Love and Justice Both: Losing Sight of the Big Picture

In dealing with the concepts of the love of God and the justice of God, it’s easy to lose sight of the big picture. It’s easy to get so caught up in focussing on one thing that one forgets that there are obligations to the other side of thing which God calls us to do. We are called, for example, to love those who hate us and to admonish the sinners.

For example, one of the things I notice when it comes to people being offended by the Church is that they tend to be too close to the issue to consider it objectively. It’s natural to feel threatened when someone is personally affected by an issue. But the problem is, when a person takes it too personally, they may lack the objectivity to listen to what needs to be said. It’s important to note that this is not limited to one faction or another. It’s not something that only happens to other people. Each one of us can feel attacked by something we need to hear and respond by refusing to listen. It’s common to hear things like, “God doesn’t care about your rules,” or “you need to stop being legalistic."

This becomes a problem when it comes to denying Church teaching because, as Catholics, we believe that the Church teaching has authority because Christ Himself gave the Church authority to teach, and so the denial of the Church is a denial of Christ. For example, if Jesus did tell Peter in Matthew 16:19 and the rest of the apostles in Matthew 18:18 that what they bound on Earth is bound in Heaven, then God does care about the rules of the Church.

Of course, God also cares about how we apply His rules. While we cannot set His commandments aside, it is possible to forget about the side of compassion and mercy required in teaching His commandments. The possibility of being so focussed on punishing the guilty and worrying about somebody “getting away with” things is dangerous. The possibility of a past mistake or sin repented of is not seen as relevant. If Bishop X once held a problematic position, he cannot ever be trusted again and whoever considers the possibility is not to be trusted either.

So it seems there is a problem with people confusing both what truth requires and what compassion requires. It seems like certain people think that God being loving and merciful cannot condemn the actions being done. From that error, it becomes easy to make one of two opposite false conclusions. Either the person...

1. wrongly assumes that compassion and love means the Church cannot say things we do are wrong.
2. wrongly assumes that compassion and love means the Church is failing to teach right and wrong.

That’s the danger of becoming so rigid or so attached to one’s sins that one loses sight of the big picture—that God is both loving and just. Ignoring one of these in favor of the other is going to give a person a distorted view of God and what we are called by Him to be. Losing sight of God’s justice means expecting God to just turn a blind eye to our sins. Losing sight of God’s love means viewing the sinner as an enemy to oppose instead of a person in need of salvation that we have to reach out to.

Both views need to be opposed. The person who does not want to change his or her ways, and thinks of Church teaching as “manmade rules” are creating a false image of God and risking their souls over a lie.  The person who thinks of the sinner as “the enemy,” are claiming the role of judge that they are not allowed to have, risking becoming alienated from Christ and His Church. We need to realize that the role of the Church does not embrace either extreme. Rather, the Church loves the sinner, while rejecting the false ideas the sinner clings to. The role of God’s teaching is to lead us in living according to His will. Those who have not fallen into a particular sin are called to help their brethren who have and love them—even if the response we receive from them is hostile.

We are called to love and follow Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that means heeding the Church He established (Matthew 18:17). That also means serving in love in doing so. We can’t just point to the failures of the “other side.” We have to consider our own actions in relation to these two pitfalls.

Thoughts on True and False Freedom on Independence Day, 2014

Read more »

Thoughts on True and False Freedom on Independence Day, 2014

Read more »

Reflections on the Recent American Tendency to Use Force to Change Morals

Read more »

Reflections on the Recent American Tendency to Use Force to Change Morals

Read more »

Umm, Religious Freedom is Not Just Freedom From Being Jailed…

According to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act…

SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

According to the definitions in Title VII

The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.

What seems to follow from this, as I see it, is that our religious beliefs in faith and morals cannot be used as grounds for limiting our advancement, firing us or refusing to hire us because our religious beliefs require us to hold that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman, for example.

What this tells us is the current argument used by some is invalid. Our religious freedom rights are not merely referring to not being jailed for our beliefs. Neither the government, nor the employer, nor the union organizations can discriminate against us for our beliefs.

According to law, our freedom of religion – which affects all areas of our lives – cannot be used as a basis for ostracism. We're allowed to vote according to our beliefs. We're allowed to donate to political causes according to our beliefs. We're allowed to call for legislation which is in keeping with our beliefs. We can't be fired or demoted or harassed for our beliefs.

