TFTD: Even Pagans Recognized Abortion Was Wrong

I came across this passage by Aulus Gelius (AD 125-180) in his work, Attic Nights (Noctus Atticae).

In so doing they show the same madness as those who strive by evil devices to cause abortion of the fetus itself which they have conceived, in order that their beauty may not be spoiled by the weight of the burden they bear and by the labour of parturition. (12.1.1)

Compare that with today, where such a concern for appearance is considered a valid reason for abortion.  We've really lost the moral sense that people once knew.

It kind of makes you wonder when comparing ancient Rome with modern America – why is it ancient Rome that is considered the vicious and cruel society and America is considered the enlightened society?

TFTD: Even Pagans Recognized Abortion Was Wrong

I came across this passage by Aulus Gelius (AD 125-180) in his work, Attic Nights (Noctus Atticae).

In so doing they show the same madness as those who strive by evil devices to cause abortion of the fetus itself which they have conceived, in order that their beauty may not be spoiled by the weight of the burden they bear and by the labour of parturition. (12.1.1)

Compare that with today, where such a concern for appearance is considered a valid reason for abortion.  We've really lost the moral sense that people once knew.

It kind of makes you wonder when comparing ancient Rome with modern America – why is it ancient Rome that is considered the vicious and cruel society and America is considered the enlightened society?

What Will You Do If They Come For You?

With the recent news of the government first forbidding the reading of the letter issued by Archbishop Timothy Broglio (who oversees the Catholic chaplains) condemning the HHS decision, and then after a protest, censoring the letter that was read, we must ask… how can anyone pretend that the Obama administration is not a menace to the rights and liberties of all Americans?

First we have the imposing of a directive which demands that religious institutions either comply with providing coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortifacients or shut down.  Now the government is beginning to stifle the freedom to oppose such directives.

Now I recognize that not all Americans share the views of this blog or of the Catholic Church that this blog seeks to reflect.  However, even those who do not share these views need to consider something.

If the Obama administration succeeds in their tactics, then there is nothing to prevent them from using these tactics against any other body who displeases them.  Moreover, if the administration is removed from power and if these tactics are left in place, then whoever succeeds the Obama administration will also have these tools to stifle dissent.

Regardless of one's views of politics or morality, the Obama administration is taking a path which all people of good will must oppose.  Otherwise the American concept of freedom ends in failure and we become yet another nation with an authoritarian regime. 

What Will You Do If They Come For You?

With the recent news of the government first forbidding the reading of the letter issued by Archbishop Timothy Broglio (who oversees the Catholic chaplains) condemning the HHS decision, and then after a protest, censoring the letter that was read, we must ask… how can anyone pretend that the Obama administration is not a menace to the rights and liberties of all Americans?

First we have the imposing of a directive which demands that religious institutions either comply with providing coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortifacients or shut down.  Now the government is beginning to stifle the freedom to oppose such directives.

Now I recognize that not all Americans share the views of this blog or of the Catholic Church that this blog seeks to reflect.  However, even those who do not share these views need to consider something.

If the Obama administration succeeds in their tactics, then there is nothing to prevent them from using these tactics against any other body who displeases them.  Moreover, if the administration is removed from power and if these tactics are left in place, then whoever succeeds the Obama administration will also have these tools to stifle dissent.

Regardless of one's views of politics or morality, the Obama administration is taking a path which all people of good will must oppose.  Otherwise the American concept of freedom ends in failure and we become yet another nation with an authoritarian regime. 

The State of Our Union

Introduction

Personally, I wanted to let my blog fade away into obscurity… well into more obscurity… and retire.  But like it or not, our nation has a crisis on its hands.  The crisis is the Constitutional Right of religion is being negated by a government which is so determined to force a set of values on us that they do not care what they violate in doing so.

The issue is that the Obama administration is determined to force certain things (sanctioning of homosexual relationships and requiring employers to pay for contraception and abortions) even when such things force us to disobey God.  This is an action that no state has the right to demand.

Good and Evil

Ultimately the state is considered good or evil based on how it positions itself in relation to God's law.  The state is considered free or not free depending on whether or not it harasses or restricts people who do seek to follow God's law.  I think it can be argued that America has been an evil nation for quite some time with the government making legal and supported things which violate God's law.

I also think it can be argued that America has passed from being a free nation (tolerating Christians who seek to do God's will) to being a not free nation (harassing and restricting religious groups who seek to follow God's way rather than to disobey God and follow the state).

Forcing Beliefs on Others?

It is true that not all Americans are Christians, or even believers in any religion at all.  Some may take that fact in saying, "You're just forcing your beliefs on others!"  However this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues.  Jewish Americans approach American life from the perspective of their values.  Muslim Americans, Buddhist Americans, atheistic Americans all do the same.  However, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and atheistic institutions are not being forced to act in a way contrary to their beliefs, while Christian institutions are told they have one year to comply with directives which run counter to their beliefs.

Now, as to the issue of "imposing views on others."  This is a common accusation, which essentially works like this:

1. Opposition to Abortion is a "personal value"
2. These opponents want to make abortion illegal.
3. Therefore opponents to abortion want to push their personal values on others.

The problem is, even if one accepted this argument (which I do not), it overlooks the fact that supporting abortion is also a personal value, and one can simply reverse the argument and say supporters of abortion want to push their views on others – and such a charge would be absolutely true!  If we who believe abortion is wrong can be charged with "pushing values on others," then those who want to promote abortion can be accused of exactly the same thing.  If it's wrong for us to do this, obviously it's wrong for them to do this as well.

Therefore, to oppose Christians on this ground is hypocrisy pure and simple.

Objective Truth Dictates What Must Be Done

To avoid such a charge of "pushing values," we have to recognize that certain things are absolute and are always wrong even when society does not recognize it is wrong.

Take the issue of slavery.  Our country once thought (and still struggles with in some aspects) that certain races were inferior and less than fully human.  Despite some arguments on the subject, the majority of the nation at one time accepted it as reasonable.  Even some abolitionists doubted that African-Americans had the ability to act like human beings and fit in as American citizens.

Today we recognize that this was a terrible belief that dehumanized others and refused to treat people as the human beings they were.

That is why we don't accept arguments that the opposition to slavery was nothing more than one group "pushing values" on another group.  When a society supports a view that contradicts objective truth, that society is doing wrong even if members of that society don't realize it.  However, our revulsion with such a society is that there is no valid reason for people to think in such a way.  Either they close their eyes and mind to the truth to avoid difficult questions or they deliberately choose what they know is wrong.

Such a view recognizes there is a knowable truth which people fail to reach through their own fault.  Such knowable truth is demonstrated by the praising or condemning of behavior based on this.

Essentially, the Obama administration and their supporters believe that their views are absolutely true – abortion and gay "marriage" are good in and of themselves and whoever disagrees is acting from intolerance.  Such a view – especially with the condemnation of Christians as "intolerant" – indicates that they believe their views are objectively true and can be known.

Twofold Problem With the Attack on Christianity

The problem is twofold.  First, they cannot show the objective truth for their claims but can only make use of logical fallacies to claim their situations are similar to objective truths we recognize.  Secondly, they assume four thousand years of Jewish moral beliefs and two thousand years of Christian moral teaching was dead wrong based on intolerance.

