In the time that it takes to read this essay, some 8 or 10 abortions have taken place somewhere in America. Despite a shift towards a pro-life position in this nation, some 3,700 abortions are performed every day in this country. This makes many pro-life advocates angry. In the case of some, it drives them to take ‘direct action’ against those who would take the lives of the most innocent and helpless of all people. Scott Roeder used this reasoning to justify killing George Tiller. James Kopp used this reasoning to justify his murder of Bernard Slepian. And there have been dozens of bombings, cases of arson, and countless more attempted crimes and threats of violence.

The question emerges – how can we take the moral high ground when we engage in such actions? Where is the justification for assassination, cold blooded murder, arson, bombings, and threats of violence? Is it to save the unborn? Or are there other – less noble – reasons?

Let’s take the ‘saving the innocent’ argument. The Citizen maintains that every one of those innocents taken by abortion are martyrs.  There is a precedent. Think of Matthew 2:16-18

When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi. Then was fulfilled what had been said through Jeremiah the prophet:

    “A voice was heard in Ramah,

      sobbing and loud lamentation;

      Rachel weeping for her children,

     and she would not be consoled,

     since they were no more.”

And so, every year, we celebrate the Feast of the Holy Innocents, the feast day of those children slain by the selfishness of secular power, by ambition, by fear, by ignorance. Innocents slain in the interests of expedience. Much like the 10 or so innocents who will be aborted while you are reading this. Against the arm of the State, there was little the people of Judea could do to save the children. Rising up would only result in greater bloodshed with no different results. In fact, armed resistance would only serve to justify greater violence and persecution rendered by the State. Sound familiar? It should. Eric Holder and Barak Obama used Roeder, Kopp, and the bombings of abortion mills to justify putting pro-life Christians on a DHS terrorist watch list.

I would like to see our Bishops approach the Vatican and consider issuing a statement that the victims of abortion are like those Holy Innocents. There is some canonical evidence to support such an approach. ‘The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without being Baptized’ was published by the Vatican in 2007, and provided a theological link between children who suffer violence in the modern day and those innocents who were massacred by the decree of Herod.  The text reads:

Just as those who took the lives of the Holy Innocents were motivated by fear and selfishness, so the lives particularly of unborn babies today are often endangered by the fear or selfishness of others. In that sense, they are in solidarity with the Holy Innocents.

One could – and there are those who already are – making an argument that the victims of abortion are unbaptized and carry original sin. To those, I answer with the doctrine of the universal salvific will of God. In the First Letter to Timothy, Paul writes that God desires all men to be saved. In Lumen Gentium, there is a passage that states clearly that the Church is a sacrament of unity for all mankind. The Citizen, though I am no more than a member of the laity, feels fairly confident arguing that God is perfectly capable of forgiving the taint of original sin the unbaptized unborn bear.  Our sacramental practice of baptism is certainly significant and desirable – as it assumes that we are bringing a living child of God into our community, one who will have a rich lifetime to grow in service and love of the Lord.

If the victims of abortion are granted martyrdom, imagine the impact that would have on the movement.  Imagine the power of being able to draw a clear relationship between the victims of Herod and the victims of the misguided policies of the current president of the United States and his pro-abortion administration. The Church has made a clear distinction that life begins at conception – by declaring every child whose life is taken by abortion to be one of the Holy Innocents, we would be making a powerful statement about our commitment to all life and the dignity of the child growing within the womb.

Violence is sometimes necessary. The Citizen has written more than one essay on just war and the theological justification of violence. In the case of violence against abortionists and their property, the Citizen argues that these acts fall far short of that justification. Matthew 26:50-54 reads:

Jesus answered him, “Friend, do what you have come for.” Then stepping forward they laid hands on Jesus and arrested him. And behold, one of those who accompanied Jesus put his hand to his sword, drew it, and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot call upon my Father and he will not provide me at this moment with more than twelve legions of angels? But then how would the scriptures be fulfilled which say that it must come to pass in this way?”

Christians are sometimes called to suffer, not to fight. We are called to bear witness to injustice and through our good deeds – not through violence – change men’s hearts. Imagine if the early Christians, persecuted by Rome, created a shadowy network of assassins, revolutionaries, and terrorists to answer the murder of innocents with the blood of those who persecuted them. What then would have happened to the Church whose foundations were laid by the Son of Man? Would it have endured to become the Church we Catholics enjoy today, a community of believers who share in an unbroken tradition handed down from man to man to the hand of our Lord Himself? I think not.  In time, the conviction and faith of Christians drew more and more people into the Church, until eventually the emperor Constantine himself submitted to the power of our Faith.

