CCCXXIV – Overheard in the Officer’s Tent

Editors Note: I have just returned from a bout of non-recreational travel over the past two weeks. I apologize for my tardiness in replying to some comments left on this site and I am eager to catch up on a few places where I have not had the pleasure to read since I have been away. I always considered this blog something of a half-minded lark that I write in when my brain gets full, but I was surprised by how much I missed writing here. So, I am back, dear readers! It might not feel like I was gone since I was able to squeeze out a post or two, but sincerely, I missed this. Back to it!

---

I have previously characterized this blog–the Times-Dispatch–as an “officers tent of a volunteer militia”. I spend a lot of this time conditioning my readers on how to feel good about losing, because our Earthly battles are just that, while the spiritual war was won at Calvary. There will be no heaven on earth. There will be no political victory for Catholics. There will only be a lifetime of suffering in service of Christ, and then we will shed our mortal coil and, God willing, return to him.

It is important to understand this because we have to manage our expectations, and our efforts. If our expectation is to win political victories, then we need to put a significant amount of effort into our political operations. If our expectation is to win military victories, then we need to put a significant amount of effort into our military operations, which we are not.

Yet, from time to time, we are permitted by the grace of God to taste something that resembles victory. Everyone in the world probably knows this by the time I hit publish on this article–that the Supreme court “overturned Roe v. Wade”. I have not read the opinion–and I decided, in keeping with my Peasant ideology, I ought not read it. It is enough to know the effects without knowing the arguments. I will act as if a learned man passed through my village and told me the news. I ought to throw up a prayer of thanksgiving, pray that this beginning is brought to a Holy conclusion, and resume my work, whatever it is.

There are four elements to success in a military campaign, according to my study of the American Civil War. The first two are basic: You need supplies, and you need people to wield them. An army cannot fight if the army is composed of only one soldier; an army cannot fight if ten-thousand soldiers are armed with sticks. You need willing men and you need them to be well supplied. The second two elements are not basic: You need strong and sensible commanders, you need a good fighting spirit. Commanders are hard to come by, and oftentimes the first phase of a war is spent eliminating all the incompetent peacetime commanders and promoting all the competent wartime commanders who were hidden beneath them. Fighting spirit refers to two things: The public taste for war–a just war will always have the support of the public, and as long as the public has an appetite for war, it will continue; and the soldiers morale for fighting–a despondent soldiery will refuse to fight, or fight poorly, while an energetic and zealous soldiery will fight hard and fight well. The public taste for war can be won or lost by a commander, the soldiers morale for fighting can be gained or lost by how a commander chooses battles.

Here is a case study. The Confederate States of America had an advantage in fighting spirit and commanders; the Union had an advantage in numbers and supplies. The Civil War could have been concluded with great haste if the Union commanders had executed a violent campaign with speed and enthusiasm; but instead the Union commanders, particularly McClellan, hesitated and feared. A common refrain on both sides of the war was an unwillingness to fight without more troops. The delay caused by McClellan’s incompetence allowed the Confederates to reorganize their army around their most competent commanders, to bring up more recruits and more supplies, and reduce the disparity in the two areas the Confederates were deficient. Jackson’s Valley Campaign is a beautiful example of how the Confederates were able to leverage their strengths–Excellent commanders, a strong fighting spirit–and confuse, confound, and delay the Union from persecuting their campaign. Jackson’s army which began at 5,000 men and was maybe 17,000 at it’s highest point, was able to keep a Union army of some 50,000 busy in the Shenandoah Valley and delay an all-out assault on Richmond, Virginia.

As Catholics who love God and promote the God-given dignity of every human life, how do we measure on the four attributes of a successful military campaign?