The logical fallacies are largely appeals to emotion and fear, while misrepresenting the motives of those who oppose them: "How can you want to prevent people who love each other from marrying?"  "How can you want to force a woman to be pregnant?"  These are not at all our motives.  However, these false statements gain acceptance simply by having people repeat them over and over.  It's like those people who believe Catholics worship Mary.  We don't, but the lie is so often repeated that people accept it as true.

The assumption that Christian moral teachings are nothing more than 2000 years of intolerance leads to the question, "On what basis do you say this?"  Usually what you get in response is a litany of supposed abuses (mostly repeated lies or else distortions of what is true) which are unrelated.  Some ignorant peasants burned suspected witches, therefore the opposition to homosexual "marriage" is the result of ignorant Christians.  The problem is, the hysteria over witches by uneducated peoples in the 15th and 16th centuries is not the same as the reasoned condemnation of homosexual acts even in times and cultures where it was tolerated in decadent societies. 

Basically it is an argument of chronological snobbery which assumes that an advance of 2000 years of scientific knowledge automatically means an advance of 2000 years of moral knowledge.  I think history will show that this assumption is not true.

Conclusion

So ultimately the state of our Union is troubled and ominous.  The present administration and those who agree with it assume they know what is good and can force those who disagree with them to comply, contrary to the Constitution of the United States.

Those people who support the Obama administration should beware.  Once it is accepted as true that the government can overrule the obligations of conscience, there are no limits to what they can do.  History is full of examples of government ideologies which were forced on the people.  The results were the gulag and the concentration camp in those cases. 

Now the gulag and the concentration camp may never show up in America, so let's not be distracted by arguing over whether they will. That misses the point of danger which is:  If you think the government has the right to force people to act against conscience, then when the wheel turns and those out of power come into power, you will have no justification to object when the government turns on you.

And that's why even people who don't recognize the truth of Christianity should be alarmed about Obama's decrees.  If you are silent when the government turns on us, who will speak up when it turns on you?

The State of Our Union

Introduction

Personally, I wanted to let my blog fade away into obscurity… well into more obscurity… and retire.  But like it or not, our nation has a crisis on its hands.  The crisis is the Constitutional Right of religion is being negated by a government which is so determined to force a set of values on us that they do not care what they violate in doing so.

The issue is that the Obama administration is determined to force certain things (sanctioning of homosexual relationships and requiring employers to pay for contraception and abortions) even when such things force us to disobey God.  This is an action that no state has the right to demand.

Good and Evil

Ultimately the state is considered good or evil based on how it positions itself in relation to God's law.  The state is considered free or not free depending on whether or not it harasses or restricts people who do seek to follow God's law.  I think it can be argued that America has been an evil nation for quite some time with the government making legal and supported things which violate God's law.

I also think it can be argued that America has passed from being a free nation (tolerating Christians who seek to do God's will) to being a not free nation (harassing and restricting religious groups who seek to follow God's way rather than to disobey God and follow the state).

Forcing Beliefs on Others?

It is true that not all Americans are Christians, or even believers in any religion at all.  Some may take that fact in saying, "You're just forcing your beliefs on others!"  However this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues.  Jewish Americans approach American life from the perspective of their values.  Muslim Americans, Buddhist Americans, atheistic Americans all do the same.  However, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and atheistic institutions are not being forced to act in a way contrary to their beliefs, while Christian institutions are told they have one year to comply with directives which run counter to their beliefs.

Now, as to the issue of "imposing views on others."  This is a common accusation, which essentially works like this:

1. Opposition to Abortion is a "personal value"
2. These opponents want to make abortion illegal.
3. Therefore opponents to abortion want to push their personal values on others.

The problem is, even if one accepted this argument (which I do not), it overlooks the fact that supporting abortion is also a personal value, and one can simply reverse the argument and say supporters of abortion want to push their views on others – and such a charge would be absolutely true!  If we who believe abortion is wrong can be charged with "pushing values on others," then those who want to promote abortion can be accused of exactly the same thing.  If it's wrong for us to do this, obviously it's wrong for them to do this as well.

Therefore, to oppose Christians on this ground is hypocrisy pure and simple.

Objective Truth Dictates What Must Be Done

To avoid such a charge of "pushing values," we have to recognize that certain things are absolute and are always wrong even when society does not recognize it is wrong.

Take the issue of slavery.  Our country once thought (and still struggles with in some aspects) that certain races were inferior and less than fully human.  Despite some arguments on the subject, the majority of the nation at one time accepted it as reasonable.  Even some abolitionists doubted that African-Americans had the ability to act like human beings and fit in as American citizens.

Today we recognize that this was a terrible belief that dehumanized others and refused to treat people as the human beings they were.

That is why we don't accept arguments that the opposition to slavery was nothing more than one group "pushing values" on another group.  When a society supports a view that contradicts objective truth, that society is doing wrong even if members of that society don't realize it.  However, our revulsion with such a society is that there is no valid reason for people to think in such a way.  Either they close their eyes and mind to the truth to avoid difficult questions or they deliberately choose what they know is wrong.

Such a view recognizes there is a knowable truth which people fail to reach through their own fault.  Such knowable truth is demonstrated by the praising or condemning of behavior based on this.

Essentially, the Obama administration and their supporters believe that their views are absolutely true – abortion and gay "marriage" are good in and of themselves and whoever disagrees is acting from intolerance.  Such a view – especially with the condemnation of Christians as "intolerant" – indicates that they believe their views are objectively true and can be known.

Twofold Problem With the Attack on Christianity

The problem is twofold.  First, they cannot show the objective truth for their claims but can only make use of logical fallacies to claim their situations are similar to objective truths we recognize.  Secondly, they assume four thousand years of Jewish moral beliefs and two thousand years of Christian moral teaching was dead wrong based on intolerance.

The logical fallacies are largely appeals to emotion and fear, while misrepresenting the motives of those who oppose them: "How can you want to prevent people who love each other from marrying?"  "How can you want to force a woman to be pregnant?"  These are not at all our motives.  However, these false statements gain acceptance simply by having people repeat them over and over.  It's like those people who believe Catholics worship Mary.  We don't, but the lie is so often repeated that people accept it as true.

The assumption that Christian moral teachings are nothing more than 2000 years of intolerance leads to the question, "On what basis do you say this?"  Usually what you get in response is a litany of supposed abuses (mostly repeated lies or else distortions of what is true) which are unrelated.  Some ignorant peasants burned suspected witches, therefore the opposition to homosexual "marriage" is the result of ignorant Christians.  The problem is, the hysteria over witches by uneducated peoples in the 15th and 16th centuries is not the same as the reasoned condemnation of homosexual acts even in times and cultures where it was tolerated in decadent societies. 

Basically it is an argument of chronological snobbery which assumes that an advance of 2000 years of scientific knowledge automatically means an advance of 2000 years of moral knowledge.  I think history will show that this assumption is not true.

Conclusion

So ultimately the state of our Union is troubled and ominous.  The present administration and those who agree with it assume they know what is good and can force those who disagree with them to comply, contrary to the Constitution of the United States.

Those people who support the Obama administration should beware.  Once it is accepted as true that the government can overrule the obligations of conscience, there are no limits to what they can do.  History is full of examples of government ideologies which were forced on the people.  The results were the gulag and the concentration camp in those cases. 

Now the gulag and the concentration camp may never show up in America, so let's not be distracted by arguing over whether they will. That misses the point of danger which is:  If you think the government has the right to force people to act against conscience, then when the wheel turns and those out of power come into power, you will have no justification to object when the government turns on you.