Of course, the question of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes (Who polices the police?) comes up here. Yes, according to law, we can't be persecuted for our beliefs. But in practice, we are. The mobs who call for people to be boycotted or fired because of their religious beliefs get away with it. Companies cave in. Judges enact unjust rulings. Politicians enact unjust laws. All in the name of "tolerance."

The only problem is, this behavior sanctified by the label of "tolerance" is remarkably similar to kinds of infamous injustice: Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe v. Wade etc. in which people could point to Supreme Court rulings and declare that what they did was legal.

This is what happens when the elites of a society, political and cultural, become corrupted and seek to benefit their own views and use positions of authority to hinder or harm those they disagree with. This is the kind of system where we need to stop thinking "Democrat or Republican" or "Liberal or Conservative" and start electing people who think in terms of "is this true or not? Is this just or not?"

Otherwise our claims to freedom in America are a sham.

Umm, Religious Freedom is Not Just Freedom From Being Jailed…

According to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act…

SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

According to the definitions in Title VII

The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.

What seems to follow from this, as I see it, is that our religious beliefs in faith and morals cannot be used as grounds for limiting our advancement, firing us or refusing to hire us because our religious beliefs require us to hold that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman, for example.

What this tells us is the current argument used by some is invalid. Our religious freedom rights are not merely referring to not being jailed for our beliefs. Neither the government, nor the employer, nor the union organizations can discriminate against us for our beliefs.

According to law, our freedom of religion – which affects all areas of our lives – cannot be used as a basis for ostracism. We're allowed to vote according to our beliefs. We're allowed to donate to political causes according to our beliefs. We're allowed to call for legislation which is in keeping with our beliefs. We can't be fired or demoted or harassed for our beliefs.

Of course, the question of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes (Who polices the police?) comes up here. Yes, according to law, we can't be persecuted for our beliefs. But in practice, we are. The mobs who call for people to be boycotted or fired because of their religious beliefs get away with it. Companies cave in. Judges enact unjust rulings. Politicians enact unjust laws. All in the name of "tolerance."

The only problem is, this behavior sanctified by the label of "tolerance" is remarkably similar to kinds of infamous injustice: Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe v. Wade etc. in which people could point to Supreme Court rulings and declare that what they did was legal.

This is what happens when the elites of a society, political and cultural, become corrupted and seek to benefit their own views and use positions of authority to hinder or harm those they disagree with. This is the kind of system where we need to stop thinking "Democrat or Republican" or "Liberal or Conservative" and start electing people who think in terms of "is this true or not? Is this just or not?"

Otherwise our claims to freedom in America are a sham.

Thoughts on the So-Called "Freedom From Religion"

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The freedom of religion is normally understood to be an important part of American life. It's enshrined in the Constitution as something the government cannot infringe on.  The government can't tell me I must belong to a state approved religion. Nor can it tell me that I cannot belong to the Catholic faith... which is certainly a change from pre 19th century England, pre Constitution America or modern China or Vietnam.

In America,  such a right meant that I was free to live my life as a member of the Catholic Church, supporting and opposing laws and politicians, running my business in accordance with my beliefs. In doing so, I do not force Catholicism on others. I do my best to convince others of the truth, but I do not coerce people to do what they believe to be evil.

Unfortunately, we seem to have had a total breakdown on the concept of religious freedom. Politicians who act in accordance with their religious beliefs, laws passed by a majority of citizens who believe certain behavior cannot be sanctioned by civilized society are attacked by a vocal minority that has the support of the political, cultural and media elites. This elite has the opinion that the freedom of religion means the freedom from religion, and that is a gross perversion. It is imposing beliefs the Christian not only disagrees with, but also believes is evil to do.

The reason this is an imposition is because of this difference: The freedom OF religion means I may live all aspects of my life in accordance with what God demands of me, including my right to vote. The freedom FROM religion claims that a person has the right not to see religious activity in public... or to be affected by laws or behavior that people with religious motivations follow.

The results of such behavior is that when a majority of a state pass a law which defends the long held understanding that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman, a judge can take this distortion called "freedom from religion" and declare such laws violate the "separation of Church and state."  Why? Because the motivation is alleged to be solely based on religion and because of the establishment clause, as misinterpreted by judges, laws passed are ruled "violation" of Church and State.

