REACH LEFT!
(originally written for a meeting in
New Jersey in 2015)
Apologia
Hypocrisy
makes me puke. Which is a problem.
St. Maximos: “That man is a thief who in order to deceive his
hearers pretends to reverence divine principles. Although he has not come to know the true
quality of these principles through his actions, he traffics in glory merely by
speaking about it, hoping that in this manner he will be thought righteous by
his hearers and so capture their admiration.
To put it simply, he whose way of life does not match his speech, and
whose inner disposition is opposed to spiritual knowledge, is a thief whose
appropriation of what is not his proves him to be evil. Scripture fittingly addresses these words to
him: ‘But to the wicked God says, Why do you speak of my statutes and
appropriate my covenant with your mouth?’” (Psalm 50: 16)
St. Maximos continued: “That man also is a thief who conceals his
soul’s unseen evil behind a seemingly virtuous way of life, and disguises his
inner disposition with an affected innocence.
Just as one kind of thief filches his audience’s mind by uttering words
of wisdom, so this kind pilfers the senses of those who see him by his pretense
of virtue. To him it will be said, ‘Be
ashamed of yourselves, all you who are dressed in clothes that do not belong to
you’ (Zeph 1:8), and ‘In that day, the Lord will reveal their pretense.’ I seem to hear the Lord saying these things
to me daily in the hidden workshop of my heart, and I feel that I am explicitly
condemned on both counts.” (From The Philokalia: Complete Text, Volume Two. Edited by G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard,
Kallistos Ware; published in London by Faber and Faber, Ltd, in 1981.)
These words are from St. Maximos the Confessor. I make them my
own. The accusations that Maximos heard in the workshop of his heart certainly
apply to me even more.
+
+ + + +
C.S.
Lewis was asked to explain an oddity about Screwtape
Letters: he wrote about many different sins, but never about homosexuality
or gambling. Did he consider these sins
unimportant? Lewis replied that he wrote only about sins he knew from the
inside out. I find his words
comforting. It’s a wry joke that I find
myself writing about (1) nonviolence and (2) chastity and (3) civility, because
I have wrestled all my life with (1) anger and (2) lust, and I am addicted to
(3) savage argument. I love virtue, not like a professional who has mastered
these things, but more like the amateur who admires from afar.
I
argue, and it may cripple me. I am not at all confident that I can persuade
pro-lifers at this point in history (2017) to reach out to people with whom
they disagree. The nation is bitterly divided. And pro-lifers are also divided,
in an odd and startling way. The most important leadership body – the Pope and
bishops of the Catholic Church – is completely unified standing for hospitality
to unborn children and to immigrants. But most visible pro-life leaders other
than the bishops are committed to hospitality to the unborn and not refugees and immigrants. So I stand
in complete opposition to the new president: I think he is a disgrace to the
office, unfit to lead a nation, destructive of so many precious things that
it’s hard to keep track of the damage he has done, is doing, and promises to
do. Do I have a chance of reaching across that divide, maintaining a civil
dialogue with old friends who supported him, and still defend him? I don’t
know. I will try. From the bottom of my heart, I apologize for anything I have
said that was disrespectful of people who – in good faith – sought to protect
children by voting for anybody-but-Hillary. But will that be enough? I don’t
know. The nation is bitterly divided.
Introduction
Come, Lord Jesus! Come, Holy Spirit! Bring us to the Father!
I’ve been talking about pro-life nonviolence since 1975. I
am certain that it is the heart of an effective pro-life movement. But I am
aware that most people, including most pro-lifers, think that “nonviolence”
means “don’t hit anybody.” So a serious nonviolent campaign will require
serious preparation – including remediation.
And I’ve been writing about eugenics since 1985. I am certain
that eugenics is the driving force behind abortion. It’s not the reason that a
woman shows up at an abortion clinic, but it is the reason that the abortion
clinic exists, and that many people think she oughta go there. I am convinced
that we misunderstand our opponents completely until we understand eugenics
thoroughly.