And that's why even people who don't recognize the truth of Christianity should be alarmed about Obama's decrees.  If you are silent when the government turns on us, who will speak up when it turns on you?

I Told You So…

"As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15)

Back in June of 2011, I wrote a post entitled "The Sooner We Realize America Is No Longer Free, The Sooner We Can Take Action."  Today I see in the news that HHS Secretary Sebelius has gone on to show that the Obama administration is without question hostile to the concept of religious freedom in America.

The announcement essentially states that religious groups are obligated to provide contraceptive coverage (including abortifacient contraceptives)  to employees, even if the religious groups believe contraception and abortifacient drugs are intrinsically evil and may never be supported.

Instead, religious groups are given until August 2013 to comply with this requirement.

As Archbishop Dolan put it:

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,”

and:

“To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable.It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."

Since such an obligation forces religious groups to choose between serving God and obeying an unjust law, we are forced to become criminals because of the state.

Unfortunately, if this edict is not overturned, we will have to oppose the government of the United States by refusing to obey.  No government has the authority to compel a person to participate with evil.  If the United States takes this road, this nation will have joined the ranks of totalitarian states who use force and fear to compel people to violate what they believe God requires them to do.

That an administration should so flagrantly ignore the freedom of religion without an immediate outcry and call for the firing of Sebelius is chilling.  No it doesn't mean we're going to see "Goose stepping Nazis marching in Washington."  I doubt we'll see gulags or other concentration camps in America.  But it does mean that we have gone from a nation that says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" to a government saying we have one year to turn our backs on God and obey the state.

I think it should be pretty clear that at this time the Obama administration is the greater of the evils when it comes to the elections, and I pray he is defeated.

Otherwise, I truly fear what our nation will become.

I Told You So…

"As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15)

Back in June of 2011, I wrote a post entitled "The Sooner We Realize America Is No Longer Free, The Sooner We Can Take Action."  Today I see in the news that HHS Secretary Sebelius has gone on to show that the Obama administration is without question hostile to the concept of religious freedom in America.

The announcement essentially states that religious groups are obligated to provide contraceptive coverage (including abortifacient contraceptives)  to employees, even if the religious groups believe contraception and abortifacient drugs are intrinsically evil and may never be supported.

Instead, religious groups are given until August 2013 to comply with this requirement.

As Archbishop Dolan put it:

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,”

and:

“To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable.It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."

Since such an obligation forces religious groups to choose between serving God and obeying an unjust law, we are forced to become criminals because of the state.

Unfortunately, if this edict is not overturned, we will have to oppose the government of the United States by refusing to obey.  No government has the authority to compel a person to participate with evil.  If the United States takes this road, this nation will have joined the ranks of totalitarian states who use force and fear to compel people to violate what they believe God requires them to do.

That an administration should so flagrantly ignore the freedom of religion without an immediate outcry and call for the firing of Sebelius is chilling.  No it doesn't mean we're going to see "Goose stepping Nazis marching in Washington."  I doubt we'll see gulags or other concentration camps in America.  But it does mean that we have gone from a nation that says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" to a government saying we have one year to turn our backs on God and obey the state.

I think it should be pretty clear that at this time the Obama administration is the greater of the evils when it comes to the elections, and I pray he is defeated.

Otherwise, I truly fear what our nation will become.

On Discrimination and Persecution against Religion in America

Preliminary Notes: Accident and Essence

Since I will use the terms below, I should very briefly explain them. Essence is what a thing is. A triangle has three sides and three interior angles which total 180°. If the shape has more or fewer sides than three or the interior angles do not equal 180°, then you do not have a triangle.

Accident are qualities a particular thing has but are irrelevant to the essence. I can have a green cardboard triangle. I can have a chromed sheet metal triangle, but the color or the materials do not make a thing a triangle.

In the issue of racism, properly speaking a human being is a human being regardless of gender, ethnicity or skin color. Gender, ethnicity or skin color are accidents of the essence of human being. Whether the person is male or female, dark or light, Asian or Caucasian is irrelevant to whether the person is a human being. So a person should not be treated as less than a person because of the accidents of appearance. Neither should they receive benefits on account of the accidents.

Introduction

One attitude I have encountered over the years as American Law and Government becomes more hostile towards religion is the argument that since the treatment of religion in America is not like the treatment of religion in China or the former Soviet Union, it means the Church is not persecuted in America.

Thus when people speak out against the actions of the American government and use terms like "persecution" it is easy to be dismissive and say, "you're not persecuted… people aren't locking you up!"

The Fallacy of the accident

This is a metaphysical fallacy – The fallacy of the accident – which Peter Kreeft (See Socratic Logic 3e page 110) describes as either treating something accidental as something essential (for example, racism wrongly assumes the accident of skin color is essential in determining whether a person is to be treated as human) or treating something essential as accidental (such as denying that there is any difference between heterosexual coitus and homosexual sodomy since both can result in orgasm).

A common demonstration of the fallacy of the accident is:

1. Cutting people with a knife is a crime.
2. Surgeons cut people with knives.
3. Surgeons are criminals.

(The accident of cutting people with knives depends on the essence of why a person is cutting you with a knife, to heal or to harm).

In our case, the argument that there is no persecution in America works this way:

1. Communist China persecutes religion by imprisonment, torture and executions
2. The United States does not imprison, torture or execute people on religious grounds
3. Therefore the United States does not persecute people on religious grounds.

In this case, the accident of how persecution is carried out in Communist China (imprisonment, torture, execution) is confused for the essence of discrimination itself existing (the unequal treatment on the basis of religion).  Since the degree of persecution is greater in Communist China, a degree which is less is argued as not being persecution at all.

That would be like a triage nurse in the Emergency Room saying that because the patient's pain level is not at 10, the patient is not in pain.

Persecution and Discrimination Defined

To clarify issues, we ought to begin with the definition of Persecution and Discrimination

Persecute: 1. subject to prolonged hostility and ill-treatment. 2. persistently harass or annoy.

Discriminate: make an unjust distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.

—Oxford English Dictionary

The two concepts are very similar.  The state discriminates when it treats one group of people less fairly than others because this group is different.  The state persecutes when it treats a group hostilely or harasses them.  Ill treatment can vary from unequal treatment under the law to active coercion.

In America, the Catholic Church can be said to be treated unequally under the law on the grounds that the First Amendment is ignored when it comes to State interference in compelling Church institutions to either act against their beliefs or else discontinue their services.  The political elites in America are treating those who act on religious convictions with hostility.  Our institutions have been ordered to act contrary to what they believe God requires of us and have needed to seek justice in the courts to try to protect ourselves from what the government has no right to do to begin with.

Lest anyone attempt a tu quoque and say we are hypocritical because we discriminate as well, we utterly deny the charge.  Catholic hospitals do not refuse to treat non-Catholics or sinners.  Catholic schools do not refuse to teach non-Catholics.  Catholic orphanages do not refuse to let non-Catholics adopt or refuse to take in non-Catholic orphans.

We merely insist that our institutions, being based in the Catholic faith, be allowed to carry out our mission according to the way we believe God calls on us to behave.  Those who come to a Catholic institution and insist on making us behave in a way we call sinful are not being discriminated against when we refuse.  Rather they are discriminating against us by trying to force us to act in a way we call sinful.

Now the state can make unjust decrees that it enforces through legal, physical or financial coercion.  However, such decrees are not binding laws in our eyes because the state has no authority to force us to do something that God forbids.

