The extent to which people will go to advance their rationalizations for sexual misbehavior grows ever more amusing and ambitious, with consequences, however, that are less jolly. The ultimate level of absurdity has now been reached by the claim that justice requires the legalization of same-sex marriage. Consider the following two protestations.
Celebrating the recent passage of such a law in New York, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote: “I am the brother of a woman in a longtime same-sex relationship… This is a cause whose justness has long been apparent to me. The opponents have no case other than ignorance and misconception and prejudice.”
And when Edwin O’Brien, the Catholic archbishop of Baltimore, attempted to remonstrate with Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, a Catholic, over his sponsorship of a same sex marriage bill, the Governor responded that: “When shortcomings in our laws bring about a result that is unjust, I have a public obligation to try to change that injustice.”
So now it is no longer tolerance, but the demands of justice that seem to require legally equating homosexual marriage with heterosexual marriage, something no other civilization in recorded history has done.
One does not get to make up what things are. If that were the case, then justice could be anything that one said it was.
But before justice can be enlisted on behalf of this cause, we should ask ourselves: what is justice? The classical answer to this question is that justice is giving to things what is their due according to what they are. In other words, to act justly, one must first know what things are. When one knows what something is, one then understands what it is for. The purpose of the thing then determines whether our actions toward it are a use or an abuse. This is where the matter of justice comes in.
One does not get to make up what things are. If that were the case, then justice could be anything that one said it was. That is what tyrants do. This would be arbitrary, and what is arbitrary is by definition tyrannical. It is based upon pure will, unguided by reason. Those who wish to base their freedom upon the supposed purposelessness of things should face the consequences of this view. What seems unmitigated freedom is, in fact, the foundation of tyranny.
Unfortunately, this solipsistic view of reality has reached high places. In the 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey ruling, the Supreme Court opined that, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Well, actually not. The universe is already here. It has already been defined for us; otherwise, it would not be in existence. Our choice is not to make up the meaning of the universe, but to discern its meaning and then either conform ourselves to it, or revolt against it. The choice today is revolt. Igor Stravinsky once wrote, “The old original sin was one of knowledge, the new original sin is one of non-acknowledgment.” It is the refusal to acknowledge anything outside the operation of the human will — most especially “the good” toward which the soul is ordered. “The good” is what ultimately informs human justice.
The modern premise, so evident in the campaign for same-sex marriage, is that any pre-existing rational end constitutes a limitation on human freedom. Therefore, “freedom” requires the denial that rational ends inhere in things. Things are tabula rasa, blank slates upon which we can write anything we desire. Things, being purposeless themselves, only have the ends we give them by our will and choice. They serve whatever purpose we wish. This is a very dangerous teaching, especially as it affects the issue of justice.
As mentioned earlier, it is necessary to apprehend things as they are in order to act justly. A simple example suffices. If one does not know the difference between a man and a dog, one may end up treating a man as if he were a dog. This would be acting unjustly. Justice in no way pertains to how we feel about things but rather to what they are. In our anthropomorphic enthusiasm, we may feel that our pet dog is human. However, it would be absurd to pass legislation requiring the dog’s consent to its owner’s rule, because the dog is not human and is incapable of giving its consent. Dogs do not have free will. It is therefore just for men to rule over dogs.
Likewise, no feeling can justify the enslavement of another human being, because a human being has the inalienable right to consent in his or her rule. This, of course, was the problem with slavery. Only the understanding of what a human being is allows one to make this vital distinction between the human and the nonhuman. It is something one knows, or does not (or refuses to acknowledge), with huge consequences. It is precisely the loss of this distinction upon which the practice of abortion is based.
Once we know what something is, we can know what it is for. Its purpose is within it. How does this pertain to the issue of the justice of same-sex marriage? It has to do with the procreative and unitive powers of our sexual organs. What are they for? Today, we seem to know what every other part of our body is for, except our genitals. This is a case of selective epistemological amnesia.
Sex has a natural purpose
In using or treating any part of our body, the critical question is: what are the ends to which the nature of the thing directs it, and is the action outside of, or within those ends? For instance, our lungs are for breathing. Breathing oxygenates our blood through the alveoli. If anyone suggested that our lungs are for imbibing water, they would be set straight in short order and informed that water in the lungs would lead to drowning and death. If they nonetheless insisted that water is good for the lungs and applied this teaching to themselves, they would soon be asphyxiated.
No one has really been tempted to do this. However, people have found a great deal of pleasure in smoking cigarettes. This has been shown to be a misuse of the lungs, because the tars and nicotine from the tobacco smoke cause lung cancer. Therefore, we can say with some confidence that the end or purpose of the lungs is not pleasure from smoking. The purpose of a thing cannot be fulfilled in an action which leads to its destruction. On the basis of this, the government has taken vigorous steps to dissuade people from smoking. Laws have been passed prohibiting young people from buying cigarettes and requiring the labeling of cigarettes as injurious to health.
However, no one today can publicly suggest that our genitals are not made for sodomy or even, without becoming the objects of obloquy, point out the health consequences of this unclean practice. Well before HIV/AIDS arrived on the scene, the life expectancy of practicing homosexuals was substantially below that of the heterosexual male population because of the deleterious health effects of this behavior. What things are have a way of fighting back against those who deny what they are and who act in such a way as if they weren’t.