But that's nonsense. The establishment of religion clause means that nobody can be forced to belong to a religion against their will. But when Christians, Jews and Muslims vote in favor of a law defending the common understanding of marriage, nobody is forced to be a Christian,  Muslim or Jew. Rather, it means Christians, Muslims and Jews agree that in light of distortion, the definition of marriage needs to be made clear in law.  THAT'S the free exercise of religious freedom.

On the other hand, judges who rule that homosexual relationships can be marriages and that Christians must treat them as such or face charges on violating "civil rights," that's interference with religious freedom to live as God calls us to live... which forbids us to assist the sin of another.

Likewise the contraception mandate. The Catholic believes that artificial contraception is a sin. To require the Catholic to participate in assisting another's sin by paying for contraception via health insurance for his employees is interference with a person's right to live according to God's commands.

The response from the "freedom from religion" mindset is that an employee shouldn't have to give up her right to contraception (begging the question) just because she works for a religious employer.

But that argument shows the unjustness of "freedom from religion."  The woman's constitutional rights are not violated by having to pay for her own contraception.   But the Catholic employer is having his constitutional rights violated by being forced to provide such contraception --as condemned by his religion-- or face fines of $100 per employee per day.

Once upon a time, people would realize the injustice of these incidents of judicial activism.  But today? Now believers are portrayed as bigots simply because they defend their rights as believers.

This injustice will continue until such a time that people recognize that the "freedom from religion" is a counterfeit right that violates true rights

Thoughts on the So-Called "Freedom From Religion"

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The freedom of religion is normally understood to be an important part of American life. It's enshrined in the Constitution as something the government cannot infringe on.  The government can't tell me I must belong to a state approved religion. Nor can it tell me that I cannot belong to the Catholic faith... which is certainly a change from pre 19th century England, pre Constitution America or modern China or Vietnam.

In America,  such a right meant that I was free to live my life as a member of the Catholic Church, supporting and opposing laws and politicians, running my business in accordance with my beliefs. In doing so, I do not force Catholicism on others. I do my best to convince others of the truth, but I do not coerce people to do what they believe to be evil.

Unfortunately, we seem to have had a total breakdown on the concept of religious freedom. Politicians who act in accordance with their religious beliefs, laws passed by a majority of citizens who believe certain behavior cannot be sanctioned by civilized society are attacked by a vocal minority that has the support of the political, cultural and media elites. This elite has the opinion that the freedom of religion means the freedom from religion, and that is a gross perversion. It is imposing beliefs the Christian not only disagrees with, but also believes is evil to do.

The reason this is an imposition is because of this difference: The freedom OF religion means I may live all aspects of my life in accordance with what God demands of me, including my right to vote. The freedom FROM religion claims that a person has the right not to see religious activity in public... or to be affected by laws or behavior that people with religious motivations follow.

The results of such behavior is that when a majority of a state pass a law which defends the long held understanding that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman, a judge can take this distortion called "freedom from religion" and declare such laws violate the "separation of Church and state."  Why? Because the motivation is alleged to be solely based on religion and because of the establishment clause, as misinterpreted by judges, laws passed are ruled "violation" of Church and State.

But that's nonsense. The establishment of religion clause means that nobody can be forced to belong to a religion against their will. But when Christians, Jews and Muslims vote in favor of a law defending the common understanding of marriage, nobody is forced to be a Christian,  Muslim or Jew. Rather, it means Christians, Muslims and Jews agree that in light of distortion, the definition of marriage needs to be made clear in law.  THAT'S the free exercise of religious freedom.

On the other hand, judges who rule that homosexual relationships can be marriages and that Christians must treat them as such or face charges on violating "civil rights," that's interference with religious freedom to live as God calls us to live... which forbids us to assist the sin of another.

Likewise the contraception mandate. The Catholic believes that artificial contraception is a sin. To require the Catholic to participate in assisting another's sin by paying for contraception via health insurance for his employees is interference with a person's right to live according to God's commands.

The response from the "freedom from religion" mindset is that an employee shouldn't have to give up her right to contraception (begging the question) just because she works for a religious employer.

But that argument shows the unjustness of "freedom from religion."  The woman's constitutional rights are not violated by having to pay for her own contraception.   But the Catholic employer is having his constitutional rights violated by being forced to provide such contraception --as condemned by his religion-- or face fines of $100 per employee per day.

Once upon a time, people would realize the injustice of these incidents of judicial activism.  But today? Now believers are portrayed as bigots simply because they defend their rights as believers.