But more fundamentally, I’ve been praying for the unity of the
Church since 1957. The version of the “Morning Offering” that the nuns taught
me in the 1950s included a prayer for the unity of the Church. And my thinking
as an adult was shaped, at root, by the Second Vatican Council, especially The Church in the Modern World. When I
started college, I was interviewed by a Crimson
reporter for an article about the concerns of incoming freshmen. Vietnam? Civil
rights? Freedom of speech? Free sex and drugs? I remember the disgust and
contempt that washed over the reporter’s face when I answered that what worried
me most was the deep division in the Church – leftwing Catholics at the Catholic
Student Center focused on war against
rightwing Catholics at the Opus Dei House focused on Humanae Vitae. They didn’t cooperate much, didn’t like each other.
Today, I remain convinced that the Church is supposed to be unified. Every
real strategy starts here.
For a Catholic, the unity of the Church requires reference to the
Bishop of Rome. And the popes throughout my adult life have taught eloquently,
forcefully, repeatedly about nonviolence and solidarity. Also, they have pushed
back hard against the materialism of the West, and materialism applied to human
sexuality means eugenics. I’m pretty confident that my thinking is in tune with
the Church.
I trust Pope Francis. I admire him, and I intend to follow his
teaching and imitate his approach. I understand that some pro-lifers doubt his
concern and credibility; I think the doubters are screwy. Pope Francis cares
deeply about tone. And he cares deeply about unity and balance. I intend to
follow his leadership. If I’ve failed in that, show it to me, and I’ll fix it.
Unceasing prayer is fundamental
My father was an astronomer. We had a neighbor several blocks away
who didn’t quite understand the difference between astronomers and astrologers.
She wanted an astrological chart for her daughter, and came to see my father
about it. My father explained some of the differences between alchemists and
chemists, and between astrologers and astronomers. He explained that even if astrologers
centuries ago had known something significant about the stars’ impact on our
lives, they didn’t make any adjustment in the calendar. 365 days per year is
about right; but after a millennium, the extra quarter of a day per year adds
up. And that means that even if astrological charts showed something real years
ago, they are off by a sign or more today. So the two of them set aside the
idea of a chart, and chatted.
The daughter in question was born on March 25. The mom was not
exactly Catholic, but she had some inklings, and knew that March 25 was the
Feast of the Annunciation. So she chose “Maria” as her daughter’s middle name.
And in fact, she thought the Annunciation was the first glorious mystery of the
Rosary (close! B+), and so she named her “Gloria Marie.”
Gloria had a wild life. She got all tangled up in a world of sex
and drugs and 1960s hippie confusion. But she was always an exuberant and
delightful child, then an attractive and funny and popular young adult. When she grew up (or got older, anyway – even
hippies get older), she became quite influential, and controversial – and
destructive. Still, knowing her name, perhaps you will pray for her, with
determination and vibrant hope. Because, from the beginning, Mary has had her
hand on scatter-brained Gloria Marie. Right?
When Mary takes the initiative, when should you decide the cause
is hopeless? When are you through? When can you set down your weapons, cease
prayer? After five years? Twenty years? Fifty? Maybe seventy times seven
millennia?
So, please, keep praying for your brothers and sisters on the
left. We aren’t dead yet! Remember to
pray for us, including Gloria Marie Steinem.
With his eyes fixed on a new millennium, the Pope who fought
Nazism and Communism and then materialism in the West wrote: “To all the
members of the Church, the people of life and for life, I make this most urgent
appeal, that together we may offer this world of ours new signs of hope, and
work to ensure that justice and solidarity will increase and that a new culture
of human life will be affirmed, for the building of an authentic civilization
of truth and love” (The Gospel of Life,
St. John Paul II). In 2015, our world doesn’t look like the beginning of a
culture of life and civilization of love.
New culture, new civilization … We are off to rough start! But we
are still called to be new signs of hope – praying unceasingly.
