He was interviewing Dr. Stephen Schneck, an associate professor at Catholic
University of America and co-chair of Catholics for Obama. The latter told the
hearers that he is a sincere and committed Catholic. This is precisely why his
decision to vote for Obama – dubbed the most “pro-abortion” president we have
ever had – left me dumbfounded.
How is it possible that a son of the Church – founded by Someone who declared
that He was the Truth, the Way, and the
Life – can justify his choice?
He personally rejects abortion, gay marriages, embryonic stem cells research
(all three strongly endorsed by our present president), and yet is trying to
convince us that to vote for him can be justified on
moral grounds.
What are his arguments and do they have any validity? The key one is that,
according to him, Romney intends to make deep cuts in the Medicaid budget, and
that this decision will inevitably lead to a notable increase in the number of
abortions. Therefore to give one’s vote to Obama will in fact benefit the
pro-life cause!
This is a type of
twisted logic that only “intellectuals” can concoct. It would be
difficult to convince a peasant that a purely abstract projection (cuts in
Medicaid will lead to more abortions) justifies voting for someone who is
“pro-choice,” endorses not only late term abortion, but also the murder of
those little ones who survived this “scientific” torture. This is typical
intellectual prestidigitation, a sleight of hand of such “cleverness” that it
justifies
the words of St. Peter Damian:
the Devil was the first grammarian: he “taught us to decline god in the plural.”
By endorsing Obama, Professor Schneck inevitably gives his place to same sex
marriage (which he rejects), assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research.
Indeed, evil engenders evil.
That Romney opposes these grave moral aberrations, does not seem to have any
weight in Professor Schneck’s mind. Am I wrong in suggesting that when St. Paul
writes that there are things that “should not even be mentioned among
Christians,” he might had had “same sex marriage” in mind, an inevitable
consequence of the endorsement of homosexuality so severely condemned by Plato –
a pagan – as being not only against nature, but as being a moral disease of such
gravity that it inevitably leads to the downfall of any society. History teaches
us a lesson:
the great nations of the
world now extinct, were victims of the immorality of their customs. Their
problem was not economic; it was moral, and inevitably, as a punishment, it
affected the economy.
Abortion, i.e. murder of innocent human beings, is intrinsically evil at all
time, in all places, under all circumstances. The same applies to embryonic stem
cell research; a human being is a human being from the very moment of
conception; if it became one only when fully developed, it would be a typical
case of magic: namely a change of nature, as we read in fairy tales. The Devil
who is a master at deceit, covers the horror of this crime by inserting the term
“scientific research,” and the word “scientific“ fills with awe those who
believe in “progress.”
May I suggest that if abortions were no longer paid by “other people’s taxes”
(forced to do), quite a few people would think twice before having one. Money
matters in our society, and if this barbarous practice was not covered by
insurances, it is likely that fewer would be performed, and that women would
consider carrying the baby to term and give it up for adoption.
We know that there is such a high demand for
babies that many are those who have to turn to foreign countries to find
one.
Upon hearing Professor Schneck’s words, I was not only grieved: I was
stunned. Unwittingly, he assumes that the end justifies the means: that to vote
for a pro abortion president, by some mysterious twist, will in the long run,
protect life.
Like all decadent societies, we have
lost sight of the crucial importance of hierarchy in human life.
We have in mind not only the ontological hierarchy placing the Creator above
creatures, angels above men (except for the Blessed one among women), man over
animals (challenged by Peter Singer: a healthy whale ranks higher than a
crippled baby), but also of the epistemological hierarchy of revealed truth
above all other truths, of veritates aeternae over empirical truths, and last
but not least, of
the solemn command to
abstain from committing murder. This was formulated by
St. Augustine. He tells us that man’s first
duty is to abstain from moral evil (I.e. sin); the second is to do as much good
as possible. By sin, we mean an offense of God – the infinitely Holy one – which
also stains the soul of the sinner, endangering his eternal welfare, and in the
majority of cases harms his neighbors.
It is worth mentioning that Plato’s admirable ethics, clearly endorsing the
natural moral law, is limited because having no access to revelation, this noble
thinker had no clear conception of God’s nature. Therefore he could not perceive
that moral evil is an offense against God, even though he came close to it when
he wrote that, “he who honors his mother pleases the gods.” His ethics is
“open” to the message of New Testament; therefore he had been called: “a
preparer of the way to Christ,” something that cannot be said of Aristotle for
the plain reason that the latter having denied any possible relationship
between God and man, eliminated the notion of sin from his philosophical
horizon.
