Institutional “Enabling” And the HHS Mandate

Last week I wrote some thoughts on the tragic death of Whitney Houston.  In that article, I also opened up regarding some of my own personal past events, in an attempt to relate, as best I could, to the sad but clear truth that we could all without a doubt be a “Whitney,” had we been thus enabled by walking in her shoes and situation.

In re-reading my piece, I began to find myself further exploring the whole idea of “enabling” on a societal level, whether drugs, alcohol, or within the realm of sexuality.  It briefly occurred to me then, but more so now, how much the entire flap over forced payment of contraception and abortifacients by church and para-church organizations is indeed a case of this type of enablement.

What I do not think people fully realize, even those who are against this move by the Obama administration, is how much of a slippery slope we have already been on to even bring us to this point, or for how many years. It was called in the 1960s the “New Morality.” With that change in paradigms the birth control “Pill” became common, living together outside of marriage was suddenly acceptable, and sexuality in all forms was openly explored. It was no longer tied to one of its main purposes, which is the continuation of the human species, and became an end in itself. That altered thinking or, as some call it, the “contraceptive mentality,” was major in its ramifications. It was no longer the “norm” for a woman to stay at home and raise a family, but became just as common or more so to work and day care centers began to boom as an industry. Divorce became “no-fault” and those, like myself, from backgrounds of same-sex attraction too were liberated. What had been commonly accepted as correct behavior was turned on its head in a short enough time that I, even as a child and then teen during that era, easily observed the entire change by the time I graduated from high school, the year after Roe v Wade legalized abortion on demand nationwide.

I have seen many who have written on the Constitutional and religious liberty issues with regard to this issue but not so much on this more subtle piece to the puzzle. Perhaps we shy away from it due to our own senses of guilt or shame, or other reasons too, but I think we need to face squarely the fact that our society allowed this to happen and did not in fact even notice it coming because we were too busy participating.  Some forward-thinking people, such as Pope Paul VI, obviously did, to be sure, but they were considered to be overly inflammatory, “haters,” or just plain gloom-and-doom types who did not really know the score.  As it turns out, they were the only ones actually keeping score.

Image via Wikipedia

We as fallen humans use some very complex psychology in order to enable others on any level, personal or otherwise. We first try to second-guess what might be the best for people, basing it upon possible or probable future behavior, whether good or bad.  Instead of then dealing with the underlying behavior issues, such as in this instance sexual promiscuity and wanton selfishness, we try to help them to plan for it. The faultiness in this approach is clear to me just by looking at my own past grievous faults and actions.

In my other article, I speak of a man with whom I was briefly involved in 1993, one who turned out to be HIV positive (the virus which causes AIDS).  The ironic thing is that I had never been in even a remotely dangerous sexual liaison until in my early 30s and in the process of divorcing, and had lost my dearest friend in ministry, as well as his wife, in the mid-1980s to this lethal illness. In his case it was due to a drug-dependent past, and then after he became a committed Christian he unknowingly passed it on to his equally unsuspecting wife. So I was aware of the horror of HIV/AIDS early on.  I was also educated on ways to prevent it.  But I still stepped into the trap of risk-taking.  And the very people who aided and abetted me in those risks were the same ones whose stated intentions were to help people make wiser decisions, such as the MN AIDS Project and others.  Let me be clear that no one told me to take risks. But it was assumed that I would, and thus thought necessary to teach me how to minimize them while maximizing my own pursuits for pleasure.

Image via Wikipedia

Obviously I was old enough and knew enough that I must own any choices I made at that time, but the fact remains that I might have been swayed otherwise if I had been warned more clearly about the gravity of the perils I was walking into, even of such things as failed condom usage and of the many other sexually transmitted diseases not always prevented by “playing the field” as I was heartily doing, even in a supposedly “safe” manner.  Instead the local LGBT bars handed out condoms for free to all customers, and the view was very simply that “we were going to do it anyway” so we might as well do it as safely as possible.