Conclusion

The degree to which the United States makes use of coercion to comply or face repercussions when it demands Catholic institutions to follow the Government commands may not be to the extreme of China or Afghanistan, but this does not mean that the coercion does not exist.  It does exist and it is unjust because even if one rejects our claims to be the Church established by Christ to teach with His authority, this coercion does violate the US Constitution.

To borrow from Pastor Niemöller, they are coming for us first.  You may not speak out because you are not Catholic.  However if one stays silent during these early and less extreme violations of our rights, you may find that eventually, "Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."

On Discrimination and Persecution against Religion in America

Preliminary Notes: Accident and Essence

Since I will use the terms below, I should very briefly explain them. Essence is what a thing is. A triangle has three sides and three interior angles which total 180°. If the shape has more or fewer sides than three or the interior angles do not equal 180°, then you do not have a triangle.

Accident are qualities a particular thing has but are irrelevant to the essence. I can have a green cardboard triangle. I can have a chromed sheet metal triangle, but the color or the materials do not make a thing a triangle.

In the issue of racism, properly speaking a human being is a human being regardless of gender, ethnicity or skin color. Gender, ethnicity or skin color are accidents of the essence of human being. Whether the person is male or female, dark or light, Asian or Caucasian is irrelevant to whether the person is a human being. So a person should not be treated as less than a person because of the accidents of appearance. Neither should they receive benefits on account of the accidents.

Introduction

One attitude I have encountered over the years as American Law and Government becomes more hostile towards religion is the argument that since the treatment of religion in America is not like the treatment of religion in China or the former Soviet Union, it means the Church is not persecuted in America.

Thus when people speak out against the actions of the American government and use terms like "persecution" it is easy to be dismissive and say, "you're not persecuted… people aren't locking you up!"

The Fallacy of the accident

This is a metaphysical fallacy – The fallacy of the accident – which Peter Kreeft (See Socratic Logic 3e page 110) describes as either treating something accidental as something essential (for example, racism wrongly assumes the accident of skin color is essential in determining whether a person is to be treated as human) or treating something essential as accidental (such as denying that there is any difference between heterosexual coitus and homosexual sodomy since both can result in orgasm).

A common demonstration of the fallacy of the accident is:

1. Cutting people with a knife is a crime.
2. Surgeons cut people with knives.
3. Surgeons are criminals.

(The accident of cutting people with knives depends on the essence of why a person is cutting you with a knife, to heal or to harm).

In our case, the argument that there is no persecution in America works this way:

1. Communist China persecutes religion by imprisonment, torture and executions
2. The United States does not imprison, torture or execute people on religious grounds
3. Therefore the United States does not persecute people on religious grounds.

In this case, the accident of how persecution is carried out in Communist China (imprisonment, torture, execution) is confused for the essence of discrimination itself existing (the unequal treatment on the basis of religion).  Since the degree of persecution is greater in Communist China, a degree which is less is argued as not being persecution at all.

That would be like a triage nurse in the Emergency Room saying that because the patient's pain level is not at 10, the patient is not in pain.

Persecution and Discrimination Defined

To clarify issues, we ought to begin with the definition of Persecution and Discrimination

Persecute: 1. subject to prolonged hostility and ill-treatment. 2. persistently harass or annoy.

Discriminate: make an unjust distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.

—Oxford English Dictionary

The two concepts are very similar.  The state discriminates when it treats one group of people less fairly than others because this group is different.  The state persecutes when it treats a group hostilely or harasses them.  Ill treatment can vary from unequal treatment under the law to active coercion.

In America, the Catholic Church can be said to be treated unequally under the law on the grounds that the First Amendment is ignored when it comes to State interference in compelling Church institutions to either act against their beliefs or else discontinue their services.  The political elites in America are treating those who act on religious convictions with hostility.  Our institutions have been ordered to act contrary to what they believe God requires of us and have needed to seek justice in the courts to try to protect ourselves from what the government has no right to do to begin with.

Lest anyone attempt a tu quoque and say we are hypocritical because we discriminate as well, we utterly deny the charge.  Catholic hospitals do not refuse to treat non-Catholics or sinners.  Catholic schools do not refuse to teach non-Catholics.  Catholic orphanages do not refuse to let non-Catholics adopt or refuse to take in non-Catholic orphans.

We merely insist that our institutions, being based in the Catholic faith, be allowed to carry out our mission according to the way we believe God calls on us to behave.  Those who come to a Catholic institution and insist on making us behave in a way we call sinful are not being discriminated against when we refuse.  Rather they are discriminating against us by trying to force us to act in a way we call sinful.

Now the state can make unjust decrees that it enforces through legal, physical or financial coercion.  However, such decrees are not binding laws in our eyes because the state has no authority to force us to do something that God forbids.

Conclusion

The degree to which the United States makes use of coercion to comply or face repercussions when it demands Catholic institutions to follow the Government commands may not be to the extreme of China or Afghanistan, but this does not mean that the coercion does not exist.  It does exist and it is unjust because even if one rejects our claims to be the Church established by Christ to teach with His authority, this coercion does violate the US Constitution.

To borrow from Pastor Niemöller, they are coming for us first.  You may not speak out because you are not Catholic.  However if one stays silent during these early and less extreme violations of our rights, you may find that eventually, "Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Reflections on Election Day

^3 Put no trust in princes, in mere mortals powerless to save.

^4 When they breathe their last, they return to the earth; that day all their planning comes to nothing. (Psalm 143)

At the time I write this, I do not know which party will come out ahead (though the news stories seem to be pessimistic about the Democrats at this moment which I write).  During this election season we have seen party positions endorsed as being for our salvation and others as being the worst thing ever.

I believe one thing we need to remember that if we replace one party with another on moral grounds, or work is not done on November 3rd.  It begins on November 3rd.  If the party which champions everything Christians must oppose is in power, we cannot remain silent of course.  However, if the opposition is elected we cannot remain complacent.  Just because the "bums" may be thrown out, does not mean our work is over, because just because one party may favor things like abortion rights and so-called "gay marriage" does not mean our job is done in opposing that party.

As Catholics, called to evangelize the world, we are called to stand up for what is right, called to denounce evil and called to remind the world that it is in sin and in need of a savior.

There are those Catholics who seek to distort the Church teaching, seeking to say abortion is merely "a issue" and if the Candidate is good "on the whole" it is ok to vote for a pro-abortion candidate over a pro-life candidate.

This is in fact contrary to what the Church teaches.

Evangelium Vitae tells us:

73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. "They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live" (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: "the midwives feared God" (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for "the endurance and faith of the saints" (Rev 13:10).

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".

It goes on to say:

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

So we must keep in mind that we may never do anything which promotes abortion, or support those who promote it, but must in all cases oppose abortion and seek to restrict it.  (See HERE for insights from Cardinal-Elect Burke).

Those who say abortion is merely a matter of opinion to the Catholic voter and can vote for a pro-abortion voter over a pro-life voter speak falsely about what the Church believes.

^20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness into light, and light into darkness, who change bitter into sweet, and sweet into bitter!

^21 Woe to those who are wise in their own sight, and prudent in their own esteem!

^22 Woe to the champions at drinking wine, the valiant at mixing strong drink!

^23 To those who acquit the guilty for bribes, and deprive the just man of his rights!

^24 Therefore, as the tongue of fire licks up stubble, as dry grass shrivels in the flame, Even so their root shall become rotten and their blossom scatter like dust; For they have spurned the law of the LORD of hosts, and scorned the word of the Holy One of Israel.(Is 5:20-24).