So what is sex for? The purpose of sex is to make “one flesh.” Two becoming “one flesh” encompasses both the generative and unitive nature of sex. By nature, only men and women are physically capable of becoming “one flesh.” (Otherwise, the pieces don’t fit.) The end of sex is not simply pleasure; otherwise, any kind of sex that produces pleasure would be “natural.” That something occurs, or can occur, does not make it “natural.” Cancer occurs, but one would not say, by that fact, that cancer is therefore natural to, say, the lungs. Why not? Because we know that lungs are for breathing, and that cancer impedes and eventually prevents breathing.
A great deal of human ingenuity has gone into finding other uses for sex that go directly against its unitive and generative nature. Those who misuse its powers perversely are saying, in effect: We will take the pleasure, but not the thing toward which the pleasure is directed: the imago Dei. As Fr. James Schall has written (CRISISSense & Nonsense, March 1995), “Whenever we seek pleasure without it being grounded in what is right in the action in which it exists, we isolate the pleasure, the act, from reality.” Every act of coition presupposes the unitive and the commitment within which it must take place. And when it is not there, it is felt as a betrayal, a lie. It is followed by emptiness. There is something inherently false about sexual acts outside of marriage.
Only marital love can tame erotic passion
However, sex is a very strong passion, and it is difficult for anyone to contain. The only thing that can tame Eros and direct it to an end that can satisfy the sexual passion is love, which leads Eros away from death and, quite literally, toward new life. When a specific person is the object of love, no substitute will do. Love demands exclusivity, and receives it in marriage. The desire for oneness in marital union is also a thirst for fecundity. The wild and complete abandon of the marital act is a joyful affirmation of the possibility of more — in children.
In their souls, what people truly love is goodness. And when they love goodness, it is what they seek to serve. This is true with sex, also. Sex is directed to goodness by love. Love sublimates lust and restores the original innocence of sex. It is no longer self-seeking, self consuming, but self-giving and life-generating. It seeks the unity that is only available in “one flesh.” So it seems spousal love requires becoming “one flesh.”
This is not a matter of “who says,” but of how we are constituted by nature. Anything else is counterfeit. To make the counterfeit official, as in legal same-sex marriage, is to substitute the unreal for the real. If you cannot become “one flesh” with the person whom you love, that is nature’s way of telling you that the character of your love is not spousal, but something else.
Love has its proper expression according to its subject and object – sisterly love, parental love, conjugal love, the love of friendship are each distinct and are expressed accordingly. A child does not love its father with parental love, because the child is not the parent of its father. It may seem silly to state something so obvious, but this is what must be done when reality is being contested. It is just as necessary and obvious to say that two men, or two women, cannot become husband and wife because that relationship requires a person of the other gender. No matter how many times homosexual advocates say it, two flesh of the same kind is not, and cannot become, “one flesh.” Homosexual marriage is not, as some have suggested, “inclusive,” simply making room for another kind of marriage. Its legalization requires the denial of the true nature of marriage. Militant homosexuals are trying to conform reality to themselves, rather than conforming themselves to reality. They will say, no doubt, that their reality is that they are homosexuals. But that is no more persuasive than an alcoholic acknowledging the reality of his condition.
Abnormality and normality
Many who think that homosexuality is a genetic condition believe that this, in and of itself, justifies homosexual marriage. That is why a great deal has been invested in the argument over whether homosexuality is a genetic trait or learned behavior. This issue, however, is immaterial to the morality of homosexual acts. The same kind of argument could be made over alcoholism. There appears to be a missing chromosome – the Y chromosome – that predisposes certain people to alcoholism; others seem to acquire alcoholism through their behavior. In either case, drunkenness is no less evil because of an inherent predisposition to it. Likewise, sodomy.
Of course, it is very hard to live with such predispositions, and profound sympathy and assistance is due to those who suffer from them. The worst disservice that could be done in either case, however, would be to encourage or participate in the celebration of the afflictions, as in “Gay Pride Day.” Why is “Gay Pride Day” any less absurd than an “Alcoholic Pride Day” would be? Both conditions exist as aberrations, as abnormalities in the light of what is normal by nature. To substitute an abnormality for normality destroys the distinction between the two, and closes off the path to recovery.
In moral terms, this would be analogous to substituting a cancerous lung for a healthy lung on the basis that we cannot tell the difference between them. Such a claim would obviously subvert medical care and would represent a huge injustice to cancer patients. Sodomy is the cancer version of coition. Substituting it for spousal intercourse on the basis that there is no difference between them is an act of injustice that will subvert marriage and the soul of the society that accepts it.
This makes richly ironic Richard Cohen’s and Governor O’Malley’s invocation of justice to advance a cause based upon the denial of the nature of marriage. They are, in fact, complicit in perpetrating fraud. “Thinking against nature,” wrote Irenaeus in Against Heresies (180 AD), “you will become foolish. And if you persist you will fall into insanity.” No one can say we were not warned. The path ahead to the asylum is clear, but in this case the asylum will be the entire society.
Supervisor Ken Yeager said, “the aim is to help direct parents to more healthy choices.” He said, “the government has a responsibility to keep kids safe…”
If you think that this new Santa Clara County, Ca., Law banning our beloved ‘Happy Meals’ (Remember parents, No toy, no happy meal…) is doomed to pass away with the next political wind, you’re wrong. Something must be done.
Not only are people like this willing to rip Happy Meal toys out of our screamin’ kids hands before we reach the pick-up window, but they won’t behappy themselves until they accomplish the unthinkable–forcibly retire Ronald McDonald.