This injustice will continue until such a time that people recognize that the "freedom from religion" is a counterfeit right that violates true rights

Reflections on Religious Freedom vs. The Judiciary

Introduction

The Washington Post has a rather asinine article about the issue of religious freedom and posting offensive objects under religious freedom under the First Amendment.

The idea of a Satanic monument to be next to a display of the Ten Commandments may, at first glance, seem to be a reductio ad absurdum to the defense of the Ten Commandments being displayed. After all, isn't it favoritism to allow one religious display, but not another?

Preliminary Notes

Now, for purposes of this article, I'll leave out the repugnance of  Satanism as a man made religion which is an express repudiation of Christianity.  I'll also leave out the consideration of Christianity having any special rights because it is the true religion.

While I both believe Catholic Christianity is the true religion and Satanism is offensive and a lie, the focus here is about freedom of religion in general and the all or nothing view of the judiciary.

The Principal Problem

I think the problem is the courts commit the fallacy of equivocation. They take the concept of religious freedom with different meanings, when it needs to keep a consistent meaning.

The freedom of religion involves the right of the individual to seek out and follow God according to their conscience without interference from the state, either by mandating the attendance in one religion (an official state Church like Anglicanism in Elizabethian England) or by restricting a religion from functioning (like the Soviet Union).

However, the freedom of religion does not mean an approach of either all get the same amount of attention in the public sphere or none do.

Distinguishing Protection of a Minority from Suppression of a Majority

Law has had an emphasis on protecting the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority. This is a good concept when properly understood. We recognize it is unjust to mistreat a minority and restrict them from practicing the rights all people possess.

Unfortunately, the judiciary seems to take a view that if we can't give all religions the same weight, we can't allow any of them to have a public presence. It ignores the fact that the majority of Americans do have a shared religious culture and heritage and tries to pretend it doesn't exist.

America tends to get bizarre here by forgetting a sense of proportion. The percentage of Christians in America is about 78.4%. The next largest  religion is Judaism (1.7%). Islam is 0.6%.  While 16.1% is unaffiliated with religion,  only 1.6% are atheists.

Now while not all people who profess Christianity actually practice it, it does mean that the influence of Christianity plays a large role in how many Americans view life.  The Cross, the Ten Commandments... these are things which are meaningful to the vast majority of Americans. For example, even to nominal Christians, the Ten Commandments  have meaning in terms of law and justice.

The Abundance of Christian Symbols is not Infringement of Religious Rights of a Minority

Now, the 78.4% of Americans who recognize Christianity as true would do wrong to suppress the human rights of 21.6% of the population who don't.

But suppression of religious rights involves either the forcing actions which the believer finds condemned by their conscience or forbidding actions the believer feels morally obligated to do.  For example,  the Obamacare Contraception Mandate involves the forcing of funding contraceptives and abortifacients by people whose conscience forbids them from doing so.

It doesn't mean that symbols of a religion consisting of 0.6% (Islam) of the US population has to be as visible as the symbols of a religion consisting of 78.4% or else it is discrimination. Nor does it mean that the 1.6% of the population that is atheist has the right to suppress the existence of religion in the public sphere because they deny the Divine exists.

Trolling and Harassment

Another consideration is that when a group puts up a counter monument for the purpose of showing their disagreement with the Christian symbol, this is not an issue of religious freedom for the countering group. It is an issue of harassment. The original Christian monument is not put up for the purpose of propaganda. But the counter monument is.  Belief in the Divine is a delusion!  these monuments proclaim.   Don't believe in Christianity, believe in us! they say.

But the War Memorial built in the shape of the Cross is not made to promote Christianity. It exists as a prayer for the war dead, remembering the salvation Christ died and rose to bring us.

Now, some don't believe that Christ was anything more than a man. But to take offense in the hope and prayers that the war dead may rest in God and demand the removal is not an action of religious freedom. It's an act of religious oppression, saying "I disagree with Christianity. So take it down!"

Conclusion

The problem with the legislature and the courts is they begin with a faulty assumption... that any religious symbol on public land counts as the establishment of a religion. But in accepting the demands that no religious symbol exist on public land actually favors the establishment of atheism. The accepting of demands to establish a monument that exists for the purpose of rejecting a religion when the original monument has no propaganda intent actually establishes a religious harassment as a right.

