The Politics of Principle

February 2nd, 2012

(This is a repeat of a post from this same day the last three years.  It was written in memory of Jack Swan, a great warrior of faith and politics, who entered eternal life on February 2, 1998.  God sent Jack into my life to teach me these lessons about politics, and I’m just a pygmy standing on the shoulders of a giant.  Jack, please pray for me, that I get the lessons right.)

In the mind of most people, “politics” is the struggle of candidates, political parties, and their supporters to gain power and influence in the government. That is certainly true up to a point, and it makes for interesting entertainment.

I write a good deal about politics on this blog and elsewhere, and I’m frequently perceived as being “political” in that sense — of being”partisan”. That completely misses the point.

There is a deeper, more significant nature of politics. It is the way we order our society together, so that we can live according to our vocations and be happy, and ultimately attain eternal life. In this understanding of politics, the partisan theater is an important reality, but it is not the main focus. What really matters is principle.

Without principles, politics becomes mere pragmatism, where the question is whether something “works”, or, in the less elevated version of the game, what’s in it for me. Now, don’t get me wrong. Pragmatism is important — we want our government to be effective. But again, principle is more important.

I received much of my tutelage in the real world of politics from a man who devoted his life to being a practitioner of the politics of principle. I learned that it was fine to be keenly interested in the partisan scrum, but only to the extent that it advanced the principles we hold dear — defense of human life, protection of marriage, family and children, and religious liberty. The promotion of those principles is more important than party label, and the idea is to support — or oppose — politicians based on their fidelity to those principles, not based on what party label they happened to be wearing this week.

That’s how I try to practice politics, in my small and limited way. I have opinions and judgments about many pragmatic issues, and what kinds of national security, economic and other policies would “work” better than others. But none of those pragmatic issues matter at all, compared to the core principles.

Here’s how it works for me. If a politician doesn’t protect human life, I don’t care what his position is on other issues. If he can’t understand that human life is sacred and must be protected at all stages, I have no reason to trust his judgment about any other issue. And, very frankly, anyone who does not understand that basic principle is not, in my opinion, fit to hold public office.

The same holds for the other core issues. I don’t care if you’re a Republican or a Democrat. If you don’t respect human life, don’t see the need to preserve marriage as one man and one woman, and won’t defend religious liberty, they you just have to look elsewhere to get your fifty percent plus one.

This means that I am perpetually dissatisfied with our political process and our politicians. But that’s fine with me. They are all temporary office holders anyway, here today and gone tomorrow, and their platforms are passing fancies that nobody will remember in a short time. The principles, however, remain perpetually valid.

Listen, Our Lord made a very simple request of us. He said, “Follow me”. He didn’t say, be a Republican or a Democrat, a Socialist or a Whig. He demands that I be his follower. So I need to look to the Lord for my principles, and in this age that means I have to listen to the Church. That’s what Our Lord wants me to do — after all, he said to his apostles “he who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Lk 10:16). We happen to have in our midst the successors of those apostles — the Holy Father, our bishops, and my bishop in particular. As a Catholic I must listen to them, and get my political principles from them, not from Fox News, CNN, talking heads of the left or the right, the editorial page of the Times, or either the Democratic or Republican Parties.

This, to me, is the way to live as a disciple of Christ in this crazy political process. I realize that this will be considered odd by many, and even dangerous by some.

But we hardly need more party loyalists at this, or any other, time. And we certainly need more practitioners of the politics of principle.

Tags: ,
Posted in Discipleship, Religion in Public Life | No Comments »

Graphic Images and Love

January 25th, 2012

There’s an interesting discussion going on over at the blog CatholicVote.org about the images of graphic images of aborted babies, which were on display along the route of the March for Life.  If you’re interested, the posts are here, here and here.  (Don’t worry, if you follow those links you won’t be confronted with any such images)

For years, I have been very uncomfortable with those images, but I haven’t really been able to articulate why.  They are disturbing, certainly, but my disquiet was not just an aesthetic judgment.  Nor was it any squeamishness about facing the reality of abortion — I know precisely what is involved in that abhorrent practice.  Nor do I have any doubt of the need to awaken people’s consciences to what is really going on in America, thousands of times each day.

