Catholicism, Politics and Activism

[JenDeMarie]

I’m a recent convert to Catholicism – I just joined the church this Easter – and in all honesty, I went through a pretty rapid transition from extremely progressive liberal to fairly conservative Catholic (in about a year).

Initially, there were some newsletters and e-mail subscriptions that I procrastinated about canceling, during my year of conversion (because signing up for more e-mail alerts and newsletters than I need and keeping on top of my clutter are both things I struggle with). But as time went on and I found myself with some contrasting e-mail subscriptions I started noticing differences between, say, the pro-abortion lists that I had neglected to cancel and the pro-life lists that I had just recently joined.

Planned Parenthood, most of all, has a very organized, efficient, effective networking machine in place to put constant pressure on the government – both on the federal and local levels – and I’m not seeing anything remotely similiar in the opposite camp.

The thing that got me fired up today is that I just watched a massive Planned Parenthood campaign turn over the long-standing abstinence-only sex ed program for my state – and I saw no resistence to it from anyone except for one small online Protestent fundamentalist group. There were no e-mails from my diocese, no one else seemed to know about it – and almost overnight we went from having schools that proclaimed the significance of marriage to schools that automatically enroll children in progressive sex-ed in which they begin learning about birth control, various sexual lifestyle choices and abortion at the age of 12.

I believe the Susan B. Anthony list is the biggest pro-life organization I’m currently signed up with. Is there a more effective list that I’ve simply neglected to join or is there a different way of organizing in the pro-life movement or is this just a big hole in the pro-life, family values tent that needs to be filled?

 

[Lancer]

Welcome Home to the Catholic Church…where Christians have to do some real spiritual and religious “heavy lifting”…and…where G.K Chesterton said that he knew he had found the right Church when he first walked into the back of a Catholic Church in the heart of London…and noticed a sign on the entrance door (paraphrase)…“warning Ladies…guard your purses…there are thieves among you” … yes! he said…I have found a Church that lives in the real world…that knows and truthfully recognizes that it is really made up of sinners!"

I also chuckled at your progressive-to-conservative transition…thinking of the standard old political joke line (not fair but somewhat funny):…a conservative by definition is a progressive liberal…who got mugged by reality…i.e. the Truth!

Seriously…re: your question:

First, Father Frank Pavone of Priests For Life…priestsforlife.org has to be the most organized pro-life Catholic organization…maybe others would nominate another organization. I think Father Pavone is an incredible priest and leader…he has clearly been called by the Holy Spirit to lead the USA Church’s most visible and most vocal opposition to Abortion…overturn Roe vs Wade…campaign. I support PFL as much and as often as I can…they are a “on the front lines” organization.

Secondly, I do believe that the laity still needs is a “**Phyllis Schlafly” – type leader… (bio sketch) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly. **She is one of the most remarkable women of the 20th century…an organizer and leader…she single-handily organized and orchestrated the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)…when passage was guaranteed and it all sounded so right and so good …when she went on the offense in 1972…30 of the required 38 States had already ratified it (ERA)…but by 1977 the last of the 35 States to ratify it did so…still critically 3 short of the 38 needed (five State legislatures also voted to rescind their passage of the amendment). Mrs.Schlafly ran a grassroots campaign that destroyed her opposition with her very genteel and unassuming aristocratic style wrapped around the heart of a lion and an intellect that was second to none! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly#.22Stop_ERA.22A great Catholic woman, wife, mother and grandmother…pro-life organizations need someone like her to be a “Gen Eisenhower” – strategic commander and a “Gen Patton” – tactical commander of the pro-life movement.