Those that succumb to the temptations of direct, violent action not only betray our Faith and those poor martyred souls of the unborn, they harden the hearts of those who disagree with us. The Citizen knows of several people who shifted from being open to a discussion of the pro-life position to a markedly more dismissive stance when Roeder killed Tiller. Their argument inevitably revolved around answering  violence with violence. Some argued that Tiller never broke the law while a pro-life activist was content to murder a man in his own church.  It is difficult to respond to such a  claim.  Giving pro-abortion groups the advantage of creating their own ‘martyrs’, of being able to call on the myrmidons of the law to take action in the wake of bombed and burned clinics, or threats of violence, should be unacceptable to us on a practical and strategic level.

Finally, we are called to be different then others. One of the most difficult qualities Christians need to inculcate is the ability to be charitable to those who hate us, who revile us, or who work against our beliefs. Often, we hear our Pastor or Deacon read and deliver homilies on Matthew’s famous Gospel passage on loving your enemy. How often do we really reflect on it?

You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,  so that you may  be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.  For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?  If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?  Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

We live in a world that is flawed by original sin, flawed by human frailty, flawed by hatred, lust, greed, and envy. Flawed by the evil that whispers in our ear and the evil that dwells within each of our hearts. These verses from Matthew 22 illustrate one of Christ’s greatest lessons for us. Who more then Christ had justification to resist unfair persecution? Knowing that he would soon face the trial in the garden, Christ gives us this lesson to illustrate the importance of not succumbing to the temptation of anger, hatred, and wrath. All men and women belong to God. Scott Roeder took away any chance of redemption for George Tiller. James Kopp took away Bernard Slepian’s opportunity for a change of heart.  And there are changes of heart every day.

Think of Abby Johnson. At one time, she was the director of a very active Planned Parenthood clinic. Every day, she walked into the clinic and worked hard to advance it’s goals. How many innocents were sacrificed in that clinic? No doubt quite a few. During an ultrasound procedure, she saw the child in a mother’s womb move – and had a change of heart. She left the clinic, quit Planned Parenthood, and has emerged as a powerful voice for the pro-life movement. She is a prodigal – a child who was lost and has returned to us.

And if there was a Kopp or a Roeder or some anonymous bomber or arsonist in the wings, Ms. Johnson could have been nothing more than another victim of ‘anti-choice’ extremism. She had the time to see the truth, and to – like Lazarus – emerge from the tomb to awaken to new life.

As we approach Holy Week – the time we celebrate the darkest trials and the most glorious triumphs of our Lord – let’s think about the sacrifice of the unborn in a new way. let’s look at those who disagree with us with a more charitable and Christly demeanor. We should take the moral high ground not just for logistical and strategic reasons. We should take it because in doing so, we can show those – like Abby Johnson – that though they take the lives of the innocent, we still love them as our brothers and sisters. Our vigils are not just a prayer for the lives taken by abortion but for the conversion of the hearts of those who do those hateful acts.

In the time it took to read this, perhaps 10 Holy Innocents were martyred. Let’s make their gift meaningful by dedicating ourselves to fighting not with hatred but with a loving heart.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2012 John Martin

The controversy over the HHS mandate is one that is bringing a number of festering issues to a head. Some have been orchestrated by an administration hostile to the Catholic Church in America. Some issues are a result of the Obama administration’s blind pursuit of their agenda – despite the cost. In a large part, it is due to contrary visions. The Catholic Church sees the First Amendment guarantees as the founders wrote it – a proviso that promised the ability to pursue our religious beliefs without untoward entanglements from the State. Mr. Obama sees the First Amendment based on the more modern – and flawed  - Black interpretation of the ‘wall of separation’.  So, is the prize merely bragging rights? The moral high ground? Who gets the Catholic vote in November? Sure – but it is much, much more.

The Citizen will be exploring this issue in greater detail over the next few weeks, but one important consideration must be explored now. And it must be acted on without delay. Mr. Obama’s compromise is an orchestrated tactic to give the Executive branch the power to determine who the First Amendment will shield – regardless of your particular interpretation. Catholic universities and colleges, Catholic social service agencies, Catholic hospitals and clinics – even Catholic Charities  - will all come under the scrutiny of the Department of Health and Human Services.  This gives the president the power to determine who will be exempt and who will not – a power that would be granted by acquiescence to this ‘compromise’.

We cannot allow this to happen.  Hugo Black’s interpretation is not the Constitution – it is an opinion. The Amendment is clearly written not to protect the State from people of Faith, but to protect people of Faith from the State. The ‘compromise’ will gut this clause, rendering it meaningless.  It is time – past time, actually – for our Bishops to take a stand.  It is time – and past time – for the laity to rally behind the Church. Birth control is a Trojan horse; the administration knows that the Catholic Church would dig our heels in on this and abortion and now offer a ‘deal’. This kind of one-handed deal is typical of this administration’s idea of compromise. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed with ‘compromises’ – compromises that have largely been ignored or never honored to begin with.