Reflections on Election Day

^3 Put no trust in princes, in mere mortals powerless to save.

^4 When they breathe their last, they return to the earth; that day all their planning comes to nothing. (Psalm 143)

At the time I write this, I do not know which party will come out ahead (though the news stories seem to be pessimistic about the Democrats at this moment which I write).  During this election season we have seen party positions endorsed as being for our salvation and others as being the worst thing ever.

I believe one thing we need to remember that if we replace one party with another on moral grounds, or work is not done on November 3rd.  It begins on November 3rd.  If the party which champions everything Christians must oppose is in power, we cannot remain silent of course.  However, if the opposition is elected we cannot remain complacent.  Just because the "bums" may be thrown out, does not mean our work is over, because just because one party may favor things like abortion rights and so-called "gay marriage" does not mean our job is done in opposing that party.

As Catholics, called to evangelize the world, we are called to stand up for what is right, called to denounce evil and called to remind the world that it is in sin and in need of a savior.

There are those Catholics who seek to distort the Church teaching, seeking to say abortion is merely "a issue" and if the Candidate is good "on the whole" it is ok to vote for a pro-abortion candidate over a pro-life candidate.

This is in fact contrary to what the Church teaches.

Evangelium Vitae tells us:

73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. "They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live" (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: "the midwives feared God" (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for "the endurance and faith of the saints" (Rev 13:10).

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".

It goes on to say:

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

So we must keep in mind that we may never do anything which promotes abortion, or support those who promote it, but must in all cases oppose abortion and seek to restrict it.  (See HERE for insights from Cardinal-Elect Burke).

Those who say abortion is merely a matter of opinion to the Catholic voter and can vote for a pro-abortion voter over a pro-life voter speak falsely about what the Church believes.

^20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness into light, and light into darkness, who change bitter into sweet, and sweet into bitter!

^21 Woe to those who are wise in their own sight, and prudent in their own esteem!

^22 Woe to the champions at drinking wine, the valiant at mixing strong drink!

^23 To those who acquit the guilty for bribes, and deprive the just man of his rights!

^24 Therefore, as the tongue of fire licks up stubble, as dry grass shrivels in the flame, Even so their root shall become rotten and their blossom scatter like dust; For they have spurned the law of the LORD of hosts, and scorned the word of the Holy One of Israel.(Is 5:20-24).

All Souls Day, Election Day

^45 He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’

^46 And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

Tomorrow, November 2nd, is All Souls Day in the Catholic Church, where we pray for all those who have died.  November 2nd is also Election Day.

Recalling the issues of so-called "Choice" which "terminates" the unborn child, which politicians have brought into law, perhaps part of the remembrance of those who have died should also include opposition to the laws and politicians which makes it possible to kill the most defenseless people.

All Souls Day, Election Day

^45 He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’

^46 And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

Tomorrow, November 2nd, is All Souls Day in the Catholic Church, where we pray for all those who have died.  November 2nd is also Election Day.

Recalling the issues of so-called "Choice" which "terminates" the unborn child, which politicians have brought into law, perhaps part of the remembrance of those who have died should also include opposition to the laws and politicians which makes it possible to kill the most defenseless people.

Reflections on The Constitution, The Supreme Court and Justice

Much of the political debate going around today is based on the idea that because the Constitution permits a thing, there can be no complaint against it.  Setting aside for the moment specific issues of dispute in America, the theory ignores one crucial question:

Can the Constitution (or an interpretation of it) err or be unjust?

I believe the answer can clearly be yes to both.  I recall in High School civics class that the Constitution can be amended if a problem is perceived.  Certainly before 1865, the Constitution was flawed in that it denied citizenship to certain parts of the population simply on the basis of the color of their skin.

This shows the problem when certain politicians rally around the "Constitutional" Right of the woman to choose [abortion].  The right may be decreed constitutional by the Supreme Court, but neither it, nor the right to privacy it is based on can be found in the Constitution.

If the interpreters of the Constitution are unjust, it follows that the interpretations they give can be unjust.  This kind of rhetoric goes on frequently.  Today, there is a dispute over whether Obamacare is constitutional.  Nine years ago, there was a dispute over whether the Supreme Court "unjustly installed" George W. Bush as president.

What this demonstrates is [Regardless of whether the charges are true or not], we do have interpreters of the US Constitution whose decisions are binding and not able to be appealed.  If they are unjust in their decisions, there is very little we can do to stop them.

This isn't mere theory.  The Supreme Court has made some historically bad decisions and have been forced to contradict previous precedent, such as the Dred Scott case and Plessy vs. Ferguson.

I believe this shows that the Supreme Court can give an interpretation which they call Constitutional, but is also unjust.

This demonstrates that to invoke the Constitutionality of a law is no evidence as to whether or not it is just.

On Justice

However, justice in law is what separates the good forms of government from the immoral forms of government, and here the person who argues against any moral absolutes have hamstrung themselves when opposing injustice.

Justice can be defined as giving to another their due, and behaving in right conduct with other people.  All human persons are considered to have human rights simply on the basis of their being human.  Each person is entitled to the due of not being treated in a subhuman condition.  In America we have in the Bill of Rights which assumes all people have certain rights.

The Catholic Church speaks of justice between men as follows:

1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:

What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.³⁵

1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.³⁶ If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

In other words, because a person is human they possess certain rights independent of the government, and no government can take them away without being unjust.  Moreover, any government which denies these rights lacks moral legitimacy to their rule, and can only use force to make their decrees followed.

The Difference Between the Constitution and Justice

Whether or not the Constitution, or its interpretation, can be considered as possessing moral authority depends on whether it respects the human person or not.  If it does not respect the human person, the law may be binding by force, but it is not a law which we are morally obligated to follow, and in fact are morally obligated to oppose.

The Abortion Example

In 1973, the Supreme Court decreed abortion legal, and since then we have been told that it is based in the Constitutional Right to Privacy, which is not in the Constitution, and was not described as a right until 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut.  This invokes the Ninth Amendment, which is a circular argument which one can dismantle with a reductio ad absurdum.  [The Constitution doesn't say I can't murder anyone either, therefore I have a constitutional right to do so].

Now, one can argue that the right to privacy is a basic right which precedes the Constitution.  However, this overlooks a crucial consideration: Are the unborn human persons?  If so, then their right to life precedes the Constitutional Supreme Court Right to abortion.

The Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade entirely ignores this consideration, when it declares:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.

This is entirely a circular argument, which assumes what it needs to prove: That a woman does in fact have the right to terminate a pregnancy.  It calls the unborn a potential life, but this is to be proven, not assumed to be true.

Indeed, without proving the fact that the fetus is not a person, the Supreme Court appears to have violated the 14th amendment:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Emphasis added)

If the assumption that the fetus is merely a potential human being is false, then the Supreme Court has created a situation where the unborn are denied the equal protection under the law.

The Roe v. Wade decision relies on an irrelevant appeal to past decisions of legal precedent, which selectively chooses certain examples and ignores others.  The reason it is an irrelevant appeal is that many of the precedents they cite are based on the scientifically erroneous ideas of quickening of the fetus, ignoring later medical advances.  From this we see the argument that since the actual forbidding of abortion in America was based on the fact that outright forbidding of abortion did not exist until the 19th century in America.