We have people–if you were to take self identified Catholics you might think we had an overwhelming number of people, but the reality is that many self identified Catholics do not acknowledge or follow the doctrines of the Church. How many that is, it is hard to say. Even with an optimistic estimate, the opponents of God and the opponents of Life are more popular and more numerous, and it is likely to always be that way. Evangelists, Apologists, Catechists, Parents, Priests, Good Catholics everywhere: This is work you can do. Tell people about the faith, practice it with earnest fervor, demonstrate to the world what the love of God is capable of. Teach people what Catholics actually believe, what the Church actually teaches, and why God actually calls them to His Church.

We have supplies–but can always have more. Pray the rosary daily. Go to confession, celebrate Mass. Put on the Armor of God. Pray for your enemies, pray for your friends. Pray for your priests, because the pulpit is the breakwater against the world. Pray for the Church. As Wood so eloquently put it: if you _____ more than you pray, you might be more part of the problem than you realize it. I have heard several instances where people hold up a rosary and say “This is my weapon”. They are not joking–it is the most powerful weapon in the world–against Sin, Satan, and Sadness. If you are wondering what you can do to help the cause, you can be a prayerful Rosier the Riveter and pray like your life depends on it because it does.

We have many commanders of varying qualities. We have the abundance of peacetime commanders that happens when our commanders don’t have to fight for their lives and the lives of their men. Some of our commanders do, and do so valiantly–pray for them. Some of our commanders disappoint us in varying and unique ways–pray for them too. Here’s the unusual thing: We can’t spare a single man to the enemy, much less our commanders. Pray that our commanders find their fighting spirit. Pray that new commanders find their way to positions of authority to lead the Church in the fight. Pray that our enemies are converted and put to use against the enemy, like that great evangelist St. Paul.

And one thing we have in abundance, an advantage over any enemy that the evil one might throw at us, is fighting spirit. Because our fighting spirit is the Holy spirit. The Holy Spirit fills the hearts of those who can fight so that they fight well. It fills the hearts of those who cannot fight so that they can supply our fighting men with prayer. The Church, and the Church Militant, joined by the Church Triumphant, has the most unquenchable fighting spirit ever known and it only ever gets stronger. Call upon the Holy Spirit to enflame your heart for battle.

But, what do we do, once we have taken stock of the things we have? We must find the enemy and press hard. Concentrate your forces, divide the forces of the enemy. That’s how Jackson was able to fight with so much success in the mountains of Virginia.

What the Supreme Court has handed us, in this ruling, is not a final victory. The Supreme court has divided our enemy fifty times. Catholics are used to fighting under the principles of subsidiarity–any abortion clinic in the country, at some point you will find a Catholic praying a rosary outside of it–I guarantee it. Catholics are fighting a guerilla war against the world, and are very seasoned at it. So now we take the fight to the state-houses across America. Only those members of state-houses can affect this, the rest of us must supply our soldiers with prayers. We will face the unashamed cult of satan, who want to sacrifice babies to the gaping maw of evil. We will face the pearl clutching, hand wringing, “haven’t we gone far enough”, “let’s strike a compromise” crowd of right-liberals who support “the choice” for life, who don’t have the spine to draw a line in the sand and say they will not cross. The folks who need our support the most are those politicians capable of effectuating zero-tolerance legislation prohibiting abortion of any kind. This is the only thing that will be a true victory–and when it is achieved (not if, but when) it will need to be defended legislatively because no legislative progress is permanent, there will always be votes to change the rules and turn over past legislation.

So these are the stakes. Literally: Life or death. Do not suffice to merely choose life. Love life. Love the author of life Himself. Love all that is beautiful, good, and true–and love your enemies, by praying that they come to love it too.

You will never get anything you don’t ask for. Ask God for a miracle. Trust that he will hear you.

Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

---

Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful.
And kindle in them the fire of your love.
Send forth your Spirit and they shall be created.
And you will renew the face of the earth.

Lord,
by the light of the Holy Spirit
you have taught the hearts of your faithful.
In the same Spirit
help us to relish what is right
and always rejoice in your consolation.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen.