Lord Jesus
Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
#1: The Unity of the Church
There
is nothing more important for the protection of unborn children than the unity
of the Church. Nothing. Nothing else is close.
When
someone starts talking about unity, be suspicious. Oftentimes, “unity” means,
“Let’s all do it the same way – my way.” So be suspicious! But please listen,
suspiciously.
A
long-term strategy for protecting children cannot be a state matter; state
plans must be set in a larger context – a national and even global context.
Fortunately, we don’t have to invent a global strategy; that’s done. Follow
Pope Francis.
I
do not mean to be disrespectful to the Lord, speaking of unity as a means to an
end. Jesus saw unity (true unity) as an end in itself. On the night before he
died, he prayed for his followers, and prayed specifically that we would be
unified, made one. To me, that says three things (for starters). First, unity
really matters. Second, it’s hard! Third, it’s going to happen. I am committed
to the unity of the Church, whether I see advantages in it or not. But as it happens, I do see advantages in it.
In fact, it seems to me that unity is an indispensable pre-condition for
effective work – indispensable – for justice, and for protecting children and
women from abortion.
Right
now, the Catholic Church is split right down the middle, with some bitterness.
There are pro-lifers on one side, and peace & justice activists on the
other side. Often, they (we) despise each other. Quick and dirty example: in
the U.S. Senate in 2016, there were 26 Catholics. The Republican Catholics all
stood with the bishops on abortion and against the bishops on immigration – all
pro-life, and (with one exception) all pro-low-immigration.* And on the other
hand, the Democratic Catholics all stood against the bishops on abortion and
with the bishops on immigration – they were all pro-choice, pro-immigration.
That’s just a quick example. The point is, the polarization in American society
is mirrored within the Church. Some Catholics think the Church can and should
teach about justice, like all the prophets; but should relax a little about
sex, since celibate priests are ignorant. Other Catholics think the Church can
and should teach about morality; but should stay out of political and economic
issues, because idealistic priests are naïve and ignorant.
But
if I say that the Church can’t teach and lead about morality, and you say the
Church can’t teach and lead about justice, then outsiders hear a simpler
message: the Church can’t teach and lead. And that simpler message is disastrous
– for immigrants, and for babies, and everybody.
Let
me repeat that, re-focused. When a pro-lifer says that the Church cannot teach
about immigration, one effect of that statement is to undercut the authority of
the Church on … everything, including the
right to life. Pro-lifers who attack the authority of the Church to teach
about immigration make trouble for immigrants, and also hurt the Church – thus stripping away the greatest hope for
protection of unborn babies.
Let
me repeat that again, slightly altered. When you reject the teaching of the
Church on immigration, you also lose the ability to speak credibly as a
Catholic. This is obvious: you can’t undercut the Church, and then use an
appeal to the authority of the Church to strengthen your arguments. If you deny
that the Church has the authority to teach about immigration, and then you say
that the Church asserts that life begins at the beginning, and even the tiniest
brother or sister of the Lord is precious in the eyes of God – the Church says
this – you have no credibility. So your pro-life argument is weakened. But
also, you have undercut the Church. After you, who are a known dissident (on
justice issues), say that the Church says something, when a more credible
person tries to say the same thing, they too are undercut by your lack of
credibility. When you reject the teaching of the Church (on immigration), you
damage your own credibility and that of
others.
Pope
Francis, by contrast, reaches millions of people that others have not been able
to reach for decades – because he listens, but also because he is so obviously
balanced – and credible.
“Pontifex”
is Latin for “bridge-builder”: building bridges is the Pontiff’s job. But it’s
ours too.
(Note: No
red-blooded American admits to being “anti-immigration.” So I try, irregularly,
to use a different label: they are pro-immigration – but low immigration, slow
immigration, and especially immigration going somewhere else. “Pro-low-slow-and-outside,”
or “pro-low” for short.)