The striking similarity between giving an alcoholic just enough drinks to make him or her “feel good” and then to hang upon the futile hope that they will cheerfully comply with a 2 or 3 drink limit is an irony not lost to me. The bars, the MN AIDS Project, the LGBT publications, and even the “gay-friendly” churches all presumed the same thing—that being sexually active was the “new norm.” And, partly at least owing to that pervasive attitude, we did exactly that. People strongly tend to act as they are expected to. Basic psychology 101.

For my part I was not overly risky in my activities, and always stayed within commonly recommended “safer sex” guidelines. But when a person who I had spent one passionate night with died just one year later, of a disease I had sworn I would never allow myself to even get near to, it jolted within me a wakeup call, slowing me down abruptly  and considerably.  While it was several more years before I became fully celibate, I was suddenly far more particular as to who I went home with and how often, knowing that each encounter could be the one that might give me that dreaded and lethal condition. In effect the “field” became less fun but had far fewer weeds at that point.

The idea therefore that we must provide easy contraception for women who are sexually active is ludicrous to me in the same way as the well-intentioned folks at the bar who used to give me condoms by the dozen at no charge.  In both cases we are expecting the worst, not the best, to occur, and in doing so we essentially make it easier to happen.  That is what enabling does.

I was blessed, not deserving so, I might add, to find myself after 9 months of tests to still to be HIV negative. Other people, good people who our Lord loves and who carry His dignity and image, have not been so blessed as me.  But I wish to heaven someone out there had truly cared enough to not suggest that I have “safer sex,” but instead would have seriously challenged me to be celibate.  I am not sure I would have listened—but I might have—and did eventually.  No one though within the LGBT community or for that matter among other family and friends ever even attempted such a thing. Not one, and not once that I recall at least.

Fast-forwarding to now, in the name of “women’s health” of all things, we are doing the exact same type of enabling with HHS. The idea of even suggesting abstinence is approximately somewhere between idiotic and far-fetched to many of the people involved, and yet one of them is a faithful and at least apparently monogamous husband (President Obama), several are noted Catholic women with longstanding marriages, such as Kathleen Sibelius and Nancy Pelosi, and one, the head of the Catholic Health Care Association, Sister Carol Sheehan, has taken a lifetime vow of celibacy and chastity, which we can only assume she follows personally.  What a strange, strange group to be promoting promiscuity in the name of health!!!  How it must be a stench before our God.

Image via Wikipedia

Revelation speaks of the “whore of Babylon” and her desire to spread her immorality to others. Why would the above-mentioned group (picture is slightly different), all who claim to be practicing Christians, spend so much of their valuable time, efforts, and even reputations to do the same?

Image via Wikipedia

Birth control is not illegal in this nation.  Nor, for that matter, is abortion sadly.  But the idea that it is somehow our moral responsibility to begin paying for such services to those who otherwise could not afford it, rather than using that same exertion and money in educating  those women (and men) in better ways to live, such as abstinence outside of marriage and NFP (Natural Family Planning) within it, which has been long proven to work just as well as the “Pill” by the way, causes me to wonder just what could motivate anyone who names the name of Christ to encourage others to do things with their bodies that they themselves clearly choose not to do?  The word stupid does not begin to describe it.

I am baffled, sickened and irate about this whole thing, as are many, many others. But I know one thing on a first-hand level that seems to be missed in this whole argument in both directions. I know the fear and apprehension that comes from supposedly “safer sex.” And I have seen friends die from it.  That to me is reason enough to oppose this immoral mandate.

Image via Wikipedia

Adding one last but very crucial point, the MN AIDS Project does many fine things. I would take nothing away the fact that they have pioneered efforts to fight HIV when few were doing so. I am simply saying that I fervently wish they would add abstinence education to their agenda. I do not expect them to do so, however. So this is not primarily about them–but it is about me and the many of us who once supported everything within the LGBT community, and can no longer do so.  However they (MN AIDS Project) do raise much money each year to fight AIDS and to help, in practical ways, those who currently are afflicted with it. A link to some of those activities is listed just below this paragraph. A better approach however might be to give to Catholic groups who also assist those with AIDS, but do so without advancing the idea of so-called “safer sex” but instead abstinence and helping people to achieve this this goal, no matter what their sexual inclination may be. Many such fine groups exist, such as Catholic Relief Services and the apostolate Courage. Their links are just below as well: 