CXIV – Life, Liberty, Property

The March for life is happening today, the 24th of January 2020. Wednesday, the 22nd was Celebration of Life day. President Trump will be speaking at the March for Life, which is a big deal and people are very excited about. Because of that intersection of Catholic doctrine, Politics, and social mores, I’d like to muse on the subject.

The Declaration of Independence started the Freedom Doxology with their proclamation of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness“. The constitution amended this, surely in recognition of the indefensible language of the latter clause, to say “life, liberty, and property”.

I say again, this enumeration of rights is fallacious. Only Life is granted to us by God. Liberty cannot come at the expense of obedience to God, and no one is entitled to property but we may keep the property we happen to have or lawfully acquire.

So of those three, Life is the greater responsibility of Government–indeed of all people. The other two are privileges allowed to us by government, promises the government makes to us, not without qualification.

The commitment to Life, the source of which is the highest possible authority, our Lord God, is absolute. One might even call the focus of opposition to abortion as “narrow” in scope, though it is absolutely the top priority in terms of urgency.

The promise of life extends to all aspects of human existence. I recall a few years ago when a politician expanded on their opposition to drugs as a “pro life” measure. Truly, opposition to war could be said to be the same. Economic prosperity is “pro life”, as is a prudent and just legal system. If the unnatural death of even one life was considered abhorrent, we would view the world very differently.

Empathy is the root of a broad view of Life. Our society is angry and divided because we have tried to supplant “Life” with happiness–I might even say pleasure. If pleasure were the chief focus, then drugs would be a virtue, not a vice. A death by overdose would be the absolute pinnacle of our sad, short lives: going out in euphoric stupor. But its not enough to maximize individual pleasures, but rather the focus is on stacking pleasures over the course of ones life. A man who jealously guards his happiness is successful, while any kind of suffering diminishes the maximum lifetime accumulation of pleasure. At the end of life, if you have a big stack of happiness, you “win” and then get absorbed into the ethereal life force of a loving and benevolent cosmos.

This is gluttony. But what is unique about it is that it is gluttony born from “good intentions”. This creates what i have previously called the soft vices of excess. It is acidic, and eats away at our conscience. It makes us lazy, because we have “everything we need”.

We are gluttons for pleasure, as a society. As gluttons for pleasure, the needs of our fellow humans are subordinated to the almighty demands of “me” and “now”. Practices contrary to this are diligence, asceticism, and temperance. What does that look like on a social scale?

Diligence: Actively, consistently, practicing what we preach, caring for those lives which are in need of help, especially unborn children in danger of abortion. Asceticism: What things do we have and not need? An Ascetic society practices self-denial. Perhaps not engaging in risky behaviors can deepen intimacy and prevent any consideration of abortion in the first place. Perhaps denying ourselves an extra this or that, rejecting a “treat yo self” mentality, and fasting before we feast would help us appreciate the little pleasures of life? Temperance: More than self denial, but moderation in all things. Having an even hand and applying it to all things in your life inspires simplicity. On a social scale, a temperate society is a society that values well rounded citizens, capable of understanding values and differentiating between too much and too little.

The March for life isn’t a march for life: it’s a march for a society that isn’t gluttonous and self centered. It’s a March for civilization.

(f) – Might Makes Bill of Rights

I thought this was an important enough clarification to merit reposting here.

---

Scoot: “Rights” are the great lie of the last thousand years.

Commenter: If there are no “rights” then there is no Right. Is this what you are really insisting?

Scoot: No. “Rights” are the classically liberal imitation of Natural Law. Natural Law is Truth, and Truth points to what is right and what is wrong.

The Bill of Rights in USA, for example. The government is saying God gives these rights and cannot take them away: The right to speech, the right to bear arms, etc, and the government is positioning themselves as the protectors of those God given rights. But the way the law works, is that you have the right to speech but it is illegal to, for example, shout ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre. So you have the right to speech, but not ALL speech. You have the right to bear arms, but not ALL arms.