A government which wants to respect the rights of the freedom of religion needs to consider these things. It ought to distinguish intent instead of blindly taking a one size fits all approach without considering whether the appeal is done for a legitimate redress or for harassment.

Reflections on Religious Freedom vs. The Judiciary

Introduction

The Washington Post has a rather asinine article about the issue of religious freedom and posting offensive objects under religious freedom under the First Amendment.

The idea of a Satanic monument to be next to a display of the Ten Commandments may, at first glance, seem to be a reductio ad absurdum to the defense of the Ten Commandments being displayed. After all, isn't it favoritism to allow one religious display, but not another?

Preliminary Notes

Now, for purposes of this article, I'll leave out the repugnance of  Satanism as a man made religion which is an express repudiation of Christianity.  I'll also leave out the consideration of Christianity having any special rights because it is the true religion.

While I both believe Catholic Christianity is the true religion and Satanism is offensive and a lie, the focus here is about freedom of religion in general and the all or nothing view of the judiciary.

The Principal Problem

I think the problem is the courts commit the fallacy of equivocation. They take the concept of religious freedom with different meanings, when it needs to keep a consistent meaning.

The freedom of religion involves the right of the individual to seek out and follow God according to their conscience without interference from the state, either by mandating the attendance in one religion (an official state Church like Anglicanism in Elizabethian England) or by restricting a religion from functioning (like the Soviet Union).

However, the freedom of religion does not mean an approach of either all get the same amount of attention in the public sphere or none do.

Distinguishing Protection of a Minority from Suppression of a Majority

Law has had an emphasis on protecting the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority. This is a good concept when properly understood. We recognize it is unjust to mistreat a minority and restrict them from practicing the rights all people possess.

Unfortunately, the judiciary seems to take a view that if we can't give all religions the same weight, we can't allow any of them to have a public presence. It ignores the fact that the majority of Americans do have a shared religious culture and heritage and tries to pretend it doesn't exist.

America tends to get bizarre here by forgetting a sense of proportion. The percentage of Christians in America is about 78.4%. The next largest  religion is Judaism (1.7%). Islam is 0.6%.  While 16.1% is unaffiliated with religion,  only 1.6% are atheists.

Now while not all people who profess Christianity actually practice it, it does mean that the influence of Christianity plays a large role in how many Americans view life.  The Cross, the Ten Commandments... these are things which are meaningful to the vast majority of Americans. For example, even to nominal Christians, the Ten Commandments  have meaning in terms of law and justice.

The Abundance of Christian Symbols is not Infringement of Religious Rights of a Minority

Now, the 78.4% of Americans who recognize Christianity as true would do wrong to suppress the human rights of 21.6% of the population who don't.

But suppression of religious rights involves either the forcing actions which the believer finds condemned by their conscience or forbidding actions the believer feels morally obligated to do.  For example,  the Obamacare Contraception Mandate involves the forcing of funding contraceptives and abortifacients by people whose conscience forbids them from doing so.

It doesn't mean that symbols of a religion consisting of 0.6% (Islam) of the US population has to be as visible as the symbols of a religion consisting of 78.4% or else it is discrimination. Nor does it mean that the 1.6% of the population that is atheist has the right to suppress the existence of religion in the public sphere because they deny the Divine exists.

Trolling and Harassment

Another consideration is that when a group puts up a counter monument for the purpose of showing their disagreement with the Christian symbol, this is not an issue of religious freedom for the countering group. It is an issue of harassment. The original Christian monument is not put up for the purpose of propaganda. But the counter monument is.  Belief in the Divine is a delusion!  these monuments proclaim.   Don't believe in Christianity, believe in us! they say.

But the War Memorial built in the shape of the Cross is not made to promote Christianity. It exists as a prayer for the war dead, remembering the salvation Christ died and rose to bring us.

Now, some don't believe that Christ was anything more than a man. But to take offense in the hope and prayers that the war dead may rest in God and demand the removal is not an action of religious freedom. It's an act of religious oppression, saying "I disagree with Christianity. So take it down!"

Conclusion

The problem with the legislature and the courts is they begin with a faulty assumption... that any religious symbol on public land counts as the establishment of a religion. But in accepting the demands that no religious symbol exist on public land actually favors the establishment of atheism. The accepting of demands to establish a monument that exists for the purpose of rejecting a religion when the original monument has no propaganda intent actually establishes a religious harassment as a right.