http://crs.org/hiv-aids/

http://couragerc.net/

https://community.mnaidsproject.org/aidswalk

OTHER Related articles

• CELIBATE BUT NOT CHASTE??? CHASTE BUT NOT CELIBATE??? A Quick Catholic “Snapshot” of SSA Theology (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• Thoughts on a Tough Topic – Contraception and Rome (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• HIV warning to women using injectable contraception (guardian.co.uk)
• HIV-positive man deported from Canada for not disclosing status to sexual partners (calgaryherald.com)
• The Little Sisters of Limousine Liberalism (spectator.org)
• Catholic Churches Distribute Letter Opposing Obama Healthcare Rule – ABC News (blog) (abcnews.go.com)
• Pelosi parts ways with bishops yet again, opposes abortion exemptions for Catholic healthcare facilities (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)
• Sebelius touts health IT initiative in KC (kansas.com)
• Sebelius Didn’t Consult Bishops on Contraception Deal (blogs.wsj.com)
• Sebelius Smears Catholic Insurers (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)
• Clearing Confusion on Who Speaks for the Church | Suffering With Joy (intostillness.wordpress.com)
• The Politics of Sex: Where Does Obama Stand? (bizgovsoc2.wordpress.com)
• Obama: Supporting LGBT Rights Is ‘Profoundly American’ (thinkprogress.org)
• ‘To Hell With You’ (catholicglasses.com)
• Archbishop Wenski: “The President Should Honor His Pledge” (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)

Pro-Life or “Anti-Abortion”? Who Decides???

Tonight I wish to tackle a few varied thoughts on the topic of “pro-life” and what that really means.  In the generation of “political correctness,” one of the things often mentioned is to call people or groups by their preferred terminology.  For example, most people of African origin in the United States tend to prefer the term “African-American” to “black.”  Most actively homosexual people prefer “gay” to a host of other terms, some very ugly and derogatory, and the majority of females today tend to prefer being referred to as ”women” rather than ”ladies.”  I for one think we should honor and respect those wishes for the most part, at least, unless it totally violates our personal convictions as the people of God.

What I find amazing, however, is that the reverse respect is not particularly applied. The very same people who would never disrespect someone racially or ethnically have no issue with changing the terminology used for those of us who are “pro-lifers” just for one. Almost without exception the term now chosen for us is “anti-abortion” while they remain “pro-choice” and would be very deeply offended if we called them “pro-abortion” or, worse but more accurately, ”pro-deathers.”  Yet one day someone, somewhere, decided it was more “correct” all around to change our  movement’s preferred name, without asking those of us who actively support saving the lives of the unborn, as “anti-abortionists.” And somehow it seems to have stuck.

Part of the issue of course is valid–there are many supposedly “pro-lifers”  who are anxious to save the unborn but do not show much concern for the currently and visibly alive here on earth, such as those in abject poverty or immigrants, or those on death row. Whatever one’s view on those issues, at very least we must deeply and actively care about the people who are in those situations. That too is part of being “pro-life” and always has been.   Still, should it not be our choice what to call our own movement?  I think the answer is fairly obvious.

But there is a deeper issue at hand. What is the motive behind this unasked-for change in terminology?  I would contend it has to do with the continuing attempt to bring us together with the “pro-choice” movement. And while there are people on both sides of the issue who are honestly of good will, and who care deeply about society, we as “pro-life” folks have the specific goal of eliminating abortion from society, or at very least lessening its frequency and perceived need. That of course is a huge threat to the other camp whose main concern is the “woman’s right to choose.” President Barack Obama, arguably one of the most blatantly “pro-choice” leaders in the entire world today, rather creepily used the 39th anniversary of Roe v Wade to express his desire to keep abortion “safe and legal.”  Here are his remarks on a day which many of us mark as one of the most tragic in world history. He rejoices for the women while we mourn for the untold millions of unborn.