#2: Follow Pope Francis
Follow
Francis: go capture a movement and make it pro-life! There’s an intriguing
aspect of the Pope’s work that is usually overlooked. He seems intent on
capturing and baptizing movements. We can and should imitate that.
Too
much pro-life work has gone into political work on a state and national level.
That’s not a total waste, but there’s so much other work to do, with huge
untapped potential! The abortion battle unfolded not only in legal maneuvers,
but also tough fights within various movements: the feminist movement, anti-war
movement, labor movement, environmental movement, etc. We lost movements, and
didn’t notice.
The
Catholic Church works with leaders and individuals who have been active in a
wide variety of movements, including many that have affected by pro-abortion
forces. It is a foolish mistake to overlook or – worse – dismiss those
movements. They contain millions of activists
available for the harvest.
On
the night before he died, Jesus prayed for the unity of his disciples. So the
unity of the Church is a worthy goal in itself. But also, there is tremendous
strength in unity. Reach left, intending unity! Unity does not mean more work,
diluted; it means more strength.
There
are at least five movements worth exploring at this time.
Immigration.
First, by itself unconnected to the issue of abortion, it’s an issue of justice
that Scripture and the Tradition of the Church and all the popes since 1915 and
every single bishop in the USA have all addressed – the same way. Hello?
Second, immigration is connected to abortion, because immigration restrictions
here lead directly to increased abortion elsewhere. Third, most of the
immigrants that disturb Americans (some Americans) are Latinos. And most
Latinos – the children of Guadalupe – are Catholic. So it is reasonable to pray
for three things: that the Lord will send us 40 million allies in the pro-life
fight (20 million already here, more on the way), and that we will welcome them
instead of rejecting them, and that they will be faithful to their roots.
The
environmental movement. It was startling when Pope Francis pried this door
open, but he did. It’s obviously a bizarre contradiction to work hard to
protect global ecology, while ignoring or abusing human ecology. Few people
have bothered to explore the links that Pope Francis asserts in his recent
encyclical, Laudato Si, links between
marriage and life on one hand, and the effort to treat the world as our sister
on the other hand. In theory, the links are there. But also, for a while, organizational
links are possible. Many environmental activists are open to working with
Catholics, because of Pope Francis. This is, I believe, a fragile opportunity.
Civil
Rights. The civil rights movement sometimes seems impossible to reach: consider
the painful treachery of Jesse Jackson.
But a renewal of the civil rights movement using insights from the
pro-life movement is possible. Slowly, more and more people are making
connections between issues of justice and issues of family life. Sometimes it’s
almost impossible for young African American men to get ahead – to get
education, employment, housing, pride – without some assistance. But real help
must come through the same channels that Martin Luther King used! That is, we
need a revival of prayerful churches, and a renewed respect for matriarchal
figures in a strong extended family. And of course, a new respect for fathers
and fatherhood would help too. Slowly, civil rights leaders are seeing a need
for pro-life attitudes.
Muslim
allies. Attitudes toward Muslims are often closely related to attitudes toward
immigration. But these are separate
issues. Pope Francis has made a point of praying with Muslims, and we need to
do the same – in churches, and in front of abortion clinics.
Feminism.
Originally, in the 19th century, feminism was a pro-life movement.
How could it be otherwise? It’s a movement of mothers! But the life work of
Margaret Sanger was to subvert feminism, and make it subservient to the
eugenics movement. This century-old coalition is still, visibly, a coalition –
and it can still be broken apart. In the foreseeable future, the feminist
movement as a whole will remain pro-choice, not a pro-life ally. But the potential exists for pro-life /
pro-choice cooperation on: opposing forced abortion, opposing pornography,
opposing human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research, lemon laws and
informed consent, reporting statutory rape, providing body parts for cash,
censorship, immigration, the environment, and civility – for starters.
Family.