Although I couldn’t quite put my finger on the reason, I was uneasy about the use of those images in pro-life public advocacy.

Last night, I realized why.

I attended an excellent presentation that Archbishop Dolan gave at Fordham Law School on the Gospel of Life and the Law.  One of the key points he made in the question and answer session was that there are two pillars of the pro-life message: truth and love.  He noted that we are very good with the truth, but often lacking in the love.

That point, which I had heard many times before, really struck me, and I was thinking about it on my way home.  Later in the evening, I happened upon the discussion at CatholicVote.org, and that’s when it all clicked together.

The discussion about the graphic images has always focused on their effect of the viewer. We’ve thought about how effective the images are to convince those who are undecided about abortion, or to convert those who are pro-abortion.  And we’ve worried about the negative effect on those who are captive audiences and have those images thrust upon them, and especially on women who are post-abortive and have not yet healed.

But suddenly it struck me — what about that baby herself?  How does the use of these photos show love to her, who has been the victim of a terrible injustice?  She is an individual human person, someone’s daughter, made in the image and likeness of God, unique and unrepeatable, and deserving of our love.

To me, the use of these images to make a political point is to treat that poor lost girl or boy as an object to be used — which is the antithesis of love — and not as a brother or sister to be mourned.

Who would ever wish that their body be used in such a way?  Who would ever want that for a loved one?  Can any of us imagine that being the right way to treat the remains of our dead son or daughter?

Archbishop Dolan is right, as was St. Paul before him (see Eph 4:15).  We do need to speak the truth, but we have to do so with love, always with love.  And that includes love for that particular lost baby.

There is a lot of truth in those images — that cannot be denied.

But there is very little love.

Tags:
Posted in Abortion | 2 Comments »

Rejoicing in the Rain

January 24th, 2012

It is an old cliche that you can’t really appreciate something just by having it described to you — that you have to experience it yourself.  I’m not sure I believe in that, but when it comes to the March for Life, I think there’s something to it.

I think that many people expect that the March is a political event, a “protest march”, and that it is an expression of outrage and anger over the legalized destruction of unborn human beings.

Actually, the March is a prayerful pilgrimage that celebrates life.  The outrage is there, but joy is the dominant emotion.

Yesterday, I went to the March for the eighteenth consecutive year.  It was the first time that I can recall it raining on us — and it really rained on us.  Together with the chilly temperatures, the precipitation would have put the damper on just about any outdoors event, and kept the crowd down to a minimum.

Not the March for Life.  It was as huge, exuberant crowd — hundreds of thousands, from all over America and abroad.  We talked to people from all over the East coast, and from places as far away as Michigan, Kansas, Illinois, Florida, and Missouri.  There were groups from Canada, and from every religious traditions — mostly Catholics, but Evangelical Christians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox Christians, and Jews.

The dominant spirit of the event came from the teens and young adults.  They were everywhere, tirelessly praying, chanting, singing.  We old-timers were a bit worn out by the time we got up to the Supreme Court, but the kids were still bursting with their love for the gift of life.  It was enough to uplift even a cynic like me.

Again, it’s hard to get a feel for the event unless you see it for yourself.  You can check out some great pictures here and here, and there are some great videos up on YouTube (including this one, which leads off with some very lively kids from Chicago who were giving great witness to life on the steps of a Senate office building, and goes on to give a good sense of the March).

Even better, mark your calendar for January 23, 2013 (the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade) — and join us for the largest, longest-lasting, and most uplifting event of public witness in our nation’s history.

Truly a blessed event.