-

Image via Wikipedia

obama-celebrates-roe-vs-wade-decision-54-million-abortions

What is so blatantly and patently  false about this line of reasoning is something which should be painfully obvious to all, no matter what the economics, ethnicity or genders involved.  Simply this–with the rare exceptions of rape and incest, women do not generally become pregnant all by themselves. The Supreme Court ruling in 1973 supposedly was put into place to “protect” the woman’s right to choose what  she does with her own body–but with no consideration whatsoever that she has already made that choice by freely joining her body to another human of the male species in order to create the crisis situation in the first place. Very few pregnancies are forced upon anyone.

-

Yet the father has no “choice” at all in whether to save or raise his own child simply due to the physical location of the unborn baby. How that can be considered “Constitutional” by a Constitutional attorney who is now our President is beyond imagination to me. I was told last year by several well-meaning people, when I posted some similar items on my Face Book page, that, as a male, I simply had “no vote in the matter.” Period. This kind of prejudice against life is absolutely staggering to me. For the record I in no way judge the women having abortions and never have, and I say that with all of my heart, but nor do I believe that the rights of the father should be dismissed either, to say nothing of the unborn child. The prevailing attitude has gone from one extreme to the other in so many tragic cases.  May God forgive us all for contributing to this problem, whether directly or indirectly.  And my silence and apathy has done so many times in the past.  I pray it will do so no more however.

-

I might add that the same line of reasoning applies to the decision to force insurance companies to pay for contraception, also led by Obama administration of late.  Below is a link to a powerful article on this topic.  Even if you do not agree, I would challenge you to check it out with an open mind and heart.  The writer, Thomas Peters, shares some tremendously compelling points:

-

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=25390

-

I would only add the following to his remarks via the comments which I also posted on his page:

-

People wonder why Catholics have joined forces with conservative politics increasingly over the past few years–a question I have asked myself as well even after returning to the Church. Well here is an example of why. We as Catholic Christians are in the dubious position of believing in social teaching that is generous to the poor and needy, as well it should be, however having even those terms redefined for us by the far left in ways such as this. We should pay for someone’s contraception so that they can freely have sexual activity without, as President Obama once said regarding his own daughter and potential grandchild, “being punished with a pregnancy.”  And the mantra is, “they are going to do it anyway.”  I am not sure when enabling people to do that which many of us consider to be sinful, as well as harmful to themselves and society, became the government’s job to enforce and regulate. But here it is.  We thought George Orwell‘s “1984″ would come about by dictatorship, and in reality it is coming about instead in the name of freedom. But it still ends up to be a very real form of personal oppression, by practicing, as Pope Benedict XVI aptly calls it, “the dictatorship of relativism.” And that is even more insidious because those of us who believe otherwise have gradually become the “narrow and intolerant” if we dare to disagree. Frightening.

-

The bottom line: we do really live in a “culture of death” as Blessed John Paul II told us while on this earth.  And if we do not speak up, exactly who will? Especially when the media and politically elite within our society attempt to subtly silence and pigeon-hole us by stealing our own “Pro-life” terminology? Think about it.

-

Image via Wikipedia

Related articles

• That Old Abortion Issue (inactiveactivist.wordpress.com)
• Over 400,000 March For Life In Washington DC (Pics and Videos) (wdednh.wordpress.com)
• Activists Will Stand for Life Outside NARAL’s Macabre “Celebration” of Abortion Deaths (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)
• “Abortion is as American as Apple Pie” – The Culture of Death Finds a Voice (trinityspeaks.wordpress.com)
• Abortion Not (Just) A Religious Issue – It’s Terry O’Neill Who Is “Poppycock” (neosecularist.com)
• Pro-Life Resources (pjcockrell.wordpress.com)
• Hostile Abortion Advocates Disrupt Prayer Service (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)
• -San Francisco: 40,000+ in West Coast ‘Pro-life’ March (answersforthefaith.com)

Roe V Wade And Christian Unity

This may easily be one of the more “controversial” posts I ever share here.  The reason being, I sincerely doubt it will make those on either side of these issues particularly delighted or excited. But I will do my best to share it with first of all truth, but no less so, love.  I hope you will at least hear me out.

Image via Wikipedia

Let me say at the outset that I think Roe was a travesty of justice.  The killing machines such as Planned Parenthood and others who turned abortion into a lucrative business as a result need to be de-funded and dismantled. My views on that are unambiguous.

