Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Attitude towards Evil

    In last weekend’s homily I talked about the row happening in the Texas State House as pro-abortion and pro-life groups clash over the proposed sweeping legislation  that would outlaw all abortion after 20 weeks in Texas and that abortion clinics be held to the same standards that all other medical facilities are held to in Texas.  This would close all but 5 abortion clinics in Texas as the majority, though they claim to be about women’s health, do not bother to raise themselves to standard health practices that all other medical facilities must carry.  This is telling, but I digress.  In the midst of the protest from the pro-abortion side, very ugly and evil things have been said.  From praising Satan to saying awful things about he Church to thuggish outbursts of wrath, the other side is not exactly doing themselves any favors in the PR department.  But the images of the anger, the audio of the chants being said, and the rabid ’abortion on demand and without apology’ attitude are off-putting because they are deeply disturbing and thoroughly evil.   This is about the wanting to slaughter infants in the womb; they mask their intent by wrapping it up in the euphemism ‘pro-choice’, but the choice in question is abortion.

    Abortion is evil.  There is no way around this.  It is perpetrated by groups who prey on scared women who under ordinary circumstances would not make such decisions.  It requires a dehumanization of the child in the womb.  This is very dangerous territory.  The dehumanization of a group is first and foremost necessary in the extinction of that group.  Slave owners had to dehumanize the black man and woman so as to justify their owning them as if they were livestock; to justify their buying and selling of human beings. Nazi Germany had to justify their mass slaughter of Jews, handicapped, homosexuals, mentally challenged, and such by dehumanizing these groups.  It is unsettling to admit, from a purely non-emotional viewpoint, it is what has been done with the pre-born in this country and around the world.  Its wanton use is an extension of the eugenics beliefs that were the foundation of Nazi Germany and of Planned Parenthood foundress Margaret Sanger.  Anyone who has read her writings knows that she was a eugenicist and  wished the extermination of ‘human weeds’ through birth control and sterilization.  This is just a matter of historical fact.
    I will wager that most who are pro-choice do not understand this.  I like to believe in the basic fairness and goodness of people and count that when the veil has been drawn that is hiding evil for what it is, they will recoil in horror and switch sides.  I do believe the more we recognize the humanity of the child in the womb and see that life as a precious gift, the better off we will be as a person and as a society. I believe this about those who have had a abortion as well.  Abortion is psychologically a trauma inducing event.  There are wonderful programs like “Rachel’s Vineyard’ that are specifically designed to help those who have suffered an abortion to receive the help necessary to properly grieve and heal.  It is highly unwise and against our faith to condemn those who have had an abortion without reaching out to help and heal.  As Catholics, our first option is always mercy and compassion.  It is not condemnation and shunning!  Why?  Because were God interested in condemnation and shunning, He would never have sent His Son.  He does, however, and that needs to sink into our hearts, minds, and souls.
    The bigger question is what do we do with the rabid evil doer.  What we do with the hate filled and unrepentant?  Certainly this circus in Austin, Texas has shown us the wrathful face of such people.  I have had suggested to me that Scripture tells us to write them off and shake the dust from our feet in witness against them.   Those who reject Christ do so at their own peril.  Those who reject God’s love choose a path of eternal desolation, isolation, and sadness that will eternally inflict them with the same agony of fire.  When I see the faces of those screaming obscenities, praising darkness and evil, encouraging selfishness and narcissism, it does not enrage me to seek and rejoice in their condemnation; it leads me to mourn what they are doing to themselves, mourn for the path they are choosing, and pray for their conversion.  It leads me to extend the same attitude that Christ first showed me in my own sinfulness and selfishness.  In all humility, my mortal sins accomplish the same end as those whom I am seeing in Texas State House.  Mortal sin is mortal sin.  If I wish God to have mercy on me, then, as Scripture repeatedly reminds us, my attitude towards others MUST be one of mercy as well.   The Gospel never tells us to gloat over the downfall of those who oppose Christ.  Each person who chooses that downfall of their own free will was not created for that downfall. 