We must not let it happen.  It’s time to flood the White House with letters – emails mean nothing to them; letters and phone calls set the White House staff scurrying for cover. It’s time to call your Congressional delegation and demand that they stand for religious liberty.

Time to stand, brothers and sisters.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2012 John Martin

As a sort of addendum to the earlier essay on Just War Doctrine, I have to share a video that I watched via Facebook. Then-senator Joseph Biden, appearing on Hardball, weighed in – as a constitutional scholar, no less – on presidential authority to launch attacks on foreign nations.

Mr. Biden doesn’t much touch on the religious and moral doctrines, but then again, his position on abortion shows he’s not much of a Catholic….

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 John Martin

The Citizen – as habitual visitors to this site already know – is a teacher of history. Sometime in the course of every year, my students are going to learn about the most common method of political change throughout history…war. Being young, idealistic, and living in a region where a number of family members and friends are currently fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, many of my students question the legitimacy of war. Believing in the ‘teachable moment’, this initiates an inquiry unit based on the concept of Just War theory.

Because I teach in a public school, I don’t teach the Catholic Catechism on Just War Doctrine. But as this is MY forum, I will focus my arguments on a basis that is germane to Catholics. The Catechism, paragraph 2309 is quoted herein:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

· the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

· all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

· there must be serious prospects of success;

· the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Let’s break these down.

‘Damage…must be lasting, grave, and certain’. War is sometimes necessary to redress great injustice or evil. Furthermore, there is an emphasis on ‘aggressor’ – this implicates that it is justifiable to wage war against an aggressor. It is acceptable to fight in order to defend one’s nation, an ally, or a nation unfairly beset. Very few people would argue with the Persian Gulf War. President Bush responded to defend Kuwait against blatant aggression.

The second caveat dictates that a war is just if it is a last resort. All possible peaceful means need to be exhausted before it is morally acceptable to wage war. This includes diplomacy, sanctions, embargos, and other forms of political and economic coercion. Again, the Persian Gulf War provides a good example. After the initial invasion of Kuwait, the United Nations – spearheaded by the U.S. – demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities and an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.  Could there have been more non-violent attempts at ending this conflict? Perhaps. But often war compels action. Iraq was given sufficient and adequate warnings and the longer Saddam Hussein’s army occupied Kuwait, the more entrenched it would be. And – this is important – the longer they were unchallenged, the greater harm they could inflict on the people of Kuwait.

It is immoral – and stupid – to fight a war that has absolutely no chance of success.  To do so creates a milieu of violence, bloodshed, anarchy, and chaos without the hope of any manner of justice prevailing. The third proscription is a difficult one to accept. Was Israel acting in a just manner when they stood against a united Arab attack in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War? Arrayed against such a force, could the nascent Israel prevail? Questionable at the time. But, as they had little choice, and with the horrors of the Holocaust fresh in their living memory, I would wager that the Israeli leadership felt that they had to fight.

The fourth caveat demands that the war must not cause more harm than the situation that compels a nation to fight. To use a somewhat tired cliché, this is a case of ‘although the patient died, the operation was a success.’  This is the ‘lesser of two evils’ clause. One could certainly argue that if the policy of appeasement was followed, Hitler’s conquest of Europe was permitted, the horrors and violence of the Second World War could have been averted. This course – desired by many both in England and the United States – violates the first doctrine and in the long term would have resulted in greater oppression and tyranny. As terrible as the war was, it certainly resulted in a world that was less dangerous than the promise of the Third Reich. Weapons of mass destruction is an example of a weapon that violates this precept. Mustard gas, atomic weapons, biological agents – all of these are weapons that violate this injunction. They are indiscriminate. They cannot be controlled once released. The likelihood of non-combatants being killed is high. Many historians weigh the immorality of the firebombing and the atomic attacks of WW II as weighed against the fact that they likely shortened the war – sparing lives. A topic which while worthy is a task for another day.

If it were only as simple as applying the ‘checklist’. These four doctrines form the cornerstone of Just War Theory from the Catholic perspective. It is interesting to note that many secular philosophers and ethicists have come to similar conclusions. Curiously enough, when I have my students draw up a list of justifications to wage war, they end up with a list that is also very similar.

But wait – didn’t Christ say ‘Blessed are the Peacemakers’? Of course he did. But in Luke 22:36, scripture tells us he also said “and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.” Evil must be confronted. Sometimes witness is sufficient. Sometimes it must be fought with harsher measures. War is – unfortunately  – an element of our fall from grace. If it must be employed, it is our duty as Christians to ensure that our voices – and values – are heard.