Where it becomes “dicey” however is the logistics of this. Having worked for several years during the early 1980s in a very effective, Christ centered drug and alcohol outreach program by the name of New Life Outreach International (based in Richmond, Virginia), I saw first-hand how ineffectual the government and law was in changing the day-by-day environment which caused such issues in the first place. Whether illegal drugs, easy abortion, or a host of other life-controlling issues, the biggest thing we as a ministry attempted to bring to those who came in our direction was a life-changing hope based upon a living relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. And yes, I used the word “relationship.”

To those still obsessing on Jefferson Bethke’s video about “loving Jesus but hating religion,” I think many are missing the entire point of what he rather brilliantly shared. Christianity is indeed a religion, to be sure.  But it is far beyond that.  If all you have religion (and this includes Catholicism by the way) but no relationship, then the gift of the Sacraments tends to mean very little, whether in this life or the next–not because they do not work or are not real, but because, somewhere along the way, the “cart begins to drive the horse.”  Let me explain.

Image via Wikipedia

Blessed Mother Teresa was a prime example of understanding this, and even many Catholics at the time she became well-known did not agree with her approach of spending more time doing good rather than preaching doctrine. Obviously she did both, but she started, and sometimes finished, where the people she ministered to were at. And that is what we as Catholics very often miss and totally. We are “mad” that Tim Tebow is leading people in droves to Google the verse John 3:16, forgetting that he is, in reality, pointing those people towards the very same Jesus who will one day lead those same people to the Sacramental life. We can water and nourish the seed he plants if we choose to.

If he for instance went around saying “Hey get baptized, get confirmed, believe in the Eucharist,” or the like, all of which I believe are true and valid, so let me be clear on that, he would most likely lose the very audience who needs to hear, on a more primal level, that God actually loves them–and sent His Son to save them. Instead he directs them to John 3:16, and lets God plant His Word as a seed in their hearts. That after all is the starting point–and the only starting point, to all of the rest. And while arguably incomplete, he is actually preaching a primitive ”Catholicism” to the masses in a way that they might never hear in church–and to people who might never actually darken the door of one otherwise.  I am slow to criticize that.

Back to my main point then–what do Tebow, Bethke, and Blessed Mother T have in common here?  They each start with a “personal relationship with Christ” and go from there, rather than the other way around. And we as Catholics tend to gloss right over that point.  We think if we “get people into the Church” they will somehow be saved. And not much could be further from the truth.  Jesus even warns against this approach, strongly reproaching the Pharisees who were going hither and yonder chasing down converts to Judaism, and then turning them into “worse sons of hell” than they were to begin with.  Those are some strong words, folks.  I have been through the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) process 3 different times–one as a “student,” if you will, as preparation for my own Confirmation in 2006, and the other two times as a sponsor of others coming into the Church. One thing I noticed  all 3 years of this otherwise very good and solid Catholic prep was a lack of emphasis on personal surrender to Christ. They taught about Him and Church doctrine but missing was the challenge to give ourselves to Him wholly.  To be sure, some, hopefully many, got that message too.  But it was never clearly articulated. Why? Or better, why not? We as Catholics believe in it after all. We believe that the single most important thing one can do is repent of our sins, “take up our cross,” and to follow Jesus. For someone raised in a solid Catholic family that of course begins with baptism.  For many others it however does not. The very idea of becoming a “Catechumen” is to take a person who has made that surrender, clarify to them what it means to their lives, and then and only then to baptize them.  That is the main connecting point between us and  our Protestant brothers and sisters, and something we share in common with them. It is what makes us one family. And by the way we are.

Every Sunday at Mass we confess our sins and then recite/pray the Nicaean Creed, finally climaxing with an “altar call” where we receive Jesus personally in the Holy Eucharist/Holy Communion.  How is it that we of all people miss the message of the most basic path towards salvation then, which starts and ends with repentance and faith?  Someone lately pointed out to me that a person who is comatose or dies before the age of reason can be baptized and still go to heaven, without consciously repenting. While that of course is true, the norm, the very baptismal “vows” our godparents take for us as infants, points us to a time when we personalize the moment by our own acceptance of Jesus, renouncing of the devil, and turning away from sin. In short, as our evangelical family often calls it, “getting saved.” For many of us it happens at first Reconciliation or First Holy Communion, or at our Confirmation.  But it does happen. And without initial conversion we cannot find the deeper conversions which eventually lead us to heaven. And, while terminology may differ, many of our Protestant Christian brothers and sisters agree with this concept totally.