What the government calls ‘rights’ are actually privileges which the government allows us to exercise. Natural Law remains True regardless of whether the government acts to protect or detract it. The right to Life is granted by God, not by the government. It will always be right to defend and preserve human life. It will not always be guaranteed by government.

Source

XXXIV – Nihilism Doesn’t Matter

From a comment I made elsewhere, regarding Justin “Jussie” Smollett’s hoax crime:

(…) The [marketing] game is going to levels more and more depraved.

Where did this sickness come from? There is a plague of nihilism in a world that doesn’t care for or about God. In a world where nothing matters, there is no limit to how low we, as humans, can go. For a case-in-point, look at any Godless regime. Soviet Union: Mass murder. Cuba: Mass murder. Khmer Rouge: Mass Murder.

USA: Mass infanticide. But I digress.

Justin Smollett led a gilded life and it wasn’t good enough for him, and in our society the only people who are treated like unblemished lambs are people classified as victims. His calculus is only natural: If he can position himself into victim status, he can get anything he wants.

Sickening.

Our bizarro culture is reaching a breaking point. How can society be healthy when liars are held up as heroes? When murder is a right? When truth is offensive and lies are truth? When we can mutilate ourselves and carve ourselves into our own image?

We were formed of clay, and to clay we shall return. Trying to remake ourselves and our society will only hasten it, not perfect it.

Anything only matters in the context of Gods creation.

Our Godless society is forgetting what it means to matter at all.

AMDG

XXI – The Worst Participation Trophies

In order to address the Tyranny problem, we need to tackle problems up-stream, namely problems with the Government and the source of it’s authority and legitimacy. We must also tackle problems down-stream, namely a citizens participation in that government.

The specific question at hand is whether participation in Tyranny is sinful. The broader question is what our obligation is to address a tyranny. This article will more closely address the former than the latter, but it is a fitting reminder of where we are in the process.

A Helpful Reminder

In order to avoid sin, we must understand what sin is. Mortal sin has three elements.

1. Grave subject matter
2. Full knowledge and awareness that a given deed is, in fact, a sin and awareness of the gravity of that sin.
3. Deliberate and complete consent to commit that sin.

But let us not be confused: A sin is a sin every time. Not checking one of these three boxes does not make it NOT a sin, it just reduces culpability. For example, a teenager inadequately formed in faith may commit a sin. They cannot be said to have full knowledge and awareness of the sin. They are less culpable. But they still committed a grave offense. When the teenager is made aware of the gravity of the sin, they would then be obliged to stop and amend their life; they would be held responsible for the full weight of the sin if they commit it again. There are many other mitigating factors as well, which we will discuss in part here.

Before we do, there is an additional element: the element of Scandal. One must avoid not just the near occasion of sin, but also the appearance of sin. Chaste cohabitation between male and female roommates may be without fault, but fellow Catholics may believe they are living as an unmarried couple in a state of sin. Non-Catholics may also get a mistaken impression of what it means to be Catholic. These reactions for others are foreseeable and you are responsible for knowingly causing these reactions, causing scandal.

With this helpful reminder, lets dig in.

The Ladder of Cooperation

Authors Note: This  and subsequent sections are almost exclusively informed from this link, with a Q&A answered by a priest. It is a bit of a word salad, so my writing here is intended as a laymans summary of the somewhat heavy jargon of the aforementioned link.

We are principally concerned with the spiritual state of other parties to sin. To help inform understanding, it helps to have a common scenario that we can use to fill and inform the many definitions that we will be adding to our dictionary.

For this scenario, we will use the scenario of a man robbing a bank.

Mortal Sin: Robbing a bank is a mortal sin. The robber has committed the mortal sin of larsony, in violation of the commandment ‘Thou shalt not steal.’

Formal Cooperation in mortal sin: An associate who stands guard outside the bank. This person has not robbed the bank nor harmed any individual, they simply stood outside the bank while the robbery took place. However, their intention is united to the Robber, and their presence facilitated the robbery. They have Formally Cooperated in the sin, and thus share in the culpability for that sin.