Tags:
Posted in Abortion, Pro-Life | 1 Comment »

And So We March

January 22nd, 2012

Tomorrow, January 23, thousands of people will make a pilgrimage to Washington, DC, to give witness to the dignity of every human life.

If you’re going, I hope to see you there — you can’t miss me in the crowd, I’ll be standing with some Sisters of Life.  If you can’t make it, please join us in prayer.

You may also wish to watch this video from Students for Life, to get a sense of the spirit of the March:

Tags: ,
Posted in Abortion, Pro-Life | No Comments »

The Message Could Not Be Clearer

January 20th, 2012

The juxtaposition of events couldn’t have been more stark.  Nor could the message be any clearer — the current Administration has a deep-seated, inveterate hostility to religious freedom.

The first event happened just last week, in its most important religious liberty decision in decades, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the autonomy of churches to act according to their beliefs, without government intrusion.   The case was Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School vs. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and I’ve written about it before.  Essentially, the case involved the ability of churches and other religious organizations to choose their own leaders, according to their religious beliefs.

It’s important to note that, in deciding the case, the Supreme Court specifically rejected the Administration’s argument that churches have no special protection in the choice of their leaders, and should be given no more deference in such decisions than any other association — like a bowling league.  This, despite the fact that the First Amendment grants clear, specific protection to the freedom of religion.

That was a bold example of the radicalism of this Administration, and their disdain for religious freedom.  Fortunately, the Supreme Court can actually read the Constitution, and understands what it means — and handed down the clearly correct ruling.

The second event happened today.  The Administration announced that it was going to issue final regulations that would require religious organizations to provide full health insurance coverage for sterilization, abortifacient drugs, and contraceptives.  A very narrow exemption was granted, but it is so tiny in its coverage that few, if any, organizations will qualify.  I’ve written about this regulation before as well.

Religious organizations of all denominations had denounced this plan, and had called for a broader exemption, in order to respect the conscience rights of those who object to being forced to pay for morally offensive drugs and procedures.  Yet the Administration disdained their request, and made no changes in the proposal.

Again, you could not ask for a clearer example of the hostility of this Administration towards religious freedom.  The secularist, anti-life ideology of our rulers will not compromise, and will force all others to conform.

Sometimes, things are seen most clearly from a distance.  Yesterday, Pope Benedict received some of the bishops of the United States at one of their periodic “ad limina” meetings.  In his remarks to the bishops, the Holy Father made some pointed observations about the threats to religious liberty:

it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.

Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society.

The Holy Father is right.  We as lay Catholics need to take action to defend our freedom, and the freedom of our Church.

Remember, elections matter.

 

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Catholic Teaching, Conscience, Contraception, President, Religious Liberty | 2 Comments »

War and Consequentialism

January 13th, 2012

As the presidential race heats up, the rhetoric also heats up.  And the language being used on the issue of war and national defense is becoming very warm indeed.

And very, very morally troubling.

Just yesterday, a scientist who is allegedly working on the Iranian nuclear program was killed when his got into his car and was blown up by an explosive that was attached to it by unknown parties.  It was the latest incident in an ongoing covert war being conducted against the Iranian regime and their suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons.

In response, one of the candidates for the Presidency of the United States said this:

any nuclear scientist, particularly any foreign nuclear scientist, who’s cooperating with the Iranians in developing a nuclear weapon program would be considered an enemy combatant…  this is the most serious threat to the security and stability of the world that we have today, and we should be using all types of methodologies to stop that, including taking out people

Now, I’m certainly no pacifist.  I strongly support the ability of a national government to defend itself and its citizens against unjust aggression.  And I have no doubt that the current regime in Iran is oppressive to its own people and dangerous to its neighbors, particularly Israel.

But there is no way that one can justify the rhetoric I just quoted.  Leave aside for a moment the question of legality under American and international law — which would involve answering the question, “when did we declare war on Iran?”