Currently, the United States I fighting a global war on terror, a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, and is currently – despite claims from the White House – an air campaign against Libya. Currently, Israeli citizens are being shelled periodically by Hamas. In a dozen nations, Islamic fundamentalists are destroying Christian churches and assaulting Christians. The leadership of North Korea subjects their citizens to atrocities dictators like Gadhafi could never dream of attempting.  The question we must ask is why are we acting in some instances and not in others?

The Citizen will argue that Hitler needed to be stopped. One could make a justification that the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have actually saved more lives than they took. What of the wars and military actions we are waging today? Are they just?

Read Aquinas. Read the news, look for the truth. Pray. And then – act.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 John Martin

For a while now, Catholics have been fair game for prejudice and assault. Even the so-called ‘mainstream media’ have run articles admitting that ‘Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice’. In an address before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi asserted that the Catholic perspective has merit and value on the world stage and demanded that our opinions be accorded the same respect as any other.

As a Catholic apologist…well, perhaps Catholic pugilist might be more appropriate… the Citizen is accustomed to arguing against the double-standard of the secular humanist. I never cease to be amazed at how people can be so tolerant of any position – except ours. Homosexuals are perfectly justified in disrupting the Catholic Mass; Catholics are condemned for arguing against gay marriage – even if it is simply a doctrine in accordance with our faith. It’s perfectly acceptable for taxpayer dollars to be spent on abortion, but when Catholics argue against the practice, we are hatemongers. Catholic theologians, philosophers, artists, scientists, and writers have been responsible for practically every great social, political, and intellectual movement for the past two millennia. Yet Catholics are vilified as narrow-minded, reactionary, and misogynistic. Archbishop Tomasi swung the bat for Catholics at a UN.

The archbishop argued that the United Nations has created a policy that mandates homosexual activity is a fundamental human right. He stated that these attempts to silence Catholics, and other critics of homosexual practice,  were  themselves human rights violation according to the council’s own standards. This is germane in the United States where criticism of homosexual activity or behavior can be considered a ‘hate crime’ by the United States government. Tomasi strongly condemned “all violence that is targeted against people because of their sexual feelings and thoughts, or sexual behaviors.” He stated that articulating moral opposition to homosexual practices does not fall into this category. He argued that there is a growing trend to stigmatize, harass, and – in the United States – possibly prosecute people for expressing a tenet of their faith.

The Catholic Church draws a distinction between homosexual urges and homosexual activity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church articulates the Church’s stance on this issue in paragraphs 2357-2359.  Paragraph 2358 is the core of this article:

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

In paragraph 2359, the Catechism states that homosexuals are called to lead chaste lives. At no time does the Catechism call for the punishment or exclusion of homosexuals – if they live chaste lives. As a point of order, the Church calls upon ALL members of the Catholic community to live chaste and moral lives. Heterosexual activities outside the boundaries of sacramental marriage are considered as sin as well…a fact that critics of the Church tend to gloss over in their ad hominen attacks.

Archbishop Tomasi is calling for an end of attacks on Catholics for expressing our values in a legal and appropriate manner in national and international arenas. Catholic criticism of gay marriage has resulted in government actions against Catholic adoption agencies in Great Britain and in several states in the United States. Catholic criticism of gay marriage led to legislative attacks against the Catholic church. In Connecticut, two gay legislators launched a crusade against the Catholic church in the state for our opposition to gay marriage legislation. They sponsored Connecticut Raised Bill 1098 – a bill that specifically targeted the Roman Catholic Church in Connecticut and would have destroyed the legal hierarchy of the diocese, placing financial and management authority in specially constituted lay boards. Their blatant attack on a group that disagreed with them was too much for even a famously liberal state to tolerate and the bill died.

The Citizen has been called hateful, mean, spiteful, vicious, and worse over the years. Why? Because I exercise my rights as a citizen to seek to have my positions, beliefs, and ideals represented? Because I dare to say that something is wrong according to my religion? Because I dare to apply my Catholic values to public life? Yep.

For those reasons, I am fair game for every sanctimonious humanist, every ‘anything goes’ Christian, and everyone in between. Their personal opinions have merit while I am fair game for their harassment and stigmatizing.

But that’s OK…I’m only Catholic, right?