As a parent I’m taking action now for the future– I’m going to spend the next 10 to 15 years reminding my children each and every time we drive by or visit McDonald’s exactly who and which party took away their Happy Meal toys… In fact, being a home school parent allows me to fully in-grain this travesty within the memory banks of each of my kids. Heck, I may even re-edit their history books as they sleep… Yes, Draconian, I know.
I started my campaign tonight by taking what liberty I have left and giving the Dems a new party name. Something catchy and symbolic, easily grasped and memorized was needed. Yes, that’s it, I thought to myself after a bit. “For now on kids in this house you call ’em “The Happy Meal Party””. Yes, the Happy Meal Party.
Fitting, don’t you think?
The Happy Meal Party takes away your toys and purposely creates unemployment…
Guaranteed, in 2016 and 2024, my kids will vote accordingly.
Focus on … fast food, Marketing, McDonalds, schools Corporate Accountability’s new campaign asks for your support in calling for Ronald McDonald to retire. A new report published by the organisation found 52% of Americans ‘favor stopping corporations from using cartoons and other children’s characters to sell harmful products to children.’ Even amongst those with a favourable impression of Ronald, 46% support his retirement, rising to 50% for those with children under 18. Corporate Accountability is now calling for Ronald, who has been selling burgers to children since 1963, to retire. Specifically they are calling on McDonalds to:
• end all use of celebrities, cartoons, and branded and licensed characters
that appeal to children;
• eliminate all gifts, toys, collectibles, games or other incentive
items from kids meals; and
• remove all advertising and promotional materials from places children visit
frequently including schools, playgrounds, recreation and community centers,
and pediatric health care centers.
You can sign Ronald’s retirement card, contribute to the photo petition and test your knowledge of his role in advertising here
It is a universal political truth that administrations do not begin to fragment when things are going well: it only happens when they go badly, and those who think they know better begin to attack those who manifestly do not. The descent of Barack Obama’s regime, characterised now by factionalism in the Democratic Party and talk of his being set to emulate Jimmy Carter as a one-term president, has been swift and precipitate. It was just 16 months ago that weeping men and women celebrated his victory over John McCain in the American presidential election. If they weep now, a year and six weeks into his rule, it is for different reasons.
Despite the efforts of some sections of opinion to talk the place up, America is mired in unhappiness, all the worse for the height from which Obamania has fallen. The economy remains troublesome. There is growth – a good last quarter suggested an annual rate of as high as six per cent, but that figure is probably not reliable – and the latest unemployment figures, last Friday, showed a levelling off. Yet 15 million Americans, or 9.7 per cent of the workforce, have no job. Many millions more are reduced to working part-time. Whole areas of the country, notably in the north and on the eastern seaboard, are industrial wastelands. The once mighty motor city of Detroit appears slowly to be being abandoned, becoming a Jurassic Park of the mid-20th century; unemployment among black people in Mr Obama’s own city of Chicago is estimated at between 20 and 25 per cent. One senior black politician – a Democrat and a supporter of the President – told me of the wrath in his community that a black president appeared to be unable to solve the economic problem among his own people. Cities in the east such as Newark and Baltimore now have drug-dealing as their principal commercial activity: The Wire is only just fictional.
Last Thursday the House of Representatives passed a jobs Bill, costing $15 billion, which would give tax breaks to firms hiring new staff and, through state sponsorship of construction projects, create thousands of jobs too. The Senate is trying to approve a Bill that would provide a further $150 billion of tax incentives to employers. Yet there is a sense of desperation in the Administration, a sense that nothing can be as efficacious at the moment as a sticking plaster. Edward B Montgomery, deputy labour secretary in the Clinton administration, now spends his time on day trips to decaying towns that used to have a car industry, not so much advising them on how to do something else as facilitating those communities’ access to federal funds. For a land without a welfare state, America starts to do an effective impersonation of a country with one. This massive state spending gives rise to accusations by Republicans, and people too angry even to be Republicans, that America is now controlled by “Leftists” and being turned into a socialist state.
The “governator” Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in a 1999 movie called “End of Days” where the devil was to come to take over the world. In the story line the devil must mate with and be born of a certain mortal if he is to escape hell and begin his reign of dominance over human hearts and freedom, to oppress people with death, pride, avarice, greed, sloth, ire, gluttony and lust. Arnold plays a man wounded spiritually and emotionally who ultimately opposes the devil who is defeated and reconsigned to hell for another 1,000 years. In real life, however, his legislation works for Satan.
The first 100 days of a new presidency is the time when legislation desired by the new leader is rammed through the congress without much discussion and over the objections of the minority party. It often is not good legislation, has been brewing in the hearts of special interest groups for years, who now have a vehicle to impose their will on the American people.
If the special interest groups have their way, the first 100 days will spell the end of days for the American nation as we have known it since 1776. Abominations will be forced on us by the new government, such as which our founders never had intended, and certainly opposed to the Christian life: abortion on demand, homogenital sex, lust in all its forms, euthanasia, stem cell killling, cloning, taxes, oppression of opportunity and entrepreneurs, silencing of faith and free speech among many.
In the old testament, God’s chosen people abandoned Him and sacrificed their own innocent children to a demon god called Moloch in hopes of a good harvest to feed themselves. The cult of Moloch lives on today, but just not under the god’s formal name, but in the name of abortion, or rightly put, murder of children in the womb to promote false promises, ruined lives, and degraded humanity.