Immediate Material Cooperation in mortal sin: This is essentially a distinction without a difference, there are few and rare cases in which this would not be considered Formal Cooperation. I am listing it here because it is on the website, and I lack the expertise to more clearly draw a distinction. For all intents and purposes, we can consider this Formal Cooperation.

Mediate Material Cooperation in mortal sin: Neither doing the act nor even especially intending the act, but providing some peripheral assistance or preparation. If a friend of the robbers agreed to give the robbers a lift, without knowing or intending on that day to participate in a robbery, but actually facilitated the getaway, the driver would then be Mediately Materially Cooperating in mortal sin.

Negative Cooperation in mortal sin: If the robbers said to their friend, “I’m taking your car for a robbery,” and the friend did and said nothing, and let them take the car, this is considered negative cooperation. He was in a position to obstruct the conduct of a sinful act, but chose to do nothing. This is like the ‘sin of omission’.

The Ladders of Proximity and Necessity

Subsequent distinctions can be drawn for a Mediate Material Cooperator. They may not intend a certain consequence, but the consequence can be foreseen. So we ask then, how close they were to the act and how necessary their cooperation was to completion of the act?

Proximate, Mediate Material Cooperation in mortal sin: The bank robbers ask their friend to borrow his car. The friend, who knows they are bank robbers, allows them to borrow the car, foreseeing that it could be used for robbery but intending that it is not. The friend is in Proximate, mediate, material cooperation with the mortal sin of the robbers.

Remote, Mediate Material Cooperation in mortal sin: The winter-sporting goods store where the robbers purchased their ski masks also furnished some means for the robbery but they are sufficiently removed from the robbery itself to be considered remote. A store cannot anticipate how shoppers use their wares, for good or ill. The shopkeep is remotely cooperating. The degree of remoteness affects culpability, and other mitigating factors not included in this scenario. All else being equal, the shopkeep may not be culpable for their mortal sin.

Necessary, Mediate Material Cooperation in mortal sin: Supposing that the robbers did not have a car and had no other means to acquire a car, the friend giving them use of his car is necessary mediate material cooperation. The sin could not have been committed without the car, so the friend shares the burden for cooperating in that sin.

Non-Necessary, Mediate Material Cooperation in mortal sin: Supposing again that the shopkeep at the winter sports store sold the robbers their ski masks, that is non necessary cooperation, as if the shopkeep refused to sell them the masks they could have gone elsewhere and purchased the same masks, or fashioned some different face covering. The masks were not essential to the completion of the sinful act, and was thus not necessary. By this consideration, the shopkeep’s cooperation was non necessary, and culpability would be commensurately reduced.

Determining Morality of Mediate Cooperation

This was said first and said best in the link:

1. In a serious evil, proximate mediate material cooperation is permitted only if necessary to escape a very serious damage.

2. In a serious evil, necessary mediate material cooperation is permitted only if necessary to escape a very serious damage.

3. In a serious evil, mediate material cooperation that is both proximate and necessary is permitted only if necessary to escape an extremely serious damage. Moreover, where cooperation could bring serious harm to a third party, proximate and necessary cooperation (i.e., harm to the third party would not occur if the cooperator were to refuse) is permitted only if the cooperator would suffer damage commensurate with the injury suffered by the third party. In this case of harm to the third party, the law of charity requires this greater constraint, but not at the cost of greater harm to the cooperator.

4. Mediate material cooperation which is non-necessary and very remote is permitted for a reasonable cause.

5. In other cases the degree of necessity or proximity of cooperation must be judged in proportion to the evil effect and in proportion to the degree of the good effect achieved by the cooperator.

The best way I can think to explain this is to go through the rubric with the example of Abortion.

Lets suppose a husband is driving his wife to an abortionist for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. His cooperation is both proximate and necessary. Because this is a grave matter, it is only permitted to escape serious damage: Say the mother’s life was in imminent danger due to a complication with the pregnancy. This cooperation may then be permitted.