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 John Martin

“What could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ ” – Pope Pius XI

The Citizen is a working teacher who has spent his career in a number of poor, urban school districts. I have seen poverty, hunger, and want. I have taught children whose parents are incarcerated. I have taught children whose immigration status is questionable. I have taught children scarred by drugs and violence. I have taught a lot of children who live in public housing. I have taught children who are malnourished. In short, I have seen the face of poverty – I see it every day in my classroom. I share this not to make myself into a Saint, but to establish that I know these issues do exist and that they are important. In fact, I know them better than many Americans. While these are all issues of vital importance to Catholics, the teachings of the Church – the Magisterium – specifically addresses some issues as being so contrary to our beliefs and the Canon, that they cannot be countenanced. Abortion is one of those issues. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 2258, reads

“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

This statement clearly articulates the Church’s position. Gaudium et Spes, the Pastoral Constitution of Vatican II, even more specifically states the Church’s teachings on abortion; “Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.” In 1869, Pope Pius IX, speaking ex cathedra, promulgated that the philosophical difference of ‘fetus inanimatus’ and ‘fetus animatus’ were moot. The official policy of the church was that the soul was present at the instant of conception, if not immediately before. Why did Pius make this statement? Saint Thomas Aquinas has often been used as a justification for this transitory state of the fetus. He referred to an act called ‘ensoulment’, following the teachings of Saint Augustine who wrote that the soul would not dwell in an undeveloped fetus. Aquinas also wrote that the abortion of a fetus before ensoulment (inanimatus) was a ‘grave sin against natural law’ and that the abortion of a fetus after ensoulment (animatus) was a sin of homicide. This lead to a lengthy debate about the time when a ‘ensoulment’ occurred. The argument was – or should have been – purely academic. As early as the First Century, the Church teachings on abortion were made clear. The Didache or the ‘Teachings of the Twelve Apostles’ clearly forbade all abortions. The history lesson aside, since 1869 the teaching of the Church clearly states that life begins at conception and abortion at any stage is contrary to the Magisterium. It is an act that is inherently evil and inimical to life and the teachings of the Church. Any policy or politician who supports abortion is acting contrary to a core tenet of Catholic belief. Any Catholic politician who supports abortion is violating the vows we take every week when we attend Mass and profess our faith.

Many politicians support social reform policies that are very compatible with Catholic teaching. Social justice issues are important to us – or should be. But – and this is the big but – supporting a politician who advocates very worthy issues and also supports abortion is not acceptable to Catholics. Abortion is ‘inimical’ to the Catechism and cannot be supported by a Catholic who is communion with the Holy See.

I hope that this makes sense to the Non-Catholic readers … and those Catholic readers who support abortion. Abortion is not a simple issue out of many that you can place on the balance scales, weighing to see if the ‘good’ of a candidate’s other policies and platforms outweigh the ‘bad’ of abortion. It is – and must be for Catholics – a deal breaker.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 John Martin

It is the duty of the Catholic Citizen to be charitable -  indeed, it is the duty of all Americans. And in fact, the citizens of the United States have often proven themselves to be among the most generous and charitable people in the world. Our willingness to help those in need – both domestically and abroad – is apparent in our response as a nation in disasters ranging from Hurricane Katrina to the earthquake in Haiti to the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan. These are perfect examples of our charity – both as a nation and as individual citizens – of our acceptance of the virtue of giving. Many Americans realize that for those who have been given much, much is expected.

As the debate over America’s budget crisis grows, we see politicians and advocacy groups fighting over the nature of charity Unfortunately, many people are unwilling – perhaps unaware – of the fact that it is not merely the dollar amount, it is the nature of the assistance being offered. This is a subtle but important distinction – especially for Catholics. It is much easier to write a check or support policy than to reflect on the impact that it will have – both socially and economically. The current model of social welfare is to throw money into a problem. Creating new federal, state, and local agencies or augmenting existing ones with infusions of money and personnel will help correct the problem. Or perhaps the issue is the redistribution of wealth – taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the less fortunate is the way to correct imbalances. Since Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ was introduced – a social welfare program that recently celebrated it’ 40^th anniversary – this has been the primary emphasis of social welfare. President Obama has argued that we need to increase our spending on these issues. I argue that after four decades of welfare socialism, we have not only failed to end poverty, we have created a hereditary under-class of the needy.

I have nothing but compassion for those in need and approach this topic with a truly generous heart. I am afraid that we as a nation have not done so in our current policies and programs. Indeed, we have denied people of a full and meaningful life by taking the easy route – throw money at a problem and ignore them. That hasn’t worked thus far – why would anyone think that throwing more would solve the problems of poverty?

Matthew 20-:1-15 is a perfect passage to begin our discussion on poverty and why our welfare system is broken. The essence of the reading is the generosity of a landowner towards workers. In the time of Jesus, workers seeking employment would congregate in a public place – a well, a town market, or other central location. Those seeking to hire labor would go to this place and select workers for the day at a daily rate often set by custom and usage. In this parable, Jesus relates the landowner periodically went to the well to hire workers throughout the day, sending them to his vineyard. Once there, they would be enrolled by the foreman and given their tasks. Morning, midmorning, midafternoon – even in the late afternoon, the landowner selected and sent workers to his fields. At the end of the day, he went to the foreman and instructed that is was time to pay the workers – the last first. All of them – even those who only worked a few hours – received the same rate. Some of the disgruntled workers, laboring since the morning, took exception to this practice and were chastised. The landowner argued that they received the wages they were promised and if he was inclined to show generosity to all workers, it was his money to spend. How does this Gospel passage relate to the topic at hand?