Abortion is our god and Obama, Pelosi, Kennedy are his prophets. His sacrifice is the life of infants and the souls of mothers. His priests are doctors who perform abortions. His church is Planned Parenthood and FOCA, (freedom of choice act). His covenant promises rights and freedom for women. It delivers death of infants, permanent damage to the souls of women, of men, of politicians
Homosexual lust is our god and Obama, Bishop Gene Robinson, and the Democratic Party are his prophets. The sacrifice is personal integrity and corruption of the body and spirit. Its priests and priestesses are men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have sex with women (WSW). Its church is the Human Rights Campaign and other activist organizations, Pride clubs and “gay” and “lesbian” centers. Its covenant offers false promises of equality with those who have normal sexual feelings and inner peace. It delivers disease, prolonged adolescent immaturity, and oppression of the church and good people who live upright moral lives.
Money is our god, and the the wealthy and welfare are its prophets. Its sacrifice is hard earned savings and retirement. Its priests are those taking obscene profits by defrauding investors, and those who choose government money over honest work. Its church is a non vigilant Securities and Exchange Commission and congress. Its covenant promises self reliance and security in wealth or sustenance. It delivers collapse of the economy, unfair distribution of wealth, and a drain on the tax system.
Socialism is our god, and Obama is his prophet. Its sacrifice is personal freedom. Its priests are politicians and communist ideological organizations. Its church are legislatures and executive branches in government. Its covenant promises fairness and sameness for all. It delivers power and wealth those who already possess it and takes away opportunity for those out of power and destroys of the economy and future for others.
Liberalism is our god and the Democratic Party is his prophet. Its sacrifice is freedom, integrity, opportunity, and wholeness. Its priests are the fascist elites in government, education, and bureaucracies, who wish to control others’ thoughts and actions. Its churches are political parties, universities, and corrupt professional organizations. Its covenant promises unbridled freedom for perversion of the natural law and oppression for all who disagree with it. It delivers the breakdown of society, constitutional government, and true freedom for morally minded people, especially faithful Christians.
For us Christians, these are abominations, and the people who promote them are truly overcome by evil. 2 Peter 2:19-20 “They promise them freedom, though they themselves are slaves of corruption, for a person is a slave of whatever overcomes him. For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of (our) Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first.”
This may not be the change you wanted when you voted for new government, but it is the change you voted for if you did not clearly listen to the evil promises of the new prophets and priests of the new “churches” and ignored the warnings about the new evils that this government clearly promised to impose on America.
The Father is our God, and Jesus Christ is His prophet. His sacrifice is the life of His Son Jesus celebrated at Mass. His priests are those ordained and faithful clergy who teach fully the Catholic faith from the Bible and magisterium, and who celebrate the sacraments of the church faithfully according to its tradition and rites. Its Church is the Holy Catholic Church in which salvation is found in Jesus, the only name in heaven or on earth by which man can be saved, through Jesus, the only mediator between God and man who saves us by grace through faith in Him and not in abortion, homosexual lust, money’s greed, socialism, or liberalism. He delivers forgiveness of sin and eternal life.
Jesus came to save us from abortion, homosexual lust, socialism, liberalism, and greed of money. He begins by gathering us into His Holy Catholic Church in baptism, giving us faith in HIM rather than the perversions and evil legacies of the world and worldly people. He fills us with His Holy Spirit in confirmation to give us the gifts of HIS wisdom, knowledge, understanding, counsel, courage, piety, and fear of the Lord, so that we are formed to conquer the world. He nourishes us with His Body and Blood to fortify our Spirit to hear the counsel of the Holy Spirit to reject not only for ourselves the evil legacies, but to fight for others who are under evil’s influence.
So we pray each day, and worship on Sunday. Renewed in Spirit, we begin the fight for the faith and the souls of all in our country and world. We march, telephone, fax, write, protest, inform all those in power of our beliefs and interests to show them we will resist their impositions, remove them from office and employment if they pervert our nation.
We began with the passage of Proposition 8. We continue the fight there which is far from over.
Please, take the time to sign your pledge card to urge all senators and congressmen to vote against the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which would enshrine into law the killing of infants in the womb and make it a crime to oppose it, and use your money to promote it through taxes.
Jesus has called you out of the darkness of abortion, lust, greed, socialism, and liberalism into His marvelous light of freedom. Fight for that freedom now, so that you will not be oppressed like the Christians of the first centuries. Evil has acceded to power in this administration. We must pray as if it all depends on God, and work as if it all depends on us.
It is no secret that Barack Obama has assumed the mantle of power as head of the Democratic Party and lead change agent for the progressive political agenda in America. There’s nothing new under the sun here. What has changed–following consecutive Dem presidential defeats at the hands of the traditional values voter–is that Democrats have now found religion. Or better put, they realize they need religion in order to win the White House. The problem is, they have the same morally offensive – life threatening liberal progressive party platform as before, so they must find a way–to pilfer a phrase here from the father of community organizing, Saul Alinsky–to “do what they can with what they are and clothe it somehow with moral garments”. Another Chicagoan “Seamless Garment” redux, if you will. The irony here, of course, is just this week the new faith messenger of the Democratic Party reiterated his position that “issues” and not the “faith” of candidates should hold sway in this election.
However contradictory this position may be, make no mistake, I’m not trivializing the new faith message of democrats here nor underestimating their chances of successfully “reaching out” and dipping into the cup of the religious vote. In fact, I believe there is a powerful “under-party” to the Democratic Party itself, madeup of both liberal religious and secular coalitions well-trained in the art of community organization and political action. The purpose of this post is to introduce, educate and warn Catholic voters and fellow traditional value voters of every faith tradition concerning the main mover and shaker behind this latest Dem grab at our votes: Faith in Public Life.