A government which wants to respect the rights of the freedom of religion needs to consider these things. It ought to distinguish intent instead of blindly taking a one size fits all approach without considering whether the appeal is done for a legitimate redress or for harassment.

Musings on the Feast of the Holy Innocents

213. Among the vulnerable for whom the Church wishes to care with particular love and concern are unborn children, the most defenceless and innocent among us. Nowadays efforts are made to deny them their human dignity and to do with them whatever one pleases, taking their lives and passing laws preventing anyone from standing in the way of this. Frequently, as a way of ridiculing the Church’s effort to defend their lives, attempts are made to present her position as ideological, obscurantist and conservative. Yet this defence of unborn life is closely linked to the defence of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development. Human beings are ends in themselves and never a means of resolving other problems. Once this conviction disappears, so do solid and lasting foundations for the defence of human rights, which would always be subject to the passing whims of the powers that be. Reason alone is sufficient to recognize the inviolable value of each single human life, but if we also look at the issue from the standpoint of faith, “every violation of the personal dignity of the human being cries out in vengeance to God and is an offence against the creator of the individual”.[176]

214. Precisely because this involves the internal consistency of our message about the value of the human person, the Church cannot be expected to change her position on this question. I want to be completely honest in this regard. This is not something subject to alleged reforms or “modernizations”. It is not “progressive” to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life. On the other hand, it is also true that we have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish, especially when the life developing within them is the result of rape or a situation of extreme poverty. Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?

(Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium)

One thing I notice is the contemptuous way some people view the Bible and the times it describes. It views these times as barbaric and treats modern times as infinitely superior.

The massacre of the Holy Innocents by King Herod show us how false that view is. For fear of losing his throne, King Herod ordered the murder of those children in Bethlehem two years and younger.  We don't know how many children that involved, but whatever the number, it was obviously wrong to massacre the innocent... especially for so selfish a reason.

However, in our society,  Herod lives on. The massacre of innocents is more hidden under the term "abortion," or "reproductive freedom," but the children are slaughtered for selfish reasons. Herod killed them to protect his kingdom. Today people kill them to protect their convenience, comfort or other wants.

Herod's actions showed the sin and barbarism of his time.

Abortion shows the sin and barbarism of ours.

Musings on the Feast of the Holy Innocents

213. Among the vulnerable for whom the Church wishes to care with particular love and concern are unborn children, the most defenceless and innocent among us. Nowadays efforts are made to deny them their human dignity and to do with them whatever one pleases, taking their lives and passing laws preventing anyone from standing in the way of this. Frequently, as a way of ridiculing the Church’s effort to defend their lives, attempts are made to present her position as ideological, obscurantist and conservative. Yet this defence of unborn life is closely linked to the defence of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development. Human beings are ends in themselves and never a means of resolving other problems. Once this conviction disappears, so do solid and lasting foundations for the defence of human rights, which would always be subject to the passing whims of the powers that be. Reason alone is sufficient to recognize the inviolable value of each single human life, but if we also look at the issue from the standpoint of faith, “every violation of the personal dignity of the human being cries out in vengeance to God and is an offence against the creator of the individual”.[176]

214. Precisely because this involves the internal consistency of our message about the value of the human person, the Church cannot be expected to change her position on this question. I want to be completely honest in this regard. This is not something subject to alleged reforms or “modernizations”. It is not “progressive” to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life. On the other hand, it is also true that we have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish, especially when the life developing within them is the result of rape or a situation of extreme poverty. Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?

(Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium)

One thing I notice is the contemptuous way some people view the Bible and the times it describes. It views these times as barbaric and treats modern times as infinitely superior.

The massacre of the Holy Innocents by King Herod show us how false that view is. For fear of losing his throne, King Herod ordered the murder of those children in Bethlehem two years and younger.  We don't know how many children that involved, but whatever the number, it was obviously wrong to massacre the innocent... especially for so selfish a reason.

However, in our society,  Herod lives on. The massacre of innocents is more hidden under the term "abortion," or "reproductive freedom," but the children are slaughtered for selfish reasons. Herod killed them to protect his kingdom. Today people kill them to protect their convenience, comfort or other wants.

Herod's actions showed the sin and barbarism of his time.

Abortion shows the sin and barbarism of ours.

Implications of the Phil Robertson Incident

Read more »