Man’s second obligation is to do as much good as possible. This calls
clarification. For “good” is so rich in meaning and it inevitably opens the door
to equivocations. It can clearly refer to “pleasure,” or to what is beneficial
to man, or to moral qualities. Whereas it is indeed a duty to try to benefit
mankind by spreading moral values (mainly by practicing them ourselves), and
beneficial goods, there is no moral obligation to intensify “pleasure” either
for oneself or for others. It may be laudable, but not obligatory. This is one
of the very many pitiful equivocations in Jeremiah Bentham’s so called Ethics:
advocating as our duty to produce the greatest possible good for the largest
possible number of people. Which good?
In our society, “educated” by the news media, a high percentage of people
assume erroneously that our concern for “social issues” should be given pride of
place. They forget that
the first
commandment is to “Love the Lord our God.” This is our very first
obligation. It is meaningful that several of the ten commandments are
“negative”: “thou shalt not.” It clearly reminds us that being
creatures endowed with free will, we are granted this privilege to
freely obey the divine law. It is fashionable to interpret this as a “negative”
attitude and to claim that “positive” ethics – the ethics commanding us to do
“good” – should be our primary obligation. As mentioned above, this claim is
dangerously misleading. This type of “positive” ethics is favored today.
Modern man is sick of “prohibitions” and
commands. He has “come of age” (typical claim of all adolescents) and should
himself decide what his priorities are.
That “to do good” sounds so attractive to modern ears explains why so many
Catholics are tempted to endorse the agenda of a president who claims to be
“socially minded.” We live in a society of “doers” who value “accomplishments”
and place “efficiency” above holiness.
It is noteworthy that a Joseph II, emperor of Austria in the 18th century
closed numerous Carthusian monasteries, while respecting “active” religious
organizations. The latter “achieved” something. The others did not benefit
society. That the prayers and sacrifices of these holy monks were in fact the
spiritual foundation of charitable works, is something that he did not and could
not be perceived by a ruler fed on the philosophy of Voltaire, Rousseau and
their ilk.
Cavour – as anti clerical as he was – was favorable to the work of Don Bosco:
his “taming” of wild street boys in Turin, clearly benefited the State. But
“contemplative” orders had no right to exist in this upcoming brave new world.
The same philosophy motivated Clemenceau in France in the 20th century.
This leads me back to my topic:
how
can devout Catholics favor a man who has shown total disregard for fundamental
moral commandments: thou shalt not murder, because he gives full priority to
social improvements?
In this context, it is worth mentioning that when we abstain from committing
evil acts, such as murdering, perverse sexual practices, to mention only two, we
have no reason whatever to “feel good about ourselves.” We have just done our
duty. (“We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.” Luke
17:10) Never has a man received an award for paying his debts, for telling his
truth, for being faithful to his wife: such a man has only done what he ought to
have done.
But throughout the year, people rightly receive awards for having founded a
school, or a hospital, or given huge sums to worthy causes. Inevitably such
benefactors, “feel good about themselves,” “this is my work,” and indeed, the
work deserves praise.
St. Therese of Lisieux, one of the lights of the 19th century, did not do
anything spectacular. Shortly before her death, a sister was concerned about
what could possibly be praised when she died: she had done nothing special.
Indeed, that was true, but she did what she ought to do with such a love that in
Gods eyes, it gained eternal value.
It is tempting to accuse me of having no understanding for the greatness and
nobility of “social work.” It is the glory of the Catholic Church that from the
very beginning she has founded hospitals, schools, and tried in every possible
way to ease the burdens of suffering humanity. But this admirable mission was in
fact based on a clear awareness of the hierarchy of our moral obligations.
“
Seek you first the Kingdom of God and
His justice, and all the rest will be added unto.”
To adore and love God is our primary duty,
and it is also man’s glory. From this it follows that we should obey His
commandments, a primary one of which; Thou shalt not murder. Early in Genesis,
this abominable crime was condemned.
Those who do not perceive this luminous truth suffer from a grave disease:
moral blindness. Whereas blind people know that they are blind, the tragic fate
of morally blind people is that they do not realize that they are gravely
“ill.”