Faith in Public Life
“When the Son of Man returns will he still find…Faith in Public Life.” I hope not. Like many other folks, I believe the organization Faith in Public Life’s short-term goal of electing Barack Obama coincides in action with its long-term goals of attempting to neutralize, marginalize, obstruct, and to eventually destroy pro-life and traditional moral values. (A full report by writer Stephanie Block is found below). I submit that by arming themselves with necessary facts and information needed to honestly evaluate this organization and other’s like it, Joe and Mary Catholic will come to understand that many of these so-called social justice organizations, under pretense of working for “the common good”, have for too many years now acted only to manipulate Joe and Mary’s Church, benefit financially from their personal almsgiving, and sought to politicize their parish all for the sake of liberal progressive expediency both within and outside the Catholic Church.
While it surely is a good and holy thing for Catholics to organize in order to address those most in need, It is not so when dubious outside secular organizations enter into union with Catholics in order to organize the Church according to worldly principles. In fact, there are many ongoing efforts found within the Church that can be shown to be unethical in origin, as in deployment, and often are found to be malevolent toward the Catholic faith itself by means of, quote: “using the Catholic Church to destroy Catholic moral teaching”, and thus, true faith in Jesus Christ and His Church.
O Stands for Organizing
There has been much discussion over Barack Obama’s “work experience” as a Catholic Campaign for Human Development funded organizer in Catholic parishes on the south side of Chicago during the 1980’s. But, to the extent that the political issue of whether or not candidate Obama’s work experience as a organizer adds to or takes away from his presidential resume bends a knee, (so to speak), to the greater and more important issue of fully understanding Obama’s “personal experiences” of association, formation, and support received during those years and how, if at all, they may well still relate politically to candidate Obama and the presidential election of 2008.
The following article will go a long way in helping to explain the many-faced and confusing manifestations of community organizing both historically and presently from a faithful Catholic perspective…
Justice in Pieces – Faith in Public Life by Stephanie Block
Editors Note: I believe along with the writer, Stephanie Block, that Faith in Public Life serves the culture of death in America. And that it includes organizations that target the Catholic Church for anti-catholic purposes…using Catholic resources. Presented originally in conference format, the Justice in Pieces – Faith in Public Life article below reflects a bit of the 2007 Oregon conference in presentation. As for example, the presenters use of the State of Oregon and Faith in Public Life organizations found therein (my home state). For your convenience I have tagged the FPL interactive map of states where this organization operates for your own personal reference use. There you will be able to inform yourself and other’s concerning their activities in your area… james mary evans
Faith in public life is a national coalition of nearly three thousand organizations throughout the United States. One can visit the faith in public life website and play with an interactive map that’s there. On that interactive map you can search by state and obtain a list of all the Faith in Public Life members. Or you can do a national search looking for say all the institutions that have “reproductive” in their title. To understand this progressive political coalition better, the three thousand-member coalitions can be organized into five categories:
Catholic Organizations – official catholic bodies
Dissident Organizations– exist actively and deliberately to alter Catholic church teaching. All these organizations are associated with Call to Action. (More on CTA below).
Other Religious Organizations – member organizations from other religions, usually liberal members. Many have made abortion and homosexual rights denominational policy.
Community Organizations– Alinskyian organizations and their networks. These organizations are made up of congregations from all denominations. They have an historical and ongoing relationship with Call to Action. They promote liberation theology, progressive political activism, and they often receive funding from the Catholic Church.
Issue-based Organizations– organizations working for a particular cause. In this category we find a large number of Faith in Public Life members whose only advocacy is to act to secure abortion rights or homosexual rights.
Here we can plug in our own state to discover organizations associated with Faith in Public Life –
There are 44 members found on the Oregon site. To see how this plays out on the local level, I’ll place Oregon’s organizations into the 5 categories mention above. Here are just the (1) Catholic organizations involved with Faith in Public Life:
Archdiocese of Portland, Office of Justice and Peace
Catholic Charities of Portland and Baker City
Catholic Relief Services of Portland and Baker City
So one can see that the institutional Catholic Church of Oregon through its various diocesan offices is actively participating in the work of Faith and Public Life.
In the category of (2) dissident organizations we find two Call To Action Chapters.
Call To Action Oregon
Journey-Koinonia Catholic Community
What is Call To Action?
CTA was founded with the express purpose of altering Catholic Church teaching. It has members who are organized expressly to promote abortion rights, homosexual rights, women priests, married priests, liberation theology, creation spirituality, and to politicize catholic parishes. Of this list, some of the issues are internal church matters, some are doctrinally significant, and some have bearing on society’s welfare.
In the category of (3) other religious organizations we find:
Some of these religious organizations such as the Unitarian Universalists have made abortion and homosexual rights denominational public policy. And Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon is lobbying for same sex marriage.
Now it gets really interesting when we turn to (4) community organizations.
Community organizations here are also members of Faith in Public Life. These organizations are ecumenical. These organizations are supported with money from their member religions. The Catholic Church for example takes up an annual collection called the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. Over the years the CCHD has given millions of dollars to community network organizations throughout the United States. But this is not just any community organizing. These or networks and organizations developed from the theories and practices of Saul Alinsky. Therefore they are called Alinskyian organizations. As an aside, under the ICWJ, which stands for Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice, Portland Jobs with Justice Religious Outreach Committee includes its own members, it is a coalition, and one such member of this coalition is called Q, which stands for Queer Resource for Social Change. And another member here is the Socialist Party of Oregon. That’s interesting.