As you can imagine…many feminist women and feminist groups (NOW, Planned Parenthood, etc., ) are livid and irate anytime she pops up…in conversation or in opinion pieces…when the hear her or speak about her…you can see the veins in their necks nearly explode…they accuse her of every vile thing you can imagine…my view: she is a great Catholic lady…and a great American woman! Even though she is up there in age, (born 1924)…she still heads Eagle Forum…a pro family organization (1972) eagleforum.org/ . She covers abortion…but not as a primary mission focus…her focus is family. marriage and a broader social agenda.
Thirdly, I feel your frustration…we seem to be (me included) “asleep at the wheel”…doom approaches (many social disasters have and are unfolding right before our eyes…and we sleep and play…like little children without a care in the world…just like we did through the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s…(the sexual revolution, the contraception revolution, the abortion revolution, the invitro fertilization revolution,…now the stem cell/cloning revolution and the gay marriage revolution…the “no conscience” clause revolution…the freedom of choice (FOCA) revolution…and yet, now we complain about the pain…we should really be bracing for the real pain yet to arrive…but is clearly coming if we don’t do something soon).

Lastly, my simple game plan: prayer, fasting and almsgiving…be active in what I can do (talent and time wise)…and a vow to not let another Catholic say something (around me) that is clearly against Church teachings/the Catechism…against the Pope or my bishop…or my pastor…without me pointedly (hopefully charitably) bringing it to there attention…that they are not speaking/teaching Catholicism! I really believe that until we laity fight for orthodoxy in the pews…not thought or opinion police…but simple, accurate, direct and complete Church teachings on faith and morals…we are going to be mostly bench warmers in the fight for the soul of this Country! Or as we say in the Marine Corps…no guts…no glory!

Pax Christi
P.S. please forgive the length…God Bless!

 

[JenDeMarie]

Thanks, Lancer! I really appreciate your response – and the resources you suggested are great. I don’t know why I didn’t think of Father Frank Pavone’s Priests for Life ministry – and I vaguely recognized the name but knew nothing about Phyllis Schlafly – so again, thank you very much!

 

[Terry292]

Lancer, that was truly a great post. Bravo!

 

[Nino]

there are quite a lot of sites out there that fight the good fight!.If you want a list contact me…as a former teacher I am always looking for proper info in this mighty struggle for the minds and souls of Man! The recent glorification of a pedophile entertainer found dead at age 50 is a case in point!!!There is never any excuse to not pick up your pitchfork or musket or at least a teabag and join us.The amoral nonchalance of the media is frightening is it not?..Globalist media moguls,hedonistic entertainers,political hacks and humanistic academicians all grouping together in the sewer launching an all out attack on the ten commandments and the bill of rights. Yes the move to 'normalize" aberrant and destructive behaviors is in full swing and it behooves all of us to roll up our sleeves and join the fight before we become the official enemies of the state …have a nice day…N

 

[Christopher68]

I am a Catholic, and from a political standpoint I would be a libertarian. On ‘life’ issues, we are treading on a slippery slope if we use government to coerce others into thinking as we do. It is not in our best interest for moral issues to be decised by those who have the most political power. What if it’s someone like a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, or a radical Muslim, who has the most political power at some point? I humbly suggest that ‘life’ issues can only be ‘won’ through prayer, encouraging responsible behavior, and by changing hearts and minds - not through the strong arm of government.

 

[JimG]

I am a Catholic, and from a political standpoint I would be a libertarian. On ‘life’ issues, we are treading on a slippery slope if we use government to coerce others into thinking as we do. It is not in our best interest for moral issues to be decised by those who have the most political power. What if it’s someone like a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, or a radical Muslim, who has the most political power at some point? I humbly suggest that ‘life’ issues can only be ‘won’ through prayer, encouraging responsible behavior, and by changing hearts and minds - not through the strong arm of government.

You mean, like the strong arm of the government imposing its will on life issues in 1973?

 

[Christopher68]

You mean, like the strong arm of the government imposing its will on life issues in 1973?

That was likely an inappropriate use of government force as well. I would suggest that government is the least effective means of solving problems, and that oftentimes government makes existing problems worse, in addition to creating new and unintended problems. A government-led ‘war on abortion’ would have no more success that the failed ‘war on drugs’.

 

[JimG]

That was likely an inappropriate use of government force as well. I would suggest that government is the least effective means of solving problems, and that oftentimes government makes existing problems worse, in addition to creating new and unintended problems. A government-led ‘war on abortion’ would have no more success that the failed ‘war on drugs’.

Prior to 1973, abortion regulation was decided by popularly elected state legislatures. There was no war on abortion; neither were there any strong moves to eliminate abortion regulations entirely. The “abortion wars” began only after the U.S. Supreme Court usurped the legislative authority of every state in the union by substituting its legislation for theirs.