It is my wish and hope that when going to the polls in November, all men of
good will will say a short prayer echoing the one of the blind man in Jericho.
Christ said to him: what do you want. “Lord, that I may see.” His request was
granted.
Moreover, it is fashionable to claim that in acting, our key concern should
be focused on the consequences of our act. Will it benefit society? Once again,
the ambiguity is obvious: benefit in what sense? Morally? Humanly? Financially?
Should we be concerned about “immediate’ benefits, or those in the long run? If
our key moral concern should be the consequences of our action, it would be
impossible for man ever to make any valid decision because he can never foretell
what “fruits” his action will bring.
Let us imagine the following scenario; a hundred years ago, a man saved a
teenager who has fallen in a river, and was close to drowning. Had he known (an
impossibility) that the youngster was Adolf Hitler, should he have refused his
help? The “call” of the hour was to save a human life. The future is in God’s
hands.
Ethics is the most “existential” branch of philosophy. It plays a key role in
our daily life. There is one thing that all men can and should share: the
“natural” law (not confusing it with the laws of nature such as gravity, which
applies to all creatures). I am referring to a law inscribed in every human
heart the validity of which is independent of time, place, and circumstances.
Moral evil injects poison in the society in which we live, because our acts have
direct or indirect consequences on others.
To take the life of an innocent defenseless
person , is a crime that cries to heaven. Anyone who denies this luminous
ethical truth suffers from a terrible sickness: moral blindness. Whereas a blind
man knows he is blind, many are those who are morally blind – a much graver
“disease” – and are totally unaware of it. They do not even question the
validity of their moral vision.
Moral evil is the cancer of any
society and history teaches us that all great nations that have disappeared from
the face of the earth, were morally decadent. Money never has and never will
save a nation.
My husband gave hundred of talks in seventeen countries in four languages. A
couple of years before his death, he delivered his very last talk in Orange,
California. It was after Roe and Wade (which made him exclaim that “The
'defeated' Hitler won the war” for the Nazi poison (ruthless disrespect for the
dignity of human life) had penetrated into the soul of the “conqueror.” This
justifies the words of Plato: “… many a victory has been and will be suicidal to
the victor …” (Laws, 19)
Dietrich von Hildebrand’s very last words uttered with a trembling voice
were,
“A country that legalizes murder
is doomed.” That should give us food for thought. To vote for a President
who fully endorses abortion, is to vote for death.
Man’s second duty is to do as much good as possible. Modern man is
psychologically tempted to give priority to "good and noble causes" over our
strict duty to abstain from moral evil. The reason is obvious: by not committing
murder, we are just doing our "duty" (see Luke 17:10). We do not deserve praise.
How ludicrous it would be if a man “bragged” that he has not murdered his
parents. How grotesque would it be to give an award to someone because he has
never raped a woman or a child. Who deserves praise for doing what he ought to
do? Whereas our concern about the wide range of "social issues" strikes us as
noble and generous deeds that deserve to be commended and honored. It makes us
“feel good” about ourselves.
Indeed, it is our
strict moral duty to care about our neighbor's
needs, but this concern can never justify our breaking a moral law with an
absolute veto.
There is no conceivable
moral justification for endorsing Obama’s position.
Let me repeat: there is a hierarchy of truths, and there is a
hierarchy
of moral obligations.
All those who
intend to vote for a president who clearly justifies not only abortion, but
homosexuality, same sex marriages and self assisted suicide in the name of
“social concerns” are gravely “sinning” against this hierarchy established by
God Himself. We should be “socially concerned,” but such concerns are
legitimate only to the extend that they respect the natural law. Moreover, they
should never “allow” us to violate a moral law with an absolute veto. I am not
allowed to kill one person in order to save another person’s life.
Man is a
creature: his primary duty is to obey. The great confusion
prevalent today is that many confused people justify an intrinsically evil act,
because they “calculate” (consequentialism) that "in the long run," it will
bring a
decrease of evil and therefore a greater good.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/06/conservatives-need-to-play-confrontational-politics/
This reasoning is the Devil’s logic, and he can play the clever logician when
convenient.