Saul Alinsky was a sociologist from Chicago in the early part of the 20thcentury. He was interested in
politics and had a Marxist view of the world. Seeing society as a continual battle between what he called the haves and the have-nots. He thought he could teach his principles of organizing to the have-nots in a way to help them attain some of society’s benefits. He created local organizations that identified and trained a leadership to rally groups of people that could go fight city hall.
Later, these groups formed a national network called the Industrial Areas Foundation. Today there are several of these networks operating around the United States. Each of them having dozens of local groups with each having there own names. Unfortunately there were some terrible problems with Alinsky’s understanding of these principles. The rules by which he trained his organizers included, “The end justifies any means.” And in the book rules for radicals He devotes an entire chapter to this idea. He wasn’t just speaking off the top of his head he meant it quite earnestly. As practical as that may sound, that the end justifies almost any means, a Catholic in good conscience cannot ascribe to such wickedness.
Alinsky also writes, “Do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.” That’s where the churches come in. The church has the moral garments. To this end there several religious bodies that have placed themselves at the use of alinskyian organizing. One is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. It has developed a strategic plan to integrate alinskyian organizing throughout the denomination. It has done so in order, in it’s own words, to create social change. There is a alinskyian organizer that is helping one of the bishops help implement organizing within the church structure.
The Presbyterian Church USA is going in this direction too, with the evangelical Lutherans. It has signed a joint statement declaring its plans to increase funding for community organizing. To force seminarians to become community organizers, to encourage seminarians to provide, quote: “The theological and biblical foundations for social justice in community organizing. And to tell congregations to use community organizing as the primary strategy for mission.” This isn’t preaching Christ’s Gospel; it’s preaching a man-made social gospel.
But the problem isn’t limited to Christians. The Union of Reform Judaism, a liberal sect of Judaism, now has a social action program to train its congregation in Alinskyian organizing. Run by a Rabbi who has been involved in Alinskyian organization. This is the use of religion, not to serve God, but to further a human agenda. Trying to use God as a diabolical act. To gain an idea into the mind of Alinsky and his works, here is a telling dedication found in the book “Rules for Radicals” written by Saul Alinsky himself:
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical; from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom –Lucifer.”
In the context of Alinsky’s anti-ethics these are extraordinarily and insightful words.
In the Catholic Church the situation isn’t much better, millions of dollars have been raised over the years to support Alinskyian organizing principles and networks. This money comes from the annual Catholic Campaign for Human Development. The campaign was begun in 1970 by progressive Catholic Bishops in the United States. Who sold it as a way to end the vicious cycle of poverty. Publicity material for the CCHD, (the word Catholic was added later on), always stresses the small economic development component. However, only a third of its grants, if that much, go into economic development. The rest has gone into organizing, and most of that into Alinskyian organizing.
Support for Alinskyian organizing was given another boost in 1976. When Catholic Bishops sponsored a Three day Call To Action conference in Detroit, Michigan. This conference brought together delegates from across the United States to ratify eight position papers. Saul Alinsky’sorganizers got involved. One position paper recommended that every parish, quote: “Support a competent ecumenical action group with diocesan resources used to train organizational leaders.” Other position papers proposed that the church establish priorities for public policy, define major election issues, educate the laity on the moral dimensions of these public issues and implement these goals ecumenically. Still other position papers contained specific challenges to the discipline and doctrine of the Church. In the end, the conference approved such resolutions as the ordination of women, married men, female altar servers, the use of artificial birth control; in other words the first Call to Action conference laid down the agenda which continues to be pushed by today’s Call to Action.
How could a conference convened by Catholic bishops and delegates appointed by them be hijacked in this way? The answer lies in part with the efforts of Alinskyian organizing to influence the Church in the United States. Monsignor Jack Egan of Chicago was a long time friend of Saul Alinsky. Mon. Egan was trained with Alinsky, He served as a board member for the Alinskyian foundation Industrial Workers Foundation. And Mon. Egan supported Alinsky’s organizing efforts in Chicago. In addition, Mon. Egan served as co-chair to the 1976 Call to Action conference primary sessions, so the Alinskyian process that drove the conference in 1976 was far from accidental. Furthermore, Mon. Egan remained an outspoken supporter of Call to Action and its continued efforts to alter Church teaching until his death in 2001.
Obviously, the bishops couldn’t ratify the 1976 Call to Action proposals. But, it has been the continued effort of Call to Action to bring about what changes it could. For example, it may not be that every United States Catholic parish supports a competent ecumenical neighborhood action group, but there are thousands who do.
The Call to Action resolution to organize progressive political activism is being accomplished parish by parish. In Oregon, the Alinskyian network works with other groups in the Faith in Public Life coalition to accomplish progressive goals. Here’s an example: One progressive goal is universal healthcare coverage. In Oregon, progressives hope to achieve this goal by 2009 through the Oregon Health Plan; a piece of legislation that accomplishes its objectives by rationing medical services according to pre-determined priorities. Reproductive services is high on that priority list-ranked 6th out of 17. Oregon health plan funds about an third of Oregon’s abortions. And it also funds assisted suicide.
How where these priorities determined and ranked? In 2004 the Metropolitan Alliance for the Common Good, which is your Alinskyian local organization, part of network of the Industrial Areas Foundation, conducted what it termed citizen dialogues around Oregon to identify health care policy options, that the public would support and what they would be willing to negotiate. The results of these dialogues were given to the media, and to civic forums, with the purpose of persuading the citizens of Oregon that health care needed a dramatic systemic overhaul, and therefore to create a willingness to change. In other words, the Alinskyian local was able to manipulate the appearance of widespread support for the Oregon Health Plan.