Killing this scientist was utterly inconsistent with the principles of the divine and natural law. It is clearly not morally permissible to kill another human being because one believes that he may be working on a scientific program that may, at some point, pose a threat to our nation.

Pope John Paul, in his great encyclical, the Gospel of Life, said this very plainly:

“The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity” (57)

Assuming we can trust in the accuracy of our intelligence community (a dubious proposition, in any event) and consider this scientist not to be “innocent”, a preemptive use of deadly force is still unjustified.  As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, in the context of the death penalty:

“If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.” (CCC 2267)

Killing a man because his work may prove a threat to the United States at some undefined point in the future is consequentialism at its most blatant — doing evil so that good may come of it.

Christians must be better than that.

Tags: ,
Posted in Catholic Teaching, Pro-Life | 2 Comments »

The Real Threat of Christmas

December 20th, 2011

Now that Christmas is upon us, we have seen many more disputes about Christmas symbols on public property.  Many Christians see this as a “War on Christmas”.  They rightly object to the legal and social suppression of religious symbols and speech, and object to a radical secularist view that denies the origins of our nation’s history and institutions in a Christian culture. Secular-minded people, for their part, see instead a threat of the establishment of religion.  It’s a mess.

There is no doubt that our courts have contributed to this.  The Supreme Court has made a complete hash out of the First Amendment.  Justice Thomas, earlier this year, spoke of the Court’s “erratic, selective analysis of the constitutionality of religous imagery on government property”, and said the the Court’s “precedents remain impenetrable, and the lower courts’ decisions… remain incapable of coherent explanation”.

The Court has left us with a situation where a manger scene may be put up on public property, but only if it is accompanied by secular symbols — like Santa and Frosty — and is displayed for a secular purpose, such as a recognition of history, or an expression of some amorphouse “civic religion”.  This kind of nonsense leads to such things as speaking of the “real meaning of Christmas” in terms of greeting card nostrums, or the absurd “U.S. Capitol Christmas Tree” that has no symbols of Christianity at all, but instead celebrates — believe it or not — the wonders of California.

But a Christmas that is secular enough — tame enough — for the approval of the government for display on the courthouse steps has no place in a Christianity worth professing.

Our faith is far too radical to be approved by any earthly government.

We start from the premise that, as Pope John Paul wrote, “The redeemer of man, Jesus Christ, is the centre of the universe and of history.”  The small baby in His Mother’s arms makes an extraordinary claim on us — to believe that God has become truly human, and that we are called to surrender our hearts, minds and will to Him and to Him alone.

Our faith in Christ the King compels us to seek to transform the world — including our laws and governments — in light of His gospel.  While we are bound to obey earthly authorities, we must always remember that God is above them all, and our duty to Him and His Kingdom transcends all nations and laws, which are mere historical contingencies that will pass away in time.

In many ways, the forces of secularism perceive Christianity more clearly than we do.  We easily take our faith for granted, as part of the backdrop of our lives, as a safe and comfortable thing.

The secularists are not so complacent.  They rightly see our faith as a threat to their world view.  They see that Jesus is not just a nice fellow and a cute baby — they understand that He is powerful, and a bit frightening, and very demanding.

Of course, nobody needs to fear violence from Christians over manger scenes.  But make no mistake.  Our faith is authentically threatening.  Recognizing the true Kingship of Christ will supplant the pretenses and pomps of our human laws, will strike down the sinful structures that divide and degrade humanity, and will establish real justice in the world.  Every mountain will be made low, and every valley raised high.  The rich will be sent away empty, and the hungry filled with good things.  There are many forces prowling about the world that would not be happy with that outcome, and will show their teeth to us in response.

Good.  When we see a manger scene, we shouldn’t see a hodgepodge of religious and commercial images that will pass court approval.  We shouldn’t see a historical artifact.  We shouldn’t even see a heartwarming reminder of our innocent childhood.