 

[Christopher68]

Prior to 1973, abortion regulation was decided by popularly elected state legislatures. There was no war on abortion; neither were there any strong moves to eliminate abortion regulations entirely. The “abortion wars” began only after the U.S. Supreme Court usurped the legislative authority of every state in the union by substituting its legislation for theirs.

Neither side will ever be completely happy on this issue. Even if Roe is overturned and states are again allowed to decide for themselves, neither side will be happy if their position is not the majority decision.

 

[St_Francis]

Neither side will ever be completely happy on this issue. Even if Roe is overturned and states are again allowed to decide for themselves, neither side will be happy if their position is not the majority decision.

I doubt there are many laws which please everyone!

But I think that for Roe v Wade, we do need a two-pronged approach, and I think we have that. I think that more people are aware of the truth of abortion and we have been able to get restrictive legislation through.

The law is necessary because it is a task of the government to protect people from other people. It is not like a law about discrimination or borders or taxes: abortion goes to the heart of what the government is supposed to do and is not doing. I think that even libertarians (not the no-government sorts, but the extremely limited–government sorts) ought to be able to agree with that (altho I found that while some libertarians are pro-life, the Libertarian Party itself takes no position, which reduced my respect for them considerably!)

 

[RedSoxFan]

Without any real way to check the Supreme Court in it’s flagrant usurpation of the legislative role conservatives in this country are unfortunately try to use the strong arm of the government. That is until the mess that was created by judges, who think that this mission is law reform instead of interpretation of the law as it stands, are thrown out of office or retire from the Supreme Court. Hopefully those replacements will respect the rule of law as it is written not how they want it to be read.

 

[JimG]

Neither side will ever be completely happy on this issue. Even if Roe is overturned and states are again allowed to decide for themselves, neither side will be happy if their position is not the majority decision.

Obviously neither side will ever be happy with any piece of legislation. Legislation usually comes from compromise. States might for example, allow early abortion and prohibit late term abortion, or impose strict limits on reasons for abortion.

That’s hardly even possible under the directives of Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton, which essentially allow for abortion throughout nine months of pregnancy, and defines maternal "health’ in such expansive terms that it can mean whatever an abortionist wants it to mean.

 

[Christopher68]

I doubt there are many laws which please everyone!

But I think that for Roe v Wade, we do need a two-pronged approach, and I think we have that. I think that more people are aware of the truth of abortion and we have been able to get restrictive legislation through.

The law is necessary because it is a task of the government to protect people from other people. It is not like a law about discrimination or borders or taxes: abortion goes to the heart of what the government is supposed to do and is not doing. I think that even libertarians (not the no-government sorts, but the extremely limited–government sorts) ought to be able to agree with that (altho I found that while some libertarians are pro-life, the Libertarian Party itself takes no position, which reduced my respect for them considerably!)

I would again say that this issue can only be truly won through prayer, persuasion, and by changing hearts and minds. Political power cannot do that. For instance, the GOP had control of the presidency and both houses of congress from 2001-2007, and yet they achieved nothing on this issue.

While you may disagree with the Libertarian Party’s official position of taking ‘no position’, it is actually very consistent with their core principles of freedom FROM government - acorss the board - on all issues at all times. By the way, I am a registered Independent.

 

[St_Francis]

I would again say that this issue can only be truly won through prayer, persuasion, and by changing hearts and minds. Political power cannot do that.

I was agreeing with you on that.

For instance, the GOP had control of the presidency and both houses of congress from 2001-2007, and yet they achieved nothing on this issue.

They achieved a great deal, given the limits within which they were forced to operate. They passed the PBA ban, confirmed two good SC justices, and passed the Babies Born Alive Act.

While you may disagree with the Libertarian Party’s official position of taking ‘no position’, it is actually very consistent with their core principles of freedom FROM government - acorss the board - on all issues at all times. By the way, I am a registered Independent.

Well, we’ll end up disagreeing on this point, because I am not that much of a libertarian.