In this case, there is also the prospect of serious harm to a third party, the baby. The above scenario does not automatically give license to abort the baby. It must be sufficiently grave danger, wherein they must choose (for example) between saving the Mothers life, or losing both the mother and the baby. The Husbands cooperation in driving his wife to the abortionist may then be permitted as well.

The manufacturer of the car, for example, is both non-necessary and very remote. Their reasonable cause would be making a living, and so they are not culpable for cooperation in the sin. Please note: non-necessary and remote cooperation does not automatically excuse cooperation! There must be reasonable cause for the cooperation, as well as the other limitations described above.

In all other cases, in point 5 above, necessity and proximity must be judged proportionally to the sin being cooperated in and the good achieved by cooperating. In other words, we cannot presume upon Gods will or mercy, but this leaves open mitigating factors in the case of ambiguity.

The Chain of Sin

Let’s take the abortion example and follow the chain of sin all the way to the voters.

Mortal Sin: A Doctor at an Abortion clinic performs an abortion

Immediate, Material Cooperation in Mortal Sin: The Treasurer of the abortion clinic pays the Doctor

Remote, Necessary Mediate Material Cooperation in Mortal Sin: The clerk of a government agency pays the abortion clinic, the payment which is the only thing keeping the abortion clinic open. If the payment has no effect on whether the abortion clinic remains open, the clerk is of reduced culpability as their participation is no longer necessary.

Remote, Non-Necessary Mediate Material Cooperation in a sin: An elected representative appoints the clerk, with the reasonable cause of performing their duty to appoint clerks to various agencies. This becomes Necessary Cooperation if this elected official is the only person who can make the appointment, and thus would become a mortal sin. The elected representative would be obligated to resign rather than facilitate the procurement of abortions to the public.

Remote, Non-Necessary Mediate Material Cooperation in a sin: An elected representative votes to fund the agency, with the reasonable cause of performing their duty to set budgets and apportion funding to various agencies. This becomes Necessary Cooperation if the ONLY PURPOSE of the vote was to fund the abortion clinic, and would thus be mortal sin. If the agency funds other things besides the abortion clinic, participation would return to being non-necessary, and would reduce culpability.

Very Remote, Non-necessary Mediate Material Cooperation in a sin: A citizen who votes for those elected representatives, with the reasonable cause of executing their civic duty. If the elected representative is advertised to be pro-abortion, this becomes Necessary Cooperation because the representative is advertising their intention to increase availability of abortions, and would thus be a mortal sin. If the elected representative was neutral or explicitly anti-abortion, the vote for that representative would have no impact on whether abortion is or isn’t offered in the country, and would thus be morally neutral.

Very Remote, Non-necessary Negative Cooperation in a sin: A citizen who abstains from voting for those elected representatives, with the reasonable cause of not wishing to participate in their civic duty. Their non-vote has no effect on the outcome of the election, and does nothing for or against the cause of abortion. While the evil effect is known, their actions neither help nor hinder, and thus cannot be considered a mortal sin.

Socks and Scandals

While voting is generally neutral in this case, we still have an obligation to avoid voting for candidates who are explicitly pro-abortion. If all candidates in an election are pro-abortion, then voting or not voting has no impact and would still be considered (by some) to be morally neutral, since there is no effect on the profusion of abortion.

However, now we must consider scandal. If one candidate is pro-abortion and one is not, we are obligated to vote for the one who is not. If both candidates are pro-abortion, we may be morally able to vote for one or the other, but if our Catholic or non-Catholic peers became aware they may be given to Scandal, which adds an element of sin to the deed.

While in the United States of America we have the benefit of the Australian / Secret ballot, there may be circumstances where we could discuss politics and risk giving scandal.

Here is where my friend and braintrust offers some sage advice:

“I think the safest choice in any circumstance is to not discuss it unless pressed and then to justify the decision with Catholic teaching”

This is good advice for more than just voting.