Other groups had to clothe the Oregon Health Plan in moral garments. For instance, the Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon worked to sell Oregon citizenry the idea that many religious people believe that assisted suicide is really a health service. Therefore, it’s an ethical component to the plan. Still other groups such as the Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice-Jobs with Justice, had the task of getting groups of citizens to the legislature and into the media eye demonstrating support for the Oregon Health Plan during those years when pro-lifers worked to defend against abortion and assisted suicide. The point is, progressives have manipulated support for the Oregon Health Plan with all its good and evil aspects.
There’s one more category in the Faith and Public Life Coalition, these are issue-based, which work to advocate for a particular cause:
Under the sub-heading of progressives in Oregon, we find the Network of Spiritual Progressives in Eugene along with the Interfaith Alliance. The Interfaith Alliance claims, quote, “that it does not take pro or con positions on issues such as abortion, vouchers or gay marriage, but says its primary objective is opposition to the Christian Coalition. However, when you go to its website you can find that it carries the manual “How to win a practical guide to defeating the Radical Right in Your Community.” Who’s the radical right? Who it targets are the pro-lifers; So much for the neutral position.
The Network for Spiritual Progressives is more forthright. It says in a 2005 press release, “The religious right in the U.S. has taken a much more aggressive stance since the reelection of George Bush. Seeking to pack the courts with extremists, escalating the struggle against abortion, rights and civil rights for homosexuals.” And, of course, the solution to this is to work with the Network for Spiritual Progressives.
So far we have looked at the organization in just one state-Oregon. At the state level and national level Faith in Public Life hopes to shape public perception about religious value systems. Especially about abortion and homosexual rights. They want the public to see those rights as moral positions held by many religious people. It seeks to do this in order to neutralize the influence that pro-life and traditional ethics have on political decisions.
To carry out its objectives Faith in Public Life has developed powerful tools: a media and writer’s bureau, frequent press releases, a internet blog, and teleconferences. These work together to promote progressive causes and to hammer the message that anti-abortion and anti-homosexual rights positions are not reflective of mainstream religious sentiment, whether that’s true or not. It’s a subtle but effective message. When challenged, it spokespersons will argue that the common good requires a citizen to address many issues. Therefore they, who supposedly are not two issue voters, like the religious right, claim to be the true representatives of the religious voice in the United States.
Faith in Public life has a number of propaganda vehicles. One is “Voicing Faith” it’s a media bureau. There are a large number of troubling individuals in Voicing Faith. One is Debra haffner whose Religious Institute on Sexual Morality calls for, quote: “A faith-based commitment to sexual and reproductive rights, including access to voluntary contraception and abortion.” It also seeks, quote: “Full inclusion of sexual minorities in congregational life, including the ordination and blessing of same sex unions.” When Haffner speaks for Faith in Public Life, which remember, includes representatives of the Catholic Church, she brings her convictions into her statements. No one in Faith in Public Life suggests her morals are problematic. Catholics on the other hand are told they must not say abortion is a objective moral evil. Rather, they must seek the common ground that they have with pro-aborts. In other words we have a terrible and highly hypocritical double standard designed to bury specific moral positions.
Here’s another way Faith in Public Life is engaging media. It has connected itself to Sojourners Writers bureau, the Red Letter Christian’s. The Red Letter Christians are a network of progressive Christian communicators who will tell you, themselves, quote: “The goal of the group is to advance the message that our faith cannot be reduced to two hot-button issues-abortion and homosexuality.” It’s intimately connected to Faith in Public Life founded by the same man, working with the same people, and they have linked websites.
So, let’s look at two Red Letter Christians:
One is Father Richard Rohr. A Catholic priest from New Mexico. Father Rohr has supported blessing homosexual unions. And has questioned the Church with failing to appreciate the giftedness of the homosexual. He’s also conducted an ecumenically inclusive mass for Faith and Public Life. That means he has confected the Eucharist, the real presence of Christ, and then invited everyone to communion regardless of their religious beliefs or their state of grace.
Another Red Letter Christian is Alexia Kelly whose part of a campaign called “Life does not end at birth”. Challenging, quote: “Those voices who sought to narrowly define Catholic public identity to a few narrow issues.” By which she names, abortion and homosexual.
In other words, here are two Catholics who are working to undermine Catholic teaching about life and morals, in order to advance other issues. Only it isn’t only other “issues”. It’s the same issues-abortion and same sex marriage. The conclusions defy Catholic teaching.
One could find literally hundreds of rhetorical examples where various spokesmen for Faith in Public Life are attempting to shape public discourse about homosexuality and abortion. With so much apparent diversity of faith traditions, and with members within every U.S. state, faith in Public life is well-positioned to be tapped by media looking for the religious perspective when it writes articles are prepares it newscasts. That’s the idea. This is a well-organized effort to seize the microphone and dominate the public discussion.
Examples of rhetoric:
This is a example taken from a march 14th, 2006 Faith in Public Life press release: “We are speaking out today to insure that the voice of religion in Ohio reflects our American diversity and is not co-opted by intolerant voices.” The intolerant voices to which he refers are those who opposed abortion and homosexual rights.