However, this is an argument from silence.  "We don't know of laws forbidding abortion until the 19th century.  Therefore it was permissible before then."  That laws were made in the 19th century does not prove that abortion was acceptable before.  Positive evidence that the nation, prior to the 19th century, sanctioned abortion is necessary.

Even from this, it does not follow that abortion is right.  To judge abortion as being morally neutral, it has to be established that the fetus is not alive.  If the fetus is a human person, it contains human rights which precede the laws of the United States.

The Quadrilemma of abortion

A right to abortion requires us to create some categories.  First, whether or not the fetus is a human person.  It either is or it is not.  Second, we need to determine whether we know this to be true.  This leaves us with four categories:

1. The unborn is a human person and we know it.
2. The unborn is not a human person and we know it
3. The unborn is a human person and we do not know it
4. The unborn is not a human person and we do not know it

In these four cases, we have three levels of guilt or innocence.

1. In the case of us knowing the unborn is a human person, government sanctioned abortion is the murder of a human person.
2. In the case of us knowing the unborn is not a human person, there is no problem with abortion.
3. In not knowing whether or not the unborn is a human person (cases 3 and 4), abortion becomes a reckless, grossly negligent act.

We can demonstrate these cases with another scenario.  You and a friend are deer hunting, and get separated.  You hear motion in the bush.  There are four possibilities:

1. The movement is caused by your friend and you know it
2. The movement is caused by a deer and you know it
3. The movement is caused by your friend and you do not know it
4. The movement is caused by a deer and you do not know it

When is it legitimate to shoot?  Only in case two.  Why?

1. In case 1, shooting when you know it is a person is willed murder
2. In case 2, shooting when you verified you can shoot safely is morally acceptable
3. In case 3, you are guilty of gross negligence and manslaughter at the very least
4. In case 4, you are still guilty of gross negligence.

Yet, instead of proving when the human person begins, the Supreme Court acts with gross negligence.  it "fires into the bush" without verifying the target, when it argues:

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Whether or not past law has made a statement on whether or not the fetus is a person has no bearing on whether the fetus IS a human person.  To assume that the fetus is not a human person based on interpretations of the 14th Amendment is an evasion of the issue, when it says:

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

This is an appeal to irrelevant authority fallacy.  Does the lack of laws that declare the fetus a person make it so?

Dangerous Precedents

Certain nations, including the United States, have at certain times determined that certain human beings were not persons on the basis of their ethnicity.  The most extreme example is that of Nazi Germany with its claiming that Jews and Slavs were subhumans which lacked human rights.  We are of course horrified by the actions the Germans justified by a legal claim.  Through a legal ruling, human persons were terribly mistreated.

Now of course Nazi Germany was an extreme example.  However, the United States once considered the blacks to be less than fully human, and such a view was upheld by the Supreme Court.  Under the logic of Roe v. Wade past precedent could be used to deny any African American was a "human person."  After all, before 1865, there were no laws which held that view.  It instead took a war and some amendments to overturn the bad logic of the Supreme Court.

Constitutional Is Not the Same as Just: QED

We are back to the beginning, and the conclusion is clear.  Just because the Supreme Court or the Constitution says a thing is constitutional has no bearing on whether a thing is just.  So despite what the Supreme Court says, it still must be assessed as to whether it is just or not.  If it is not just, it must be opposed.

Yet, the whole problem is a thing is not defended as just, it is merely called "Constitutional" as if that was all the sanction which was needed.

Unfortunately, in America, there is little recourse to an unjust ruling by the Supreme Court.  It is the state legislatures which can vote for a proposed amendment (which first requires 2/3 of both House and Senate to vote in favor of a proposed amendment), not the people (unless the states call ratifying conventions… which happened once).

So where does this leave the Christian who feels he must oppose an unjust ruling?

An Unjust Law is not a Law

One may want to ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

—Martin Luther King Jr.  Letter from a Birmingham Jail

This is ultimately what must put the Christian unwillingly in conflict with the government of the United States at times.  When the government decrees that it is permissible to degrade the human person, we must speak out against it, not bowing the knee to the unjust law… even if it comes from the Supreme Court or the Constitution itself.

However, there is a limit to what we can do.  If it comes to a choice between doing evil and suffering evil, we must choose the suffering of evil, as we may not choose an evil means to achieve the desired end.  Nor can we participate with the evil law.

So, in short, our opposition to injustice must be done in keeping with making a Christian witness.

Reflections on The Constitution, The Supreme Court and Justice

Much of the political debate going around today is based on the idea that because the Constitution permits a thing, there can be no complaint against it.  Setting aside for the moment specific issues of dispute in America, the theory ignores one crucial question:

Can the Constitution (or an interpretation of it) err or be unjust?

I believe the answer can clearly be yes to both.  I recall in High School civics class that the Constitution can be amended if a problem is perceived.  Certainly before 1865, the Constitution was flawed in that it denied citizenship to certain parts of the population simply on the basis of the color of their skin.

This shows the problem when certain politicians rally around the "Constitutional" Right of the woman to choose [abortion].  The right may be decreed constitutional by the Supreme Court, but neither it, nor the right to privacy it is based on can be found in the Constitution.

If the interpreters of the Constitution are unjust, it follows that the interpretations they give can be unjust.  This kind of rhetoric goes on frequently.  Today, there is a dispute over whether Obamacare is constitutional.  Nine years ago, there was a dispute over whether the Supreme Court "unjustly installed" George W. Bush as president.

What this demonstrates is [Regardless of whether the charges are true or not], we do have interpreters of the US Constitution whose decisions are binding and not able to be appealed.  If they are unjust in their decisions, there is very little we can do to stop them.

This isn't mere theory.  The Supreme Court has made some historically bad decisions and have been forced to contradict previous precedent, such as the Dred Scott case and Plessy vs. Ferguson.

I believe this shows that the Supreme Court can give an interpretation which they call Constitutional, but is also unjust.

This demonstrates that to invoke the Constitutionality of a law is no evidence as to whether or not it is just.

On Justice

However, justice in law is what separates the good forms of government from the immoral forms of government, and here the person who argues against any moral absolutes have hamstrung themselves when opposing injustice.

Justice can be defined as giving to another their due, and behaving in right conduct with other people.  All human persons are considered to have human rights simply on the basis of their being human.  Each person is entitled to the due of not being treated in a subhuman condition.  In America we have in the Bill of Rights which assumes all people have certain rights.

The Catholic Church speaks of justice between men as follows:

1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:

What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.³⁵

1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.³⁶ If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

In other words, because a person is human they possess certain rights independent of the government, and no government can take them away without being unjust.  Moreover, any government which denies these rights lacks moral legitimacy to their rule, and can only use force to make their decrees followed.

The Difference Between the Constitution and Justice

Whether or not the Constitution, or its interpretation, can be considered as possessing moral authority depends on whether it respects the human person or not.  If it does not respect the human person, the law may be binding by force, but it is not a law which we are morally obligated to follow, and in fact are morally obligated to oppose.

The Abortion Example

In 1973, the Supreme Court decreed abortion legal, and since then we have been told that it is based in the Constitutional Right to Privacy, which is not in the Constitution, and was not described as a right until 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut.  This invokes the Ninth Amendment, which is a circular argument which one can dismantle with a reductio ad absurdum.  [The Constitution doesn't say I can't murder anyone either, therefore I have a constitutional right to do so].