The landowner was demonstrating a Catholic virtue – compassion and generosity. God loves those who have a giving and generous heart. In a competitive working environment, the best workers would be chosen early, the least capable or competent may find no work. By returning throughout the day, the landowner was giving those who may have been unfortunate or perhaps were fired from another job a second chance. He gave them an opportunity to receive assistance without losing their dignity. He very easily could have simply given money to those at the well – would this not be the nadir of generosity? Would this not have been more kind then forcing them to go to the vineyards for an hour or two before getting paid? This landowner was wiser then our policymakers. He understood the value and dignity of work. He understood that people appreciate what they have earned and tend not to appreciate what they have been given.

Today, we have created a system where people are provided a modest amount of money on a regular basis to support their basic human needs. What could be wrong with that? Quite a bit. We have created a class of Americans who feel that they are incapable of making a contribution to society. By providing basic needs, we have removed the desire or the motivation for many to work to better their position – they have become content in what they have been given. Money has no human value – it is a means of exchange. It is easy to throw money at the poor, to create great monolithic edifices of public housing, and warehouse the poor in isolated and undesirable neighborhoods. And they are expected to do nothing of value, substance, or merit in return. Our policy cheapens and demeans people – we tell them that their contribution is so unimportant, we will pay them to remain marginalized outcasts. We are telling them it is easier for society to give them the necessities than it is to give them the tools they need to provide them for themselves. Lao Tzu is credited with the very appropriate maxim “Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man a fish, he will feed himself for a lifetime.” If only President Johnson and his advisors had such wisdom. If it were so, we likely would not be grappling with this problem of generational poverty.

The Landowner also understood that not everyone is equally capable. By offering employment to the latecomers, he was showing compassion and generosity to those who – for a variety of reasons – were not chosen until the end of the day. By noontime, the only workers likely to be idling by the well were among the least skilled, least educated, or the least capable. Yet he hired them, sent them to his foreman, who put them to such tasks as they were capable of doing for the remainder of the day. Our system provides a sustenance-level existence for millions on welfare, and many of those are unemployed or underemployed. How painful must it be to be marginalized in such a manner? Who among us is comfortable taking charity – even from those we love and know well? I cannot imagine the shame in receiving such charity from strangers. Standing in lines, filing out forms, receiving checks and infusions of a subsidized debit card. These are not people. They are cogs in a vast, impersonal social welfare machine. Their dreams, their aspirations, their talents are not considered. They are a file, a number, a recipient of the largesse of an impersonal government. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal program had a number of ‘workfare’ programs – the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Works Progress Administration, and countless other ‘alphabet soup’ agencies didn’t just give people food and shelter. It gave them the opportunity to receive aid as part of their compensation for work. They learned skills and trades, they were educated, they saw what effects their labor had on our society. They were not simply beggars at the gate, they earned their keep, they contributed to society. The Landowner knew the dignity of work. Why don’t we?

The resentful workers had some cause. After all, if the latecomers were being paid what they who labored a full day were receiving, doesn’t that diminish their wages? Shouldn’t those who have worked longer deserve more? Could they have been wondering if some of the money that went to the latecomers rightly deserved to be in their pockets? Imagine their discontent if they learned the Landowner had simply given money to the ‘idlers’ at the well. They would not have been disgruntled, they would have been outraged.

Can we not apply this outrage to taxes? After all, it is our tax dollars that subsidize a number of programs, welfare among them. Catholics are – or should be – generous people. Americans as a whole are generous. Many of us don’t resent aiding those in need. But we have always been a ‘hand-up’ people. We don’t much care for the handout – nor should we. American and Catholic principles are forged on self-sufficiency and personal acts of charity and compassion. I would much rather see my tax dollars spent on job training programs then the dole. There is much that needs to be done in our nation. AmeriCorps and other agencies that provide assistance in return for work, job training, and counseling are the better investment in our tax dollars – and in our brothers and sisters in need. The fiscal policy of our present system diminishes the importance of work. These leads to resentment in many – on social, political, moral, and – yes – religious grounds. This creates a spiral effect. After 40 years of the welfare state, people have been born into a system that provides a limited lifestyle without demands on their time and talents. They grow up believing that this is because they have nothing to offer, that their lives have no real purpose. As they grow into adulthood, they continue to see no hope, no drive, no desire. This is exacerbated by the reaction of the working class, who looks down on them as parasites in the body politic. Their sense of self-worth is slowly crushed by the system and by the way people view them and their lifestyle. As a teacher, I deal with students who have already learned this behavior. There is nothing more tragic than trying to educate children who have no sense of purpose, no sense of their value, no hope for the future. They don’t see the value in education, they don’t have the drive to better themselves. They have learned one lesson thus far – they are unimportant to society.