(This is the sixth of five.) This isn’t a new movement for us, but it’s still
worthwhile paying attention to lessons from Pope Francis. Specifically, check
the tone in pro-family work! Pope Francis has opened doors and hearts, making
it possible for us to pry open movements that have seemed closed to us for many
years. But he offers another lesson about the work that we are already doing, a
lesson we should not overlook. We have good reason to be proud of our work
defending family life, but perhaps we can do better with our tone. Pope Francis
has said very few things that are new, compared to the list of things that
people think are new. His teaching
sounds new, because he has changed the tone. We can and should imitate this!
Sometimes pro-life activists are proud to be offensive, because “you are known
by your enemies.” Sure, sure – but we can love people, and speak (learn to
speak, or remember to speak) with love that people can see and hear. We have to
stand up for the truth: got it. But sometimes, the truth can stand by itself;
it’s a pretty durable thing. Sometimes, we should love and shut up – and wait
until we have reason to believe that people want to hear our pearls of wisdom.
Tone!
#3: Study!
The
Church, for the past 15 centuries at least, has urged people who intend to make
an impact on our world to undertake daily prayer and work: “ora et labora.” But
this “work” includes study. People who are serious about “thinking with the
mind of the Church” so that they are able to act in unity with the Church
should be thoughtful and proactive about finding and reading and studying and
incorporating the teaching of the Church.
The
teaching of the Church is available online, at the Vatican website (w2.vatican.va)
and the American bishops’ website (www.usccb.org). Both websites are a little
hard to navigate, but they are worth the time. It’s tremendously destructive
and divisive when Catholics get their religious formation from partisan
sources, instead of from the Church herself! If you haven’t used these sites,
you’re in trouble!
EWTN
also has papal and magisterial documents easily available in their library
(www.ewtn.org/new_library/index.asp).
But
also … I have another great idea! Read my
books! Especially the one about re-thinking the pro-life movement, and then the
one about re-thinking our opposition.
Re-evaluate
the heart of the pro-life movement. St. John Paul II urged a commitment to
“solidarity,” a Christian virtue, love in a social context, the opposite of
structures of sin. So study solidarity and nonviolence – and then return to
action. The heart of a successful effort
to end a massive social evil must be a campaign of nonviolence. There isn’t a second option in history. War works, but we will not choose that. It may be forced on us, by a Third World War
sparked by Muslims, in which the pro-life side is the Muslim side; but it would
be better if we could avoid that. One
good step: study pro-life nonviolence.
Get Emmanuel, Solidarity: God’s
Act, Our Response. (Amazon or Kindle.)
Re-evaluate
the engine of the abortion movement. Fight eugenics. Understand our opposition correctly. Abortion is rooted in eugenics, not feminism. Get a correct overall understanding of our
opposition. One good step: Read The Roots of Racism and Abortion: An
Exploration of Eugenics. (Amazon or Kindle.)
#4: Study nonviolence (and then return to
action)
The
heart of a successful effort to end a massive social evil is a campaign of
nonviolence. There isn’t a second option
in history. War works; war can end a
massive social evil in a society. But we will not choose that. That leaves
only one serious option, if history is a guide. If you want to end the
slaughter of children and the degradation of mothers, build a nonviolent
campaign.
Most
campaigns of nonviolence fail, destroyed from within. I was privileged to work
with Mubarak Awad, who was the pioneer of nonviolence in Palestine. He failed,
and probably you have never heard of him. He failed, I believe, because the
campaign he built was not grounded firmly in nonviolence; he taught only
tactics. No one else could have done better. But the fact is, many of the young
men and women working with him slipped easily from nonviolent tactics to
violence.
A
campaign of nonviolence must oppose evil, but also enforce nonviolent discipline
from the outset – or fail like the Palestinians. Everyone has heard of the
Palestinians; we think of them every time we take off our shoes to board an
airplane. OK? That’s not a success; that’s a failure.