Now, one can argue that the right to privacy is a basic right which precedes the Constitution.  However, this overlooks a crucial consideration: Are the unborn human persons?  If so, then their right to life precedes the Constitutional Supreme Court Right to abortion.

The Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade entirely ignores this consideration, when it declares:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.

This is entirely a circular argument, which assumes what it needs to prove: That a woman does in fact have the right to terminate a pregnancy.  It calls the unborn a potential life, but this is to be proven, not assumed to be true.

Indeed, without proving the fact that the fetus is not a person, the Supreme Court appears to have violated the 14th amendment:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Emphasis added)

If the assumption that the fetus is merely a potential human being is false, then the Supreme Court has created a situation where the unborn are denied the equal protection under the law.

The Roe v. Wade decision relies on an irrelevant appeal to past decisions of legal precedent, which selectively chooses certain examples and ignores others.  The reason it is an irrelevant appeal is that many of the precedents they cite are based on the scientifically erroneous ideas of quickening of the fetus, ignoring later medical advances.  From this we see the argument that since the actual forbidding of abortion in America was based on the fact that outright forbidding of abortion did not exist until the 19th century in America.

However, this is an argument from silence.  "We don't know of laws forbidding abortion until the 19th century.  Therefore it was permissible before then."  That laws were made in the 19th century does not prove that abortion was acceptable before.  Positive evidence that the nation, prior to the 19th century, sanctioned abortion is necessary.

Even from this, it does not follow that abortion is right.  To judge abortion as being morally neutral, it has to be established that the fetus is not alive.  If the fetus is a human person, it contains human rights which precede the laws of the United States.

The Quadrilemma of abortion

A right to abortion requires us to create some categories.  First, whether or not the fetus is a human person.  It either is or it is not.  Second, we need to determine whether we know this to be true.  This leaves us with four categories:

1. The unborn is a human person and we know it.
2. The unborn is not a human person and we know it
3. The unborn is a human person and we do not know it
4. The unborn is not a human person and we do not know it

In these four cases, we have three levels of guilt or innocence.

1. In the case of us knowing the unborn is a human person, government sanctioned abortion is the murder of a human person.
2. In the case of us knowing the unborn is not a human person, there is no problem with abortion.
3. In not knowing whether or not the unborn is a human person (cases 3 and 4), abortion becomes a reckless, grossly negligent act.

We can demonstrate these cases with another scenario.  You and a friend are deer hunting, and get separated.  You hear motion in the bush.  There are four possibilities:

1. The movement is caused by your friend and you know it
2. The movement is caused by a deer and you know it
3. The movement is caused by your friend and you do not know it
4. The movement is caused by a deer and you do not know it

When is it legitimate to shoot?  Only in case two.  Why?

1. In case 1, shooting when you know it is a person is willed murder
2. In case 2, shooting when you verified you can shoot safely is morally acceptable
3. In case 3, you are guilty of gross negligence and manslaughter at the very least
4. In case 4, you are still guilty of gross negligence.

Yet, instead of proving when the human person begins, the Supreme Court acts with gross negligence.  it "fires into the bush" without verifying the target, when it argues:

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Whether or not past law has made a statement on whether or not the fetus is a person has no bearing on whether the fetus IS a human person.  To assume that the fetus is not a human person based on interpretations of the 14th Amendment is an evasion of the issue, when it says:

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

This is an appeal to irrelevant authority fallacy.  Does the lack of laws that declare the fetus a person make it so?

Dangerous Precedents

Certain nations, including the United States, have at certain times determined that certain human beings were not persons on the basis of their ethnicity.  The most extreme example is that of Nazi Germany with its claiming that Jews and Slavs were subhumans which lacked human rights.  We are of course horrified by the actions the Germans justified by a legal claim.  Through a legal ruling, human persons were terribly mistreated.

Now of course Nazi Germany was an extreme example.  However, the United States once considered the blacks to be less than fully human, and such a view was upheld by the Supreme Court.  Under the logic of Roe v. Wade past precedent could be used to deny any African American was a "human person."  After all, before 1865, there were no laws which held that view.  It instead took a war and some amendments to overturn the bad logic of the Supreme Court.

Constitutional Is Not the Same as Just: QED

We are back to the beginning, and the conclusion is clear.  Just because the Supreme Court or the Constitution says a thing is constitutional has no bearing on whether a thing is just.  So despite what the Supreme Court says, it still must be assessed as to whether it is just or not.  If it is not just, it must be opposed.

Yet, the whole problem is a thing is not defended as just, it is merely called "Constitutional" as if that was all the sanction which was needed.

Unfortunately, in America, there is little recourse to an unjust ruling by the Supreme Court.  It is the state legislatures which can vote for a proposed amendment (which first requires 2/3 of both House and Senate to vote in favor of a proposed amendment), not the people (unless the states call ratifying conventions… which happened once).

So where does this leave the Christian who feels he must oppose an unjust ruling?

An Unjust Law is not a Law

One may want to ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

—Martin Luther King Jr.  Letter from a Birmingham Jail

This is ultimately what must put the Christian unwillingly in conflict with the government of the United States at times.  When the government decrees that it is permissible to degrade the human person, we must speak out against it, not bowing the knee to the unjust law… even if it comes from the Supreme Court or the Constitution itself.

However, there is a limit to what we can do.  If it comes to a choice between doing evil and suffering evil, we must choose the suffering of evil, as we may not choose an evil means to achieve the desired end.  Nor can we participate with the evil law.

So, in short, our opposition to injustice must be done in keeping with making a Christian witness.

Freedom to Express Your Views – Unless You Are Catholic?

There seems to be some shoddy reasoning going around the Internet regarding Catholics in the political arena.  Generally, the attacks are along the line that those who are Catholic either have no right to participate in the arena due to the sins of some of her members, or else that whenever the Church speaks out, it is imposing an ideological agenda on the rest of the nation.

Neither one of these ideas have any basis in reason, but are instead making an appeal to emotion, using charged words to frighten or anger people.  In the past, it was the "Catholic politicians are taking orders from Rome."  Now it is, "Catholic politicians don't have to listen to the Church, and if they are acting according to what they believe is right, it means the Church is controlling them."

Let's look at some of the errors of assumption.

PART I: "Clean up your own Mess first."

There are many variants of this attack.  Right now, it is the false reports of the cover-ups which are being thrown in our faces.  There have been others in the past.  The Galileo case was used for quite a long time when the Church spoke on the moral issues of science.

The main flaw with the argument is that even if the charges are just (and they certainly aren't in this case), it has absolutely no bearing on whether one should speak out on another related issue.  It's an ad hominem attack, akin to the defense lawyer seeking to remove the credibility of a mob informer by pointing out he is a criminal.  Very true, he is a criminal.  However, that has no bearing on whether or not his information is true.

It is also poisoning the well.  A negative example is used to poison the minds against whatever the opponent says instead of considering the facts of the matter.

Finally, it is a Red Herring, in that it actually is irrelevant to the case at hand.

So let's take a real example, the issue of Nancy Pelosi voting in a way which entirely defies Church teaching.  One person who agrees with Pelosi argues to the effect of, the Church should clean up its own mess before trying to tell others how to live.  That the Church may need to clean up a scandal is true.  However, it is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand: Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic voting in a way which is in defiance of what the Church she professes to be a member of actually teaches.

Really, this kind of attack is just a cheap shot to appeal to the emotions of the audience.

PART II: "The Church shouldn't tell others how to vote."

