means that we will not support methods outside of the law. No one strategy is equally valid to another, some are better than others. You are free to disagree, but we believe abortion will end significantly quicker by working through the system, as opposed to civil disobedience."

I will preface the following by saying that my contact at RLM was, by this time, very familiar with my desire for a complete and accurate understanding of the mission, values, and opinions of RLM. He began the above paragraph with this statement: "I see that you are someone with great concern for precision."

A House United

We must fervently agree with RLM when they say that "It's impossible to run an effective organization that cannot stay singularly focused on their mission." We must fervently agree. We must say that to lead a flock of cats would be exceedingly difficult, and that in order to succeed, an organization must remain committed to its purpose, pursuing every means by which that purpose may be accomplished. For RLM, and for National Right to Life, this purpose is the criminalization of abortion through legal means.

We must not seek to direct these organizations away from their paths, so long as those multitudinous tributaries and hunting trails meet in the great roadway of Justice.

We must also fervently agree with RLM when they say that "unity is worthy" and that it is only through unity, through a "singular focus" on the common "mission" that we may obtain the necessary goal of equal rights for the unborn, for it is impossible to run an effective organization that cannot stay singularly focused on its purpose.

Thus, neither can we run an effective pro-life movement if all of its moving parts, all of its constituent organizations, are not wholeheartedly in mutual support.

We must be precise, and we must be careful when we define our mission, our purpose. We must say not that our mission is "a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution", for while this would be a great milestone in the quest for justice, in 40 years it has not been attained, and time, a neutral reality, does not heal wounds. Thus, we may justly pursue legal intervention as one of the many means by which we call upon the world to render justice unto its most fragile wards, but we may not claim that this method is supreme -- even implicitly, even by "making no judgement" -- posing as if we have some authority to expend as many lives as necessary so long as our indirect means of legal action remain intact.

It is reasonable, in this sense, to approve of legal action and legal goals insofar as the manner in which this is done does not conflict with the overarching mission of saving lives and restoring dignity. It is reasonable to approve of legal action if the manner in which this is done does not conflict with the eternal law.

We must remember that we are not the lawbreakers. We must remember that there exist many barbaric inconsistencies within the current 'legal' system, such as the illegality of murdering individuals who have been born and the converse legality of murdering those who have not, such as the double-homicide count if a pregnant woman has been killed and the converse legal protection of late-term abortionists, such as the illegality of racism and the converse taxpayer support of racist eugenics organizations that kill an overwhelming majority of minority children.

We must remember that we live in a barbaric society where true order has forsaken the legal system. We must remember that any action we commence within that system, while possibly beneficial, creates a false dialogue in which good and evil are set upon a plane, in which the champions of right and the carrion birds of wrong are given equal say. But we must use all means that are morally licit, and so we uphold and we praise the work of organizations like the National Right to Life.

However, we cannot condone any suggestion implied by any organization that MLK's "nonviolent direct action" is, at its worst, immoral or, at best, unnecessary. Just as the human laws of the land are now tools of barbarism, so now those things which are considered barbaric by the barbaric law are the very righteous tools by which barbarism will be overthrown and a tranquil order take its place.

Some may say that the situation today is different from that of the Civil Rights Movement in that those who seek to protect the unborn are not the victims of abuse, and have less license to rise up in civil disobedience. There are many people today, who, in consonance with the Zeitgeist of tolerance, wish to seem like reasonable persons. They ask, "Why can't we all just calm down and have a rational conversation?"

And I answer that there is a certain point at which rational conversation becomes futile, and that point is reached when one party to the conversation is no longer speaking rationally. Killing human beings for profit, pleasure, or convenience is not a rational activity. Moreover, it is irrational to have a conversation about persecution without the voice of the persecuted being heard. It is irrational to remain calm about countless vicious atrocities that are committed day after day within the boundaries of the law.

Furthermore, I answer that we have more of a right to defend the unborn with the sacrifice of our very persons and property because we have more duty to do so. No, we are not fighting for our own rights in an unjust society as many American blacks did in the 1960s (and valiant and praiseworthy was their struggle). Rather, in an even more radical gesture, forsaking our present remaining ease and comfort, forsaking all the rights that we enjoy, we answer the ancient call of love by willingly placing ourselves in harm's way for the sake of these little ones who have no voice and no strength to defend themselves. Just as God raises the battle standard when we let it fall, so we rise to fight for the unborn children. We rise in their stead.

Duty does not disappear when strength is lacking. Either the oppressed can stand or they cannot, and when they cannot, we stand or we fall for them. We need not refer to any other than Jesus Christ, the greatest revolutionary of all, God Himself, who sacrificed his very flesh for the lives and redemption of others, saying, "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).