    Our attitude is to be of mercy to all.  Sometimes we can act as if condemnation of peoples somehow will make things better.  It doesn’t.  Do we condemn actions?  Absolutely!  Do we condemn people?  Absolutely not!  That belongs to God alone. For our part, we are to pray for and extend mercy towards those who are filled with hate towards us.  It is the only way the Gospel has been spread.  St. Paul went into hostile territory many times over.  St. Peter did as well.  So did St. Patrick…and St Boniface…and SS. Cyril and Methodius…and St Isaac Jocques…St Thomas More…St Francis Xavier…and this list could go on and on.  Mercy and evangelization are not a one and done kind of thing!  As long as others are drawing breath, the possibility for embracing Christ is possible.  We cannot sit idly by or even self-righteously by and take comfort in another’s condemnation.

    It goes to a primary disposition of how we view others.  All are sinners in God’s eyes, St. Paul reminds us, but He still loves each and every one if us nonetheless.  While He will allow to abide by our decisions for or against Him, He will always call us back as long as we live and breathe.  If this is His attitude to those who would call themselves His enemies, can our attitude be any less?  No Catholic should rejoice in or even need people in hell!  There will be and that is so very sad.  We do not get to set the guest list for hell.  We must always give witness to and example  of the Gospel.  We must never write anyone off as beyond redemption or salvation…ever! For as long as they are here, the opportunity exist.  Thus we have a duty to reach out.  When a person is drowning, we do what we can to reach out to save them; we don’t take glee in their mistake, we don’t sit in condemnation, we don’t ignore them.  When I see the faces of those deformed by their own hate and selfishness, I do not see something to ignore or despise…quite the opposite!  I see someone to pray for and extend a loving mercy to- not in some smarmy self-righteous condescending way, but as one who actively wants their good…even if they don’t currently want it for themselves.


  1. It's sad to see how much darkness and hatred you harbor in your heart. And then make statements about being tolerant like this:

    "Our attitude is to be of mercy to all. Sometimes we can act as if condemnation of peoples somehow will make things better. It doesn’t. Do we condemn actions? Absolutely! Do we condemn people? Absolutely not! That belongs to God alone."

    But you do condemn people and wrongly too. Here's an example of the hatred and acrimony your distorted world view has burdened you with. These are your own words. Your own false assertions:

    "The non-believer, however, has no choice but to scoff, mock, and dismiss. As their only hope is in this world and the short lifetime we are given here, the sense of hopelessness only sets in deeper as they see the same things we do. They either ignore it through total self-consumption or rage against religion because it doesn't protect them from the free choice of others nor does it give them all they want, in the quantity they want, and it isolates them from any divine compassion. They need there to be no miracles and no divine power. If such things do exists, they know that all of their reality is built on sand and that they are blowing the one chance they have at happiness. This is why so many are so angry. Life with no God is an angry and desolate place; an exercise in futility that no amount of money, power, honor, or pleasure can satiate. It is something I want no part of. Furthermore, it is not reality."

    You're attacking the many good, decent, HONEST, and caring people who are critical thinkers and use truth, evidence and reason to sort fact from fiction rather than blind obedience, superstition and a selfish desire to avoid punishment and receive some grand reward. Those people don't hate and scorn others with a different world view as you yourself do. They coexist peacefully with all religious people, while simply choosing not to pretend that the supernatural world cobbled together by ancient, primitive men is real.

    By the way, if you're going to use the internet to blog, you should also have the courage to leave replies to your blogs up. Since you seem to run from the light of truth and reason and delete comments that agree with your narrow, dark world view, I'll be sure to copy your blogs and then add my responses and post them on my own blog. That will at least give others a chance to grow as enlightened, decent human beings.

  2. Should read: Since you seem to run from the light of truth and reason and delete comments that DISagree with your narrow, dark world view,

    1. Interesting to know that I am not the only person who had comments removed. He actually deleted comments I posted in defense of my character after he, unprovoked, posted a blog written ABOUT me.

      That is correct. A blog was written about me by a person I have never spoken to before, and I was never given the opportunity to defend myself. You really do have to wonder whose morals are actually in question.

      I also have a blog and will be copying this to my own as well, since that seems to be the only way to prevent responses from being deleted.