 

[Nino]

what total nonsense…then living back in 1860 you would have voted for the demoncrate party…which was pro-slavery and pro-slave labor products for sale and pro low tariffs…my my! Prayer is the easy way out…so nice…just sit down by ones self and pray to God for a favor …while outside in the real world better men and women are in the trenches fighting for your right to …well pray in peace…in China your trading partner,one cant pray in peace for the all powerful communist state says that is a no no…please stand aside while we pro-lifers, pro second amendment, pro ten commandments folks…pick up the sword of righteousnes and fight…wimps and maybe in some cases…double agents…not with standing…all the best…mention me in your prayers…N

 

[Christopher68]

what total nonsense…then living back in 1860 you would have voted for the demoncrate party…which was pro-slavery and pro-slave labor products for sale and pro low tariffs…my my! Prayer is the easy way out…so nice…just sit down by ones self and pray to God for a favor …while outside in the real world better men and women are in the trenches fighting for your right to …well pray in peace…in China your trading partner,one cant pray in peace for the all powerful communist state says that is a no no…please stand aside while we pro-lifers, pro second amendment, pro ten commandments folks…pick up the sword of righteousnes and fight…wimps and maybe in some cases…double agents…not with standing…all the best…mention me in your prayers…N

China has a socialistic government. The USA is trending in that direction. Regardless of which major party is in power, government keeps expanding and spending money with abandon. Just be careful what you wish for. A government that can enforce your beliefs on others can also force others beliefs on you. After all, government is NOT a benevolent, high-performance organization.

I may have misinterprested your e-mail, or perhaps you were attempting to be humorous, but were you seriously mocking the power of prayer?

 

[JimG]

Every government, whether democratic, representative, or totalitarian, has laws. (Totalitarian governments have a lot more laws, and sometimes they are imposed unilaterally by a small group rather than being enacted by legislatures.) But the mere existence of laws does not constitute “forcing one’s beliefs” on someone else.

I believe that murder, rape, fraud, theft, assault, and child abuse, among other things, violate moral precepts. They also violate the good of society. We also have laws against murder, rape, fraud, theft, assault, and child abuse. In so doing, have I or a group of citizens imposed our beliefs on others?

Law always acts as a restraint against someone’s action. It is up to citizens through their legislatures to determine which laws are necessary and which should be discarded. That’s why we have legislatures.

 

[Christopher68]

Every government, whether democratic, representative, or totalitarian, has laws. (Totalitarian governments have a lot more laws, and sometimes they are imposed unilaterally by a small group rather than being enacted by legislatures.) But the mere existence of laws does not constitute “forcing one’s beliefs” on someone else.

I believe that murder, rape, fraud, theft, assault, and child abuse, among other things, violate moral precepts. They also violate the good of society. We also have laws against murder, rape, fraud, theft, assault, and child abuse. In so doing, have I or a group of citizens imposed our beliefs on others?

Law always acts as a restraint against someone’s action. It is up to citizens through their legislatures to determine which laws are necessary and which should be discarded. That’s why we have legislatures.

In the examples you give - no - you are not forcing your beliefs on others. These are all crimes where a victim is involved. These laws are to designed to protect people from the bad actions of others - not to coerce people into believing a certain way. However, there is a very slippery slope when people start legislating against victimless crimes - i.e. where no one has been assaulted, no ones property has been invaded, no one has been cheated by fraud or abuse, and where there is no victim making a complaint.

 

[RedSoxFan]

It seems to me that any law is a enforcement of a belief. And there has been no government in human history that did not at least in minor way impose belief even unintentionally.

The problem lies when those laws violate basic human rights in the governments to actively enforce belief upon the constituency. I don’t think anyone in this conversation disagrees that where the country is going is in the wrong direction when it comes to government trying to enforce it’s own beliefs upon the masses.

However, I think that where we most obviously disagree is the whole concept of the victimless crime scenario (which you might want to more fully spell out for us so we are on the same page). Every crime has a victim. So I guess my question is, are the crimes you mention as being victimless simply a case of merely breaking the law (say like getting a ticket for going 56 mph in a 55 mph zone)? Or is it more an example of smoking marijuana, where the addict will claim that he is not hurting anyone?