An second rhetorical example concerns Faith in Public Life speaker Kim Bobo, who is the director of the above-mentioned Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice. A news clip made available on the FPL website says that Bobo sees conservative Christian forces monopolizing the morality in politics debate around such issues as abortion rights and same sex marriage. The FPL blog has another rhetorical example, Roland Martin says, “When did it come to the point that being a Christian meant only caring about two issues, abortion and homosexuality.” Well, isn’t there another question that can be asked here? Why isn’t Mr. Martin asking Martin Luther King’s organization, The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, (which is a FPL member), “when did it come to the point that being a Christian meant caring about only one issue, racism?” Obviously this representative blogger for FPL doesn’t really mind that abortion and homosexuality are important issues to some Christians. He cares that some Christians are saying that abortion and homosexuality are wrong.
One last example, keeping mind that there are literally hundreds of rhetorical examples. And also, as we draw down close to the end of this election cycle in November we will find many more such examples of rhetoric coming from FPL in the press. This one comes from a FPL teleconference on October 31st, 2006. Jim Wallis, one of the primary movers behind FPL complained, saying, “Conventional wisdom immediately accepted from the left and the right was that “moral values” was a code for opposition to gay marriage and abortion.” To the media, along with Wallis, Rabbi David Saperstien cautioned, quote: “As you hone your polling questions for this election (2008) we call on you to choose those that will contribute to a more accurate picture of the American electorate, and to clarify and correct once and for all the misinformation generated from the 2004 morals value question. “ In other words, don’t speak to the pro-lifers.
The point is, that Faith in Public Life is very consciously, very deliberately, very craftily, trying to assure that the mainstream media will not equate pro-life with Catholic moral teaching or traditional Christian ethics. But, at the very least, say over and over again to the voter, who well may be a Catholic or Christian, “there are many voices on the issues of abortion and homosexuality and if you vote pro-abortion it’s okay.”It’s not okay.
There are serious flaws with the talking points and sound bites that FPL is repeating over and over through its numerous media outlets. The first is that pro-lifers and those who hold traditional morals values only care about two issues, abortion and homosexuality. I don’t know any pro-lifer who would argue that it doesn’t matter if a woman can afford diapers, if only she gives birth to her baby. Similarly, I don’t know a single progressive who is indifferent to the issues of abortion and homosexuality. Progressives care very deeply about them. In fact, there are hundreds of organizations in FPL engaged in advocacy for the single issue of abortion rights or homosexual rights. The rhetoric being thrown around by the FPL coalition members is meant to confuse and twist the truth. By repeating the lie that all the religious right cares about are the two issues of abortion and homosexuality, progressives hope to change public perception. They want the pro-life positions and morally traditional positions to become associated with the idea of narrow thinking. It must become uncomfortable to be called a pro-lifer, or a conservative, or religious right. The person who fears being labeled a bigot, for example, and has been condemned to associate any opposition to homosexual demands, as bigoted, has been silenced. Even more significantly, if the majority of voters can be made to associate any opposition to homosexual demands as hateful and bigoted, they will be more likely to vote for politicians with pro homosexual policies.
Inherent to this message is that the immoral is okay. That abortion and homosexual rights advocacy is a legitimate ethical position. The proof it offers is that some people of faith support these positions. FPL argues that it seeks to find common ground on these issues. However this is a duplicitous argument. Do FPLanti-racist organizations seek common ground with the Ku KluxClan? Of course not, some positions are morally untenable, wicked, non-negotiable. Similarly, abortion and homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral. Trying to find common ground with those who would murder babies or legalized same-sex unions is similarly an immoral enterprise.
Regardless of its other concerns, Faith in Public Life is an abortion and homosexual rights propaganda vehicle. Regardless of its other issues FPL efforts are directed to generating support for abortion and homosexual rights among religious people.
In summary, Faith in Public life is operating in every state in the union. It’s operating in Oregon. Numerous Catholic groups are part of the Faith in Public Life coalition in your state. Faith in Public Life is attempting to neutralize, to marginalize, to obstruct, and to eventually destroy pro-life and traditional moral values.
The Catholic Church, one of the most consistent voices for pro-life and moral values is a target for this progressive effort. It’s a target because radicals believe they must clothe theircritical goals withmoral garments. And it’s a target because the Catholic Church, by Catholic monies raised in dioceses’, is funding many of its members operating under Alinskyian organizational principles and promoting Faith in Public Life’s progressive political agenda.
Alinskyian organizing, which has a significant presence in the Faith in Public Life coalition has a long standing relationship with Call to Action. A movement which seeks to alter Church teaching.
So what can we do?
Is there anything that the layperson can do to counter this abuse of the Church? Actually, there is quite a bit one can do. The most obvious concerns the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. Through this collection Catholics are financially supporting many Faith in Public Life organizations. And through them, supporting issues that directly oppose Catholic Church teaching. The Catholic layperson can consider if donating to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development is worthy of his/her money.
One can also disseminate information about the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, about Faith in Public Life, depending on ones situation in life and talents, as well as through communication networks. You can become activists in defending the faith and Church, sharing contacts with folks in other states who could benefit from this information.
People in authority may be contacted. Send them information and speak to them.
Help such folks financially in their works.
It’s urgent that we get the message out. The short-term goal of Faith and Public Life is to assure that the 2008 presidential election puts progressive politicians into office, with all that that means. The long-term goal of Faith in Public Life is to foster abortion and homosexual rights. Particularly disturbing is that many of Faith in Public Life organizations target the Catholic Church for anti-Catholic purposes, and get Catholics to pay for it.
Please help by linking to this article and/or e-mailing it to all Catholics, Christians and other faith traditions who share traditional moral values in common.
To Contact Stephanie Block:
Los Pequeños de Cristo
PO Box 16117
Albuquerque, NM 87191-6117