The rescue movement was not defeated by FACE or FOCA. That’s silly
ignorant and even racist nonsense. Americans are as tough and as generous as
the Indians, the Poles, the Filipinos. Those laws, with their higher penalties,
defeated us because rescue leaders didn’t
know the difference between success and failure! In a war, stiff opposition
can stop you; it’s a problem. In a nonviolent campaign, stiff opposition is a
success. You aren’t doing much more than piddling around until the penalties
include years in jail or torture or death. Listening to rescue leaders who were
worried about FACE and FOCA was baffling! Had they studied anything at all?
Listen. Please don’t try to drop bombs with a submarine. Okay? Please
don’t try to rule the waves with tanks. Right? Those are simple. Then why why WHY
is it so hard to get people to notice the differences between violence and
nonviolence?
Nonviolence is proactive, confrontational, and likely to lead to
serious harm – like war. But the rules, the methods, the measurements, the
approaches, the goals – these are not same as in the military.
You gotta understand this. Do you know stories about the colorful
World War II general, George Patton? He once remarked, “No dumb bastard ever
won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some
other dumb bastard die for his
country.” Ho ho ho. They don’t teach that as doctrine at West Point, but it is
true for sure that the military wants to be able to inflict more suffering than
the other side can bear. By contrast, nonviolence seeks to absorb and forgive
more violence than the other side can bear to inflict. That’s a significant
difference. You gotta think about that to do it right. Nonviolence is hard
enough if you understand it, but impossible if you don’t.
All Americans are somewhat familiar with the work on Rev. Martin
Luther King, and have thought a little about his campaign of nonviolence. But there’s a problem. King launched his
campaign to win the hearts and minds of his opponents, but he was also
media-savvy. So many (most?) Americans, including pro-lifers, think that the
power of nonviolence is really just the power of the press, that sit-ins work
because they attract media attention. Often, Americans miss completely the
claims that Gandhi and King (and Lech Walesa and Corazon Aquino and Nelson
Mandela) made – that nonviolence has tremendous power itself, with or without
the press.
The
word nonviolence, by itself, is not precise. For example, many prison reformers
today are working to reduce sentences for “nonviolent prisoners,” especially
men caught possessing small amounts of drugs. This use of the word means,
simply, “not violent.” But Gandhi worked hard to find a word – a single word –
to name the most powerful force in human affairs. It’s love, it’s solidarity,
it’s self-sacrificial love, it’s the subject of the Sermon on the Mount, it’s
forgiveness, it’s … well, it’s the Holy Spirit. Who lives among us, who moves
our hearts.
What
Gandhi showed, and then the Catholic Church asserted at some length at the
Second Vatican Council, was that love (or Love) can and should shape not only the
lives of individuals – but also of societies. The word that Gandhi used to
describe love in a political context – a word adopted by popes and saints in
Poland, in the Philippines, in the American South – was “nonviolence.”
BUT:
some pro-life leaders told Cardinal O’Connor they were committed to
nonviolence. And then they were persuaded by Michael and Jayne Bray and others
to foreswear any allegiance to a pagan (Gandhi) or a philanderer (Martin Luther
King), and to follow “Biblical” principles instead – which did not mean the
Sermon on the Mount and other parts of the Bible that Gandhi and King studied.
No, this new commitment, replacing the “pagan” commitment that rescue leaders
had made to Cardinal O’Connor, was about King Saul and Joshua and other Old
Testament figures who were supposed to wipe out cities. From Gandhian
nonviolence to genocide, in one quick improvement! It was unbelievable.
So
there was some confusion. Deep, deep confusion. Dear Lord, I wish we could talk
about nonviolence without confusing the Holy Spirit with a minor drug offender.
Nonviolence
has its own dynamic, its own rules. So study! (Or go fly over Syria with your submarine.)
One good step: Get Emmanuel, Solidarity:
God’s Act, Our Response. It’s not the best book in the world, but it was
written by a pro-life nonviolent activist (me) to teach other pro-life
activists. I don’t think it’s an important book because I wrote it; I wrote it
because I am deeply convinced that these ideas matters. So get it! (Amazon or Kindle – or if you’re broke, just
write to me and ask for an electronic copy: cavanaughokeefe@gmail.com.)