In this short Gospel reading, we have derived many relevant teachings that can be applied to the value of work, charity, and welfare. The landowner seeks to give those in need the opportunities to provide for themselves and their families in a compassionate and Christian manner. Christ is using this story to tell us that generosity is a tool that must be used wisely. It is God’s plan that we be generous to those in need. It is His will that we aid those in distress. And while there are those who can do no more then to have the grace to accept the aid of society, there are many more that can learn to support themselves. It is right and good to employ those in need. I argue that Christ also tells us in this parable, that it is important to give them not just money, but dignity.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 John Martin

Over the past two years, I have been following a case in Italy. The European Court of Human Rights – in what one would think was a joke – ruled to forbid the display of the Crucifix in classrooms in Italy. Their rationale?

The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities… restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions.

They believed that the practice violated the rights of parents to educate their children ‘as they saw fit’ – even if it flew in the face of the desires of the majority and the custom of hundreds of years of past practice. The suit was filed by self-professed atheist Soile Lautsi, a Finnish woman living with her husband and sons in Italy – a nation with a long and strong religious and cultural connection to Catholicism.  Her charges were that crucifixes represented a “breach of the principle of secularism” and a “violation of the principle of impartiality of public administration”.  In November 2009, seven judges sided with Lautsi, claiming that the display violated the  “right of children to believe or not to believe.”

The appeal rendered a different decision. By a vote of 15 to 2, the Court determined that Article Two of Protocol 1 was not violated by the display of a crucifix. This article pertains to the ‘right to an education.’ This second tribunal determined that the display of a crucifix failed to meet the burden of proof that the children of atheists or non-Christians would suffer impaired education.

This decision is a victory on many fronts for Catholics. It has reversed a pattern of discrimination subjected by a very small minority upon the majority; for some reason, some groups think that the prejudices and preferences of the handful should take precedence over those of the many. This decision creates a precedent in European courts for a credible defense based on tradition and culture of the majority. The decision reversed a number of suits seeking to forbid public displays of Christian practices and traditions throughout the European Union.

A second consideration is that this decision reinforces the right of citizens to defend their shared values and identity. The push in Europe – and in the United States – to sacrifice traditions and values in the name of ‘diversity’ has created tremendous conflict. The policy of welcoming newcomers, allowing them their own practices in their own homes and places of worship, and allowing cultural assimilation to work – a process that has worked for the countless generations of immigrants who have come to the United States is now fallen by the wayside.

Finally, this decision curbs the hubris of malcontents. Atheists make up about 9% of the population in America; why then is there such a fuss about mangers and Merry Christmas? Because we let them.

But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. – Rev. 3:16

This passage of Revelations warns us that if we stand by and let these things pass unopposed, we will pay a price. For more on the concept of charity and tolerance, I invite you to read this essay.

Ms. Lautsi represents the beliefs of about 6% of Italy; and the tribunal put the demands of that minority into perspective. The publisher of an Italian newspaper rendered the following opinion:

I hope that following this verdict Europe will begin to examine issues of tolerance and religious freedom with the same courage.

Tolerance works both ways. Homosexuals are free to live openly in our society – even in the military, now – it doesn’t matter if people resent that lifestyle. I may not approve of the practices of certain religions – I don’t have to. But that doesn’t mean that I can deny them a place at the table – or a spot in line during a public parade or demonstration. Liberals would agree that this is tolerance. Now, the demand for tolerance has cut another way. Ms. Lautsi learned that lesson – I pray that others who seek to deny people their practices and beliefs learn from this decision.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 John Martin

Condoms have been a staple in public high schools – and, increasingly, in middle schools – for some time now. Health class – a staple of school – usually includes at least one unit of instruction on how to properly use prophylactics. The curriculum includes comprehensive instruction in different methods of birth control, how to identify sexually transmitted diseases, and – in an alarming number of schools – frank discussions on sexual activity. Children as young as elementary school age are exposed to books that introduce them to masturbation, sexual acts, and pictures of sex organs. In this comprehensive treatment of all things sexual there is one glaring exception – abstinence.

Abstinence is choosing not to engage in sexual activity. Because of it’s very nature, abstinence is 100% effective against unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Despite it’s obvious health benefits – especially in children and young adults – it is reviled by most ‘professionals’ as impractical. Why? Because children can’t be taught self-control? Or is the motive more sinister and selfish?