We should see Christmas as a threat to our comfortable way of life, a challenge to make Christ the King of our hearts and our society.  Nothing less.

Tags:
Posted in Discipleship | 2 Comments »

Another Attempt to Silence Pro-Lifers

December 13th, 2011

A bill is pending before the Westchester County Board of Legislators that is designed to silence pro-life witness outside of abortion clinics.  It is similar to the bill that was passed by New York City a few years ago, about which I wrote here and here.  The bill hasn’t yet been voted on, but it remains a significant risk.

Here is the statement that I submitted to the Board, at its hearing last night:

I submit this statement in opposition to the proposed legislation concerning access to so-called “reproductive health care facilities”.

First, the proposed changes to the law are unnecessary.  There is no evidence that there is a substantial problem that needs to be addressed by this bill.  According to statistics provided by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, there has been only one arrest in the entire state since 2000 for violations of the State clinic access law, and no criminal convictions. There is no need to strengthen laws that are never used, since there is no problem that needs to be addressed.

The second reason for our opposition to this bill is that  it is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.  It is a established principle of constitutional law that any attempted regulation of speech be content-neutral, and narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest.  This is particularly true when the speech occurs on a public sidewalk, which has been described by the Supreme Court as a “public forum” where citizens generally have a First Amendment right to speak and gather together.  This bill fails to satisfy this standard, and creates a significant risk that people would be prosecuted or sued for the mere exercise of their right to free speech and assembly.

This bill is not neutral, because it specifically targets the conduct and speech of those who oppose abortion.  It is also vague and ambiguous, so that persons could not possibly know what kinds of behavior or speech are prohibited.  One of the provisions would make it a crime to “interfere” with the operations of “reproductive health care facilities”.  Yet that term is undefined and utterly subjective in meaning, and would thus chill the free speech rights of those who wish to speak to women seeking to enter those facilities.

Even if one were to ignore the lack of any history of problems at these facilities and assume that there was a “compelling state interest” here, this bill cannot be fairly described as “narrowly tailored”.  The bill would create a zone that goes far beyond any statute that has been approved by the courts.  No law has included such areas as public parking lots and bus stops that are within 200 feet of a facility, and created a large “bubble zone” around the “spaces” — whatever that term means — between those locations and the facility.  There can be no justification for such a broad zone where the free speech rights of citizens will be restricted.

This unnecessary bill is clearly aimed at suppressing speech, because that speech is disfavored by the owners and operators of abortion clinics.  This discriminatory legislation should be rejected.

Tags: ,
Posted in Abortion, Free Speech, Legislation | Comments Off

Another Casualty of the Sexual Revolution

November 20th, 2011

An article appeared in the New York Post today that should break the heart of everyone who reads it.

Entitled “Among the Smuts”, it is an account by a teenaged girl of the hyper-sexualized atmosphere in our culture and our public schools.

It is a tragic story of a young woman who seems never to have been told of the beauty of her womanhood, the majesty of sex, and the benefits of chastity.   She describes the callous way in which girls are used and discarded, and the resulting marketplace for sex.  She says at one point, “lately I don’t trust any man” — and who can blame her?  That wound — the lack of trust — will be hard to heal, particularly if none of the young men in her life treat her with dignity and respect.  And it will be very difficult for her to enter into a good, rewarding, loving marriage unless the wound does heal.

The saddest part of this article is that it doesn’t have to be that way.  Teens can make good decisions about sex, based on an appreciation for their beauty and dignity as children of God.  Groups like Generation Life and Corazon Puro, as well as our Chastity Education program, offer alternatives to the degrading and depersonalizing open marketplace for meaningless sex that our culture is selling.

Our society is all too ready to give up on teens, to assume that they will make bad decisions about sex, and to offer them nothing more than latex in response.

It doesn’t have to be that way.  There don’t have to be any more casualties.

Tags:
Posted in Marriage | Comments Off

« Older Entries