This argument is essentially a straw man fallacy.  The Church isn't telling people how to vote.  Rather, the Church is saying that if one professes to be a Catholic they are required to live in accordance with the teachings of the Church.  Now a person may not be automatically excommunicated if they do not, but the Church can exact penalties aimed at bringing the erring Catholic back to the proper understanding of what Christian behavior.  Pelosi is free to go on voting to kill unborn infants of course.  The Supreme Court made it legal, and that is unlikely to change.  However, she does not have the right to call her behavior Catholic, and the Church does have the right to tell her, that she either follows Church teaching or change her religion.

Of course this brings us to another objection some pose: That the politician votes in order to represent the population which elected him or her, and therefore cannot do anything different.

This sounds nice of course, and Mario Cuomo exploited it back in the 1980s.  The problem was, Cuomo often did other things (like commute death sentences) against the will of the people who elected him… Cuomo, in those cases, because he felt them the right thing to do.  Let's not get sidetracked here on the issue of the Death Penalty and abortion.  In terms of this article, Cuomo invoked the will of the voters only when it suited him.

There is a third attack which is often used: The Church moral teaching is often treated as a narrow ideology, and when the Church opposes a certain policy (for example, so-called Homosexual marriage), Catholics are told that their view is pushing ideology on people who don't believe it.  [Cuomo also used this excuse when he made his "personally opposed but…" argument.]

The irony here is that we could easily use the same argument against the proponents of homosexual marriage.  It is something new which a small group of radicals are trying to foist on the people of a state.

Exactly who decides what is justice and what is ideology?  Unless there is an absolute we can look to, any person can label their opponent's position as "pushing their views on others."  So Muslims in certain nations oppress women, and the West is considered trying to push a decadent ideology on them.  South Africa in the apartheid era and China in terms of its dissidents today accused the West of interfering with their own values.   ALL of these examples were quite real.

So here is the flaw with the "pushing ideology" argument.  Unless there is a set of moral absolutes to begin with, everything is an ideology and the strongest can impose their will, while the others are suppressed.

Now this view may seem fine when it is your view on top.  The problem is, if anyone can use this argument, you have no argument if an Islamist government or a Fascist [in the sense of the philosophy of fascism, not what liberals label moderate conservatives as] government imposes their views on you.

Conclusion

The examples I gave in this article are quite common on the internet, and are being used to negate the rights of Catholics from practicing their freedoms of speech, religion and others, making use of logical fallacies and shoddy appeals to emotions to make people fear the old Nativist view of Catholicism as a power just waiting to take over America and make it a property of the Pope.

Personally, I'm tired of it.  If a person honestly thinks the Catholic Church is wrong on an issue, they have the right to use their freedom of religion and freedom of speech as well.  Such a person does NOT have the right to deprive Catholics of these rights.

Freedom to Express Your Views – Unless You Are Catholic?

There seems to be some shoddy reasoning going around the Internet regarding Catholics in the political arena.  Generally, the attacks are along the line that those who are Catholic either have no right to participate in the arena due to the sins of some of her members, or else that whenever the Church speaks out, it is imposing an ideological agenda on the rest of the nation.

Neither one of these ideas have any basis in reason, but are instead making an appeal to emotion, using charged words to frighten or anger people.  In the past, it was the "Catholic politicians are taking orders from Rome."  Now it is, "Catholic politicians don't have to listen to the Church, and if they are acting according to what they believe is right, it means the Church is controlling them."

Let's look at some of the errors of assumption.

PART I: "Clean up your own Mess first."

There are many variants of this attack.  Right now, it is the false reports of the cover-ups which are being thrown in our faces.  There have been others in the past.  The Galileo case was used for quite a long time when the Church spoke on the moral issues of science.

The main flaw with the argument is that even if the charges are just (and they certainly aren't in this case), it has absolutely no bearing on whether one should speak out on another related issue.  It's an ad hominem attack, akin to the defense lawyer seeking to remove the credibility of a mob informer by pointing out he is a criminal.  Very true, he is a criminal.  However, that has no bearing on whether or not his information is true.

It is also poisoning the well.  A negative example is used to poison the minds against whatever the opponent says instead of considering the facts of the matter.

Finally, it is a Red Herring, in that it actually is irrelevant to the case at hand.

So let's take a real example, the issue of Nancy Pelosi voting in a way which entirely defies Church teaching.  One person who agrees with Pelosi argues to the effect of, the Church should clean up its own mess before trying to tell others how to live.  That the Church may need to clean up a scandal is true.  However, it is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand: Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic voting in a way which is in defiance of what the Church she professes to be a member of actually teaches.

Really, this kind of attack is just a cheap shot to appeal to the emotions of the audience.

PART II: "The Church shouldn't tell others how to vote."

This argument is essentially a straw man fallacy.  The Church isn't telling people how to vote.  Rather, the Church is saying that if one professes to be a Catholic they are required to live in accordance with the teachings of the Church.  Now a person may not be automatically excommunicated if they do not, but the Church can exact penalties aimed at bringing the erring Catholic back to the proper understanding of what Christian behavior.  Pelosi is free to go on voting to kill unborn infants of course.  The Supreme Court made it legal, and that is unlikely to change.  However, she does not have the right to call her behavior Catholic, and the Church does have the right to tell her, that she either follows Church teaching or change her religion.

Of course this brings us to another objection some pose: That the politician votes in order to represent the population which elected him or her, and therefore cannot do anything different.

This sounds nice of course, and Mario Cuomo exploited it back in the 1980s.  The problem was, Cuomo often did other things (like commute death sentences) against the will of the people who elected him… Cuomo, in those cases, because he felt them the right thing to do.  Let's not get sidetracked here on the issue of the Death Penalty and abortion.  In terms of this article, Cuomo invoked the will of the voters only when it suited him.

There is a third attack which is often used: The Church moral teaching is often treated as a narrow ideology, and when the Church opposes a certain policy (for example, so-called Homosexual marriage), Catholics are told that their view is pushing ideology on people who don't believe it.  [Cuomo also used this excuse when he made his "personally opposed but…" argument.]

The irony here is that we could easily use the same argument against the proponents of homosexual marriage.  It is something new which a small group of radicals are trying to foist on the people of a state.

Exactly who decides what is justice and what is ideology?  Unless there is an absolute we can look to, any person can label their opponent's position as "pushing their views on others."  So Muslims in certain nations oppress women, and the West is considered trying to push a decadent ideology on them.  South Africa in the apartheid era and China in terms of its dissidents today accused the West of interfering with their own values.   ALL of these examples were quite real.

So here is the flaw with the "pushing ideology" argument.  Unless there is a set of moral absolutes to begin with, everything is an ideology and the strongest can impose their will, while the others are suppressed.

Now this view may seem fine when it is your view on top.  The problem is, if anyone can use this argument, you have no argument if an Islamist government or a Fascist [in the sense of the philosophy of fascism, not what liberals label moderate conservatives as] government imposes their views on you.

Conclusion

The examples I gave in this article are quite common on the internet, and are being used to negate the rights of Catholics from practicing their freedoms of speech, religion and others, making use of logical fallacies and shoddy appeals to emotions to make people fear the old Nativist view of Catholicism as a power just waiting to take over America and make it a property of the Pope.

Personally, I'm tired of it.  If a person honestly thinks the Catholic Church is wrong on an issue, they have the right to use their freedom of religion and freedom of speech as well.  Such a person does NOT have the right to deprive Catholics of these rights.