Conclusion

Voting (by which I mean, civic participation in a government aparatus that may be tyrannical) is not material participation in sin, by this rubric! We have unwound one pillar of the Tyranny problem. We now must consider the bigger question: What is our obligation if we find ourselves under a Tyranny?

We have added more definitions and have a lot more to think about.

AMDG

XI – The Fallacy of the Abortionist

There are two questions you might ask in response to my ravings about privileges allowed by government. “Who cares? Sounds like you’re calling it six of one and half a dozen of the other.” Another question you might have is, “If it’s that bad, what can I do about it today?”

Why It Matters

The words we use to describe things are extremely important. It helps us frame ideas in a more accurate light. To lean on my recent Dictionary, a nominalist view describes reality in ways that conform to the describers personal biases about a thing. That is to say, if a nominalist is talking about Rights, they are talking about their idea of rights, which may not even be remotely the same as your idea of rights.

A Right to something is, in addition, ontologically different from a privilege. In short, a right is an entitlement: “You have to give me this”; a privilege is a responsibility: “I have this and you can take it away”. What people mean when they describe Rights is privileges, so why not speak about the thing accurately?

American society is built on this very fundamental idea, that has been disguised by mythos and personal bias tied to patriotism and politics. If we can liberate ourselves of that metaphysical baggage that constrains our thought. American society cannot change or improve if we remain tied to that baggage. And that is where we get to the crux of the matter.

American society and American Government are not properly oriented to lead citizens to Virtue. They are presently oriented to maximize choice, under the auspices of freedoms, disguised in the language of entitlement-rights. This is imprisoning.

Let’s look at an example:

Right to Choose vs. Right to Life. The reason abortion is even remotely an issue is because two groups are looking at a thing and calling it different names. One side believes a woman has a right to choose what she does with her body. They view restrictions on that as tyrannical, because they are taking away a woman’s rights. The other side believes a baby is a person, and killing it is an offense against God. They view prohibiting abortion as a virtue, the same way that the Government restricts a persons ‘right’ to murder at will, to drink and drive, or do other things that are harmful to oneself or others.

These two perspectives are not reconcilable by compromise or any other ‘middle way’. And there will always be tension unless Government adopts a view supported by faith; otherwise Faith and Government will be in opposition, because faith supersedes government.

Let’s examine this right to Choose, and a woman’s right to ‘choose what she does with her body’. First, let’s restate this using my earlier methodology: This side of the argument asserts that “The Government allows me to decide what to do with my body”. But lets restate this even more, because Abortion is the only choice they are fighting for. If they get pregnant, it is currently legal in all 50 states to carry it to term and have a live birth. So the only choice that is in question is the ability to get an abortion. So let’s restate it again: “The Government allows me to get an abortion.” And nowadays, that is an accurate statement. But a fertilized egg will become a person 11 times out of 10 (because sometimes they become twins!), and all people at all stages of life are children of God, endowed with a grace and dignity all their own.

So, to be brutally honest, what they really mean is: “The Government allows me to kill a person who is a gift from God.”

But what they are saying is: “I have the right to choose.”

The language we use is extremely important.

So What Can I Do About It?

Well, we really need to know what the problem is? I would argue the problem is that our government is not oriented towards virtue. And the solution to that must come from the ground up. We will not out-vote the masses, if one group promises ‘free choice for everyone’ and the other promises ‘limited choice, but for a good reason’.

So the answer is to live virtuously. Inspire your peers to live virtuously. Raise a virtuous family. The challenge is that this is more than a generational problem. This is a civilizational problem. So my answers to this question sound like platitudes. But all of these are things you can begin to work on today. 

Fraternal correction is an important part of Catholic Faith. If a fellow Christian strays, tell them so, bluntly and firmly. It is not easy. I have not fully grokked what it means to live this way. But that is what is required. It has it’s own set of challenges, but it’s not impossible to practice.

In order to remake the world, one must first see the world as it is. Grokking that is the first step.

AMDG