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

This line was made famous by Cuba Gooding Jr. in the movie ‘Jerry McGuire’. Quickly, it passed into usage when someone wants to see proof of a claim or promise. The Citizen uses this phrase occasionally – and tonight was one of those nights.

At a Knights of Columbus meeting, I heard speakers talking a lot about pro-life activities and programs. I have to admit, the first thing that ran through my mind was the resistance I encountered for the past four years from Knights on a variety of levels. For four years, I have tried to engage councils to participate in our local 40 Days for Life vigil – on Columbus Day. Sounds like a no-brainer, right? Guess again. Four years ago, I approached the state – no luck. Submitted an article and pictures of our first ‘kick-off’ Mass for the 40 Days vigil – the editor of the Columbia magazine wasn’t interested – the story wasn’t ‘something we are interested in’.

After the meeting, I spoke with some of these men – and heard some encouraging words. Here’s a challenge for all Knights who are reading this – and if you know a Knight, please share this with them.

Let’s make this Columbus Day, October 10 as a National “Knight and Day for Life”. Let’s see if Councils and Assemblies across the nation will commit to making that day ours. I challenge every Grand Knight, every Faithful Navigator, every District and State Deputy to commit to this one day.  I know that in some areas, the Knights are active in this vigil – but this day should be ours.

Anyone interested in taking up the gauntlet? If you are  and want someone to visit your council or assembly, let me know…I will be more than happy to come to see you and make a pitch. I will post up a page here and I’ve created a page on Facebook to get the ball rolling.

Will you join me, Brother Knight?

By the way, I invite the Supreme Knight to join us in Norwich this year – we would be honored to host you at our event!

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 John Martin

The Senate defeated, 44-56, HR1, the bill that would have allowed the government to continue spending money. Part of  the continuing resolution (CR)  was an amendment that defunded Planned Parenthood. All Democratic senators voted against the CR and three Republicans sided with the nays. While one can argue that this was moot – Mr. Obama had already stated that he would veto this CR because it cut Planned Parenthood’s funding – a line has been drawn on this debate. Mike Lee, Jim DeMint, and Rand Paul joined the pro-abortion camp with their vote on this issue – a decision that may haunt all three.

Kentucky is lukewarm at best in terms of supporting abortion, requiring waiting periods, parental notification, and limits on state aid for abortion. Three days ago (March 7, 2011), the Utah State House passed three laws advancing the cause of life in that state. One requires more frequent inspections of clinics, another provides stronger conscience clause protections for doctors and nurses, and the third allows insurance companies to ‘opt out’ of paying for abortion procedures. While these bills face challenges in the Senate, the victories indicate that Utah supports the pro-life cause. Finally, South Carolina has strong limits on abortion that are being scrutinized by a number of states interesting in curbing the excesses of Planned Parenthood and substandard clinics.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid joined the president with a staunch and absolute resolution to kill this CR.  When the Citizen thinks of Nevada and abortion, I recall Algis Martell. Martell was an abortionists in the mid-90’s who actually performed abortions on women who weren’t even pregnant – and charged handsomely for the procedures. Even today, Nevada abortion clinics enjoy very strong support from their state and federal legislators.

This leads to an important question. Do the interests of NARAL and Planned Parenthood outweigh the interests of the nation as a whole? The CR passed the House with a vote of 235 to 189. It funded to the government, and also restored the Mexico City policy, ended abortion funding in the District of Columbia, and cut funding the UNFPA (a UN agency that may have paid to support ‘one child family‘ abortions in China).  Adding amendments to spending bills is a tactic that the democratic party is adept at – their largesse in tacking earmarks on vital spending bills these past 4 years is legendary. At least Mr. Pence and the republican majority in the House didn’t pad their pockets with pork with their amendments.  Indeed, the terms of the amendment listed above are altruistic, representing the values of the authors of the amendment, those who voted in support of it – and more importantly – reflecting the values of their constituents. And isn’t that the ultimate responsibility of our legislators – to represent those who have entrusted them with their office?

Mr. Obama has strong ties with the abortion industry. In fact, he just added William Daley, a staunch supporter of abortion, and a so-called ‘pro-choice Catholic’ (there is no such thing, Mr. Daley) to his team as his new Chief of Staff. The Obamas invited Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, to the White House to celebrate International Women’s Day. And the list of former PP and NARAL employees who have positions in the Executive Branch is lengthy. Mr. Obama is perfectly content to allow the United States to suffer to support his pro-abortion position.

Harry Reid enjoys a 100% approval rating from NARAL – he too would rather serve the interests of the abortion industry. Why? Well, they surely helped get him re-elected. His ardent support of the PPACA and his opposition to the Hyde Amendment made him popular with the pro-abortion base in Nevada. Reid defeated the ardently pro-life Sharon Angle by some 6%; some of his victory due to his manipulation of the Hispanic vote, but a strong effort by Planned Parenthood helped tip the scales as well. Mr. Reid knows that he needs to keep his masters happy…even if the nation suffers.

In the end, the CR HR1 failed – and if Mr. Obama was to keep his promise – it was doomed to fail. It does provide the Catholic and pro-life voter some insight. We see who is willing to fight for the legislation that reflects the will of the majority of voters – who are prolife. We see that the amendments they add are not the self-serving pork barrel earmarks that have long been the hallmark of liberals. Three months ago, Reid defended nearly 10 billion dollars in earmarks in a lame duck spending bill. And now – when a bill that would have kept government services running for all Americans could have been passed – Mr. Reid and his democratic majority in the Senate decided that their pro-abortion special interest sponsors were more important.

I believe that the prolife movement helped change the face of state and national government lat November. I believe that in the next presidential election cycle, the lines will be drawn even more clearly. As a Catholic, I believe that abortion is wrong. I believe that my tax dollars should not support abortion or any organization that will use my money to perform abortions as part of their ‘services.’ We can support agencies and organizations that provide services to the needy without taking life. I believe that doctors and nurses should be able to exercise their conscience. I believe that if Planned Parenthood wants to perform abortions, they can raise money from private donors…just like Birthright, CareNet, and countless other agencies. Or – if abortion is so important to these doctors – they can waive their fees and perform abortions for free or out of their own pocket.

I believe that when it comes down to serving the needs of the nation and the needs of a special interest with a couple of billion dollars in the bank….it should be a ‘no-brainer.’

So, take a look at how your senators voted on this bill. Who did they serve with this vote?

You?

Or NARAL?

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 John Martin