#5: Priceless
kindness (prerequisite for nonviolence)
“Do
you hold his priceless kindness, forbearance, and patience in low esteem,
unaware that the kindness of God would lead you to repentance?”
This
line from Paul’s Letter to the Romans (2:4) is a shock and a comfort for me.
Pro-life
nonviolent action is a once-and-future power, the heart of the heart of the
pro-life movement. I remain convinced by the lessons from common sense (how can
you save a child unless the mother trusts you?), and history (no deeply
entrenched evil in history has ever been ended without war or a campaign of
nonviolence), and the teaching of the Church (the route to freedom from social
evils is solidarity with the victims of the evil). But if I were asked if I
would support a rescue this weekend – that is, pro-life nonviolent action following
the example of Gandhi & King & Walesa & Aquino – I wouldn’t oppose
it, but wouldn’t support it either, because I’m unaware of anyone anywhere who
is making the necessary preparation for nonviolent action. (Possible exception:
Mary Wagner in Toronto. Her individual actions are pure and inspiring. But is
she teaching and organizing?)
Somehow,
pro-lifers have lost track of any serious teaching about nonviolence. Even the
simplest preparation, described by Rev. Martin Luther King, is lost on us. It’s in Romans 2:4 (from the reading at Mass
for October 14, 2015). It’s in the Songs of the Suffering Servant. It’s in the
Sermon on the Mount. Or perhaps I shouldn’t say it’s in the Sermon on the Mount; it is
the Sermon on the Mount. It’s in the Our Father. King said that nonviolence
requires: (1) a clear determination that there is an evil [step 1: done!], then
(2) a time of spiritual cleansing and preparation [step 2: done? Are you
kidding?], and then (3) action.
No
one on earth can make perfect preparation, so being imperfectly prepared is not
an excuse for inaction. However, pro-life activists nation-wide have been
sucked into the ways and means of the political process. Politics is not evil, but it has its own set
of rules, some of which are (or can be, and usually are) radically different
from nonviolent action.
Consider,
for example, the recent efforts built on the excellent investigative work from
the Center for Medical Progress. Planned Parenthood killed children in the
third trimester as well as the second and first, and sold body parts. This
isn’t new, but CMP caught them on videotape. Planned Parenthood insists that
what they did wasn’t exactly a sale; people who wanted body parts just
reimbursed the supplier for incidental expenses. But the facts were in the
open, and millions of people sat up and listened. Great! Then what? An effort
to defund Planned Parenthood [OK], which spilled over into a threat to shut
down the government [what??], which fed into the Ted Cruz campaign [protect us,
O Lord]. Cruz is deeply opposed to the teaching of the Church on justice, and
his work against immigrants may be as lethal to unborn children overseas as Roe v. Wade is to children within the
USA. So in three months, the extraordinary videos about Planned Parenthood were
turned into recruiting tools for abortion.
That’s pretty far astray from the initial educational effort.
Politics
doesn’t have to coopt pro-life work and make it pro-abortion. But often,
politics is based on confrontation, us against them. It often demonizes the
enemy. Political fundraising often starts out by identifying the dragon that
the hero will kill.
Set
Cruz aside; what are other people doing with the Planned Parenthood info? It’s
being used in a narrative about those horrible people over there, who are
greedy and dishonest and murderous. Activists across the nation are using the
info – not to challenge and teach and convert, but to denounce.
So
Pope Francis watches tone. Does the kindness of God lead to repentance? That’s
a serious question! Many intelligent people say, “NO!”
A
campaign of nonviolence is based squarely on a deep conviction that we can find
in the Our Father. Jesus taught us to speak to “our” Father, and to ask God to
forgive “our” sins. When Jesus said, “our Father,” he meant his Father. By
contrast, when he asked the Father to forgive “our sins,” he didn’t mean his
own; he meant yours and mine, and “theirs” too, whoever “they” are today – for
example, the people who work at Planned Parenthood.