On the other hand, one could also claim that if abortion were not “free” (a
gift from the State paid by others’ taxes whether they want to or not), many of
them would not be performed. If it had to be
paid for, one would be
surprised how many women would hesitate to have one. Money matters in our
society. If walkers were not paid for, it might be that some persons would
courageously train themselves to walk with a cane. The great danger of “great
government” is that everyone is “promised a free wheel chair,” without paying
for it, and thereby are discouraged from going to therapy and “re-conquer” their
mobility. I heard about an acrobat who after a terrible accident lost his leg,
and re-learned to do tight rope walking with an artificial leg. He wanted to.
Moreover “big government” means a monstrous bureaucracy, and inevitably opens
the door far and wide to fraud. A friend of mine who worked for the government
his whole life long, told me that in government offices, there is nothing which
is not stolen unless it is “solidly nailed down.” Some of us might hesitate to
rob a neighbor. Who cares to satisfy one’s needs at the expense of an impersonal
monster: the state. Tax payers will fill the deficit.
After original sin, men were condemned to earn their bread with the sweat of
their brow. Most of them have no objection to working, but they do not like
the “sweat”, that is the pain, the effort.
How tempting to vote for a President who
provides for one’s needs without having to “sweat” to enjoy them. This is the
danger menacing us today. People should not be encouraged, nay “tempted” to
depend on the impersonal state, a Leviathan which imprisons his victims into his
treacherous net and will inevitably rob them of their freedom.
There are, of course, cases in which it is
fully legitimate
to ask and to get help and support. But we should not forget that the most
generous “charities” are in the hands of individuals animated by love of
neighbor. It is well known that from the beginning of Christianity, innumerable
religious orders have been founded to take care of the poor, the sick, the
afflicted. I am far from denying that the State has no social responsibility,
but there is an abyss between personal care or “bureaucratic“ care. Alas, in our
society, social help has now becomes a “right” and who is grateful for what we
have a right to possess?
A French proverb says, “He who wants to kill his dog, will accuse him of
having the plague.” It is easy enough to view an innocent baby as an intruder,
an unwanted guest, threatening one’s career or promotion, and thereby justify
extinguishing the life of a human person made to God’s image and likeness. No
doubt, this approach to pregnancy leads to innumerable abortions.
Let us recall the grief of Jewish women like Rachel, like Hannah, like
Elizabeth because of their infertility. How they suffered; how they prayed and
their prayers were heard. Today a baby is viewed as a “tumor,” a “sickness,”
that calls for urgent medical intervention.
How deeply regrettable to witness that Catholic education since Vatican II
has been so deplorable that many “good” Catholics are plainly ignorant not only
of their faith, but also of the basic tenets of the natural law that they share
with all men.
Social work, admirable and
praise-worthy as it is (let us think of what a Mother Teresa of Calcutta has
accomplished – she was not a State Employee, thank God) will never solve the
tragic problem of poverty: “You shall always have poor among you.” She devoted
every moment of her religious life to relieve the poor. Has poverty disappeared?
But her deeds of love are jewels now resplendent on her crown. This does not
mean that we shouldn’t do everything possible to help those in need, but not to
commit moral evil has priority. Murder is irreversible: a corpse cannot be
brought back to life.
Catholics blessed by the Magisterium are doubly culpable for not listening
to the voice of our pastors who defend both God’s commandments and the “natural”
law.
I repeat: to place a strict moral commandment which suffers no exception, on
the same level with a vague unwarranted claim that in the long run the
abominable moral evil of abortion coupled with “social concerns” will have
positive consequences, is a tragic confusion which, alas, has caught many “good”
Catholics into its devilish net. Indeed, the Devil is the Master of
confusion.
Before going to the polls, may I
urge all men of good will to say a short prayer echoing the one of the blind
man of Jericho: “Lord, that I may see.” Alice von Hildebrand is a lecturer and an
author, whose works include The Privilege of Being a Woman (2002) and The Soul
of a Lion: The Life of Dietrich von Hildebrand (2000), a biography of her late
husband
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean
Clarence E. Manion, University of Notre Dame Law School
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/right-and-wrong-not-right-and-left/
"as a lawyer, I must conserve
American moral and cultural resources against the exploitation of those who
would use government to destroy them. And so I think "liberal," when it is
used as the opposite of "conservative," is a most unfortunate contradiction in
terms. For that reason, as I said at the outset, I am inclined to be
anti-semantic."