  3. So the critical thinkers who you scorn as souless, evil people, were right about the "angel" priest.

    1. Enjoying the irony That I cannot comment on your website. That and why do you care what I wrote? I didn't force my opinion upon you. I did not make you come to my blog. You chose that. You wildly misread what I wrote as I did not come down on one side or the other about if this were a actual priest or a angel. Either way, regardless of your disbelief, there was divine intervention. You want to call it 'superstition'? Okay.

  4. actually, the last time I deleted, I was going on vacation and had no time to monitor comments. Since you have such a disgust with me, I knew it would require time to respond that I didn't have. Now that I am back, I read your comments and see that response would be futile as you have already developed an opinion about me that I doubt any amount of argumentation will dispel. There is evil. Abortion is evil. I do make a distinction between the action and the person. You have your opinion and I have mine. We will see which is correct in the long run. I base mine in human history. We have been at this juncture before. It didn't end well then either.

    1. For what reason did you delete the comments I made under the blog you posted in my honor?

    2. It might have had something to do with my dad just dying.

    3. As I've made very clear, I am deeply saddened by the death of your father.

      His death does not, however, give you the right to post things that are blatantly untrue about a complete stranger and then delete their response. So please don't insinuate that I was somehow out of line by clearing up lies you told during a time of grief in your life. You are not beyond criticism.

      This paragraph in particular was unbelievably offensive:

      I know she meant well in helping her friend deal with the loss of her dad, but I was struck by the hopelessness of those words and how they wanted to drag my sister into that same hopelessness, a hopelessness that my dad would have categorically disagreed with intensely and would have taken great offense that someone was using this opportunity to directly dismiss his own deep held faith with one of his children.

      As far as the word “hopelessness” you continued to throw around, I posted my original status update under your blog. Please reread it. If you continue to detect hopelessness, your interpretation is the result of something your brain is doing, not the words written. Secondly, your fallacious claim that I want to drag your sister into a world of hopelessness was repugnant. As if that wasn't offensive enough, you continue on, suggesting that your father would have been greatly offended by my words. Finally, you assert that I was using his death as an opportunity to dismiss his faith with one of his children?

      How dare you?

      Beyond the many revolting things you said about me, did you ever think it would upset your sister if you posted something terrible about her friend mere days after her father's death? At least I had the decency to check with her before responding.

      I will respond to your other statements later this evening.

    4. Why do you care? I was speaking in generalities to start. If you took it as a personal attack, I apologize. It was not meant to be. That said, I did not see it as an attack on me as much as questioning my dad's beliefs. Timing is everything. My dad had just died and whether you agree with or not, he was deeply religious. I am not saying he was perfect. Had you made this a private note between you and Ann, I would be okay with that. However, you made it a public thing that you had to know would be read by the rest of his children, two of whom share their father's faith. Now, I wish you to put yourself in my shoes. Your dad just read a post to a sibling that dismisses his deeply held convictions...mind haven't had his funeral yet. I know my dad. you didn't. I know his temperament, his beliefs, and spent many long hours listening to him. Did you. I think I might know better what he would and would not have been offended by.

      This is my last word. I'll not be arguing with someone who is playing a zero sum game. I respect your wish to be an atheist or agnostic even if I thoroughly disagree with it. You were the one who put this in the public domain, not I. In putting in the public domain it was no longer directed merely at my sister. It was directed at anyone who would read it. I read it and was hurt that my dad's beliefs were dismissed to his daughter on the occasion of his death. It might not have been your purpose nor intent, but it is what was accomplished. Had this been for her eyes only, this post would not exist nor would this conversation.

      Again, intents are one thing, results another. I will just remind you that it is my dad we are talking about and as his son who believes what he did (to some degree) I have a right to my beliefs as well.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. To both of you. Jenny, I can least understand your anger. My public post was a response to your public post. Siobhan, I do not go onto atheist websites cruising for indignation. Nor do I bother anymore to anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-religion, anti-cleric post or comments anymore as my fingers would be worn to nubs. You have a right to your beliefs, as much as I might disagree with them. I also have a right to mine, as much as you might disagree with them. For heaven's sake, you came onto a priest's website.