I will conclude by saying that, as yet, no reasonable person has proven the ineffectiveness of "nonviolent direct action", but rather a great many reasonable persons, 50 years ago, proved its great effectiveness in pushing negotiations to a positive tension so that certain just demands be answered or the entire social framework devolve into chaos. Their righteous demands were answered, but entropy must continually be countered with order.

Let no one discountenance nonviolent direct action. Or if someone should, let this individual then answer why the Islamic State should not be stopped with decisive action. Let this person then explain why Boko Haram should be addressed with passive, non-confrontational measures. Let him explain why, when the soldiers of the Allies encountered the concentration camps, they should not have invaded and destroyed them, but rather should have held as many 'rational' conversations with the Nazis as possible while the wrongs continued. Let him decry Jeanne d'Arc or Christ purifying the temple.

And when this reasonable person has answered these several challenges of thousands more, let him say again why we should not offer ourselves in peaceful demonstrations as holocausts for a graver wrong, a more horrific indignity, a vast and bloody genocide. Let him, surely a reasonable person, explain why every able man should not take part.

Finally, let no reasonable person denigrate any of the necessary means by which abortion must be fought. Let no reasonable person, in a weak moment of pride, preach sole validity for his method alone and the rejection of all others (or worse, pass no judgement at all) -- not Operation Rescue in the 1980s, not legal organizations nor evangelical groups now. We all need each other.

We are brothers.

We are brothers.

We are brothers.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. Let us all together wear our various scars.

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."

  

Flamme, Citron, Fear of Death

Flame and Citron (2008) (or Flammen og Citronen, if you prefer) is a film about 2 Danish Resistance fighters in Nazi-occupied Europe.

In the main, they are sent on assassination missions, eliminating prominent Danish Nazi collaborators -- mostly military figures. When a female Nazi is involved, Flamme must clean up after Citronen's failure of emotional resolve. Hard times.

Viewing the film, few of us would even wince at the death of a Nazi colonel or SS officer. Most of us would sit still, applying a grim sense of justice to the scene, happy that an enemy to humanity had been neutralized.

We do not fault Flammen and Citronen. We do not fault Flammen for his anger, his frightful impetuousness, his coldness of execution, for he sacrifices his more human capacities for the sake of others, for the sake of those who suffer. Even for an uncertain future, he sacrifices sweetness and light for blood and death and danger.

We do not fault Citronen. His wife and child are poor and hungry, but we only reproach him a little. Indeed, his wife takes up with another man because Citronen is never home, always away in hiding or on the warpath. But he is noble enough to say, "Take care of my wife and child."

Why do they fight? Why kill? We all know. We have heard the stories, seen the dream-like horrors. We do not forget. We have hated the Nazis in our turn. We do not forget. We have seen the tortured, corpse-like human bodies shuffling in the cold. We have seen the corpses. We do not forget.

Those who survive hold on to the flame, the torch of indignation, of sorrow, of love, of despair, of newfound hope, of wisdom hard-won. We have heard them. We have listened attentively. We do not forget.


We forget.


There is a deeper horror that even as I write surfaces once more, insidious, in our minds.

And how do we meet this horror? With swift relentless unfailing justice toward a real and present monstrosity? Or with diplomacy and statecraft. Do we treat with hell?

We treat with hell.


We forget.


We have swallowed the lie that words can win the day. I believe they can. But someone must be listening.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was willing to be arrested, abused, killed for the cause of a better life for African Americans -- not for their lives en masse, but for equal rights as citizens. Not for clothing, not for food, not for water, not for shelter, not for life and breath -- for equal rights as citizens.

Our glorious generation has achieved a complacent sidewalk counselorship. Yes, we are those on the sidelines who watch and say a few words, impotently waving our signs, hiding behind a false piety that says "Prayer is all you need!" without proaction. We treat with hell.

We say that "We are the pro-life generation!" with cries and shouts and smiles and free concerts in Washington, D.C.. But we care only -- really -- for our own lives. We are pro-life in that regard. Our rationalizations are petty and false. We say that we act in this way in the name of "compassion" and "charity," that we are the "peaceful" demonstrators amongst the carnage.

When compassion means sloth, when charity equates to a failure of love in a failure to act for the prevention of murder (and thus the salvation of the would-be murderer), there is no peace. When the mills grind day after day as we plod -- we asses, we dumb chattel -- along the sideline begging our betters -- yes! for they are cold, and we are lukewarm -- to please obey natural and divine law, there can be no peace. There is no peace. There is no peace. There is no peace.

And to pretend to Culture in such a world?!

If the wars are not fought -- if we do not at least stand firm in peaceful civil disobedience: blocking entries, closing down buildings with whatever measures necessary -- then there will be nothing left when the self-loathing of the West has wreaked its havoc upon the last child in the womb (or out).

We fear death. We do not see it, and so we avoid its screeching call for justice. We avoid. We wimper.


There is no peace. There is no peace. Awaken.





Addendum: I do not advocate the murder of abortionists.