We (Catholic Christians) often miss sharing this with others, though,  because we do not clearly understand it ourselves. We are taught, and rightly so, that the Sacraments efficaciously bring those gifts to us–and they do. But how?  Sacraments are conduits, not guarantees, towards a personal and dynamic walk with Christ. And somehow we often move right past telling those converting into the Catholic Christian Faith how to even begin doing so. If those we “convert” still do not realize that they are actual sinners, needing the grace freely given in Christ from His Cross and Resurrection, and then challenge them to turn away from all known sin, we have only as one of my priests wisely said, “bagged a Catholic.” And bags are for those who are dead.

So how does this fit with Roe v Wade, politics, and being pro-life?  Lots. On my own journey back to Christ within the Church, I “stopped off” for a bit at a church in St Paul, MN pastored by Dr Greg Boyd.  It is important for me to say that I did not then and do not now agree with all of his theology. But his attitude and openness was amazing to me. This evangelical “mega church” pastor of 4000 took the time to take me out for a beer (yes I said beer!) at a time when, unbeknownst to me, his congregation was falling to pieces, at least temporarily. I much later discovered that CNN had even covered and chronicled the transformation which took place when he began teaching a series called “The Cross and the Sword,” and I was there for it. In it he covers a host of issues, everything from abortion to homosexuality to political preferences, and does so with a willingness to allow all sides of each of these issues to “live and let live.”  Due to this he lost at least 1000 members. If I had not become Catholic again just a few months later he would have had me, if nothing else due to the love and kindness he showed, and the utter courage from the pulpit he exercised in sharing his convictions to an at times hostile and volatile crowd. Again I was oblivious to all of this at the time. But looking back I realize God’s hand in allowing our paths to cross, even for that short period in my search for a God of both love and justice, which I thankfully eventually found in Rome. Below is the interview from CNN:

You may notice something important which he shares, almost in passing, about abortion issues. He points out studies which indicate that one of the most effective ways to eliminate abortion is to help people out of poverty. And his church does this valiantly. So by the way does Tim Tebow, as well as Jefferson Bethke’s church, Mars Hill, pastored by Mark Driscoll. We can march each year for Life and we should. But if we do nothing else, and do not give people better alternatives afterwards, what difference will it actually make if Roe v Wade is overturned?  Not a hell of a lot, I am afraid.

And if all we can do as Catholic Christians is fight and dare I say nitpick over whether Jefferson Bethke is “right or wrong” in his video rap, then we have missed the main point of the Sacramental life ourselves. It is absolutely no surprise that Bethke feels “religion” has its limits, and no wonder he finds himself separating the idea of a personal walk with Christ from that same organized ”religion.”  What amazes me most is that many of my formerly evangelical brothers and sisters have been the very most critical of his approach when we of all people should know better. After all some of them, just like me, left the Catholic Church for a good long period of time because we did not see it there. Again, it was and is there of course, but no one told us about it. Maybe we see in him what we once understood more clearly in our Protestant years, and that makes us just a little bit uncomfortable.  And just maybe it should.

Related articles

• Remembering Roe v. Wade, 39 years later (aleksandreia.com)
• “Loving Jesus” – 3rd Take (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• Loving Jesus, Hating “Religion” – Yet Another Take (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• Take Four…Jesus and Religion (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• Catholic First, Christian First (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• Sharing intimacy of faith (cinhosa.wordpress.com)
• Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus Cont’d (makeafriar.com)
• You Can’t Hate Religion and Love Jesus (patheos.com)
• Roe vs Wade – Still An Issue? (justcallmepastor.wordpress.com)
• Why I Love Religion, And Jesus (frstephensmuts.wordpress.com)
• Drowning in the Tiber – A Short Detour from Rome… (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• My Story…Again (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)