Many advocates of what is called ‘comprehensive’ sex education are the products of the ‘me generation’ – that group of people who are late-coming baby boomers and their immediate offspring. In short, my generation. We tend to be fairly self-centered, narcissistic, engaging in socially conscious activities only if they are trendy, non-judgmental, and require little effort or personal expense. Walk-a-thons are ideal; you have fun, get a little exercise with like-minded socially progressive people, they tend to cost little out of your pocket as you hit up friends and co-workers, and they are over in a few hours. Government programs are great – only about half of Americans end up paying for them anyways, and your tax money has to go somewhere, right?  Taking the easy way out is the mantra of this generation – and it’s destroying our children.

Because we believe that anything should go, we assume that it is acceptable to teach 3rd graders about masturbation and homosexuality. A book called ‘It’s Perfectly Normal’ has been advertised to schools for several years now. I provide a link here but I warn you that these pages contain very disturbing material. With children as young as 8 or 9 being exposed to this type of material, is it any wonder that so many engage in sexual activity? We provide pictures, we encourage children to ‘explore’, and we actually provide them with items that we tell them will prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. This is like putting a bottle of vodka in front of an alcoholic and telling him to use restraint. Good luck.

The medical journal Contraception reported on a study performed in Spain. According to the research, from 1997 to 2007, “the overall use of contraceptive methods increased from 49.1 percent to 79.9 percent.” In that same timeframe, the elective abortion rate increased from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1000 women.

George Mason University researchers studied STDs over four decades and found a ‘verifiable’ link between subsidized sex ed, subsidized contraception, abortions, and STDs.

For organizations like Planned Parenthood, comprehensive sex ed is good for business. Abstinence is nowhere near as profitable. But abstinence doesn’t work! No kid except the religious nutjobs are going to really abstain – right? No, wrong, actually.

“Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months” was a study that demonstrates that abstinence can be an effective method. Two years after instruction, children who participated in an abstinence only curriculum were 1/3 less likely to have sex then the students who participated in the ‘comprehensive’ curriculum described earlier. The Heritage Foundation issued a report where they illustrate that twelve out of sixteen abstinence programs reported statistically significant results. Finally, a graphic created from data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control demonstrates something that the progressive educator would find unbelievable….significantly greater percentages of teens and young adults are abstaining.

The Citizen is a veteran teacher. Young people actually want structure, they want boundaries. Comprehensive sex education sends them a message that sex is socially acceptable – in fact, the easy access to contraception, STD screening, and other ‘services’ seem to encourage children to indulge in reckless behavior. Besides, when that condom fails, there’s always abortion.

There are no problems that can’t be fixed by a quick visit to Planned Parenthood.

Except a child’s innocence. Planned Parenthood and ‘comprehensive’ sex education can’t give that back, can it?

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 John Martin

Earlier this week, Harry Reid announced that he would use every means at his disposal to block any Continuing Resolution or spending bill that contained ideological language – and specifically mentioned the attempt to de-fund Planned Parenthood. His argument – and that of other supporters of Planned Parenthood – is that most of their services have nothing to do with abortion. A little simple math proves that this is far from the truth.

Planned Parenthood released their 2009 ‘Service Report’ recently  – and it paints a fairly grim picture.

They claim that abortions make up ‘3 percent’ of their services – but that 3% is 332,278 aborted children. They did 977 adoption referrals and treated some 7,021 ‘prenatal clients.’If we do some math, we discover that for every adoption referral PP made, they aborted 340 unborn children.  For every woman they assisted to carry a child to term, they aborted 47.

What about the other 97% of Planned Parenthood services? 35% was contraception – including 1,537,180 doses of ‘emergency contraception’. What’s that? That would be the ‘morning after’ or ‘plan b’ pill, a method that according to Catholic teaching is abortion. According to the Catechism, life begins at the instant of conception. Ideologically, plan b is not much different to a Catholic in communion with the Holy See as a conventional surgical abortion. Of the spectrum of contraceptive services Planned Parenthood provided in 2009, fully one quarter were ‘plan b’ interventions.

If emergency contraception is considered to be a method of abortion by Catholics – and it is – then abortion makes up considerably more than the 3% claimed by Planned Parenthood.  If every dose of plan b resulted in the termination of life, the total number of abortions as defined by the Magisterium would be 1,869,456. Planned Parenthood claimed they treated some 11 million clients  – this means that about 1 in 10 used Planned Parenthood to abort an unwanted child.

The American Life League estimates that the ‘3%’ of surgical abortions Planned Parenthood performs account for some 40% of their income. Dawn Johnson, a former PP exec, stated that abortions were encouraged as a means to ‘offset’ less profitable services like STD treatment.

Mr. Reid is concerned about ‘ideology’. Well, so is the Citizen. He is embracing an ideology that advocates the business of eliminating undesirable life. When this is done to humans living outside of the womb, we call it genocide.

Mr. Reid calls it healthcare.

And he criticizes my ideological failings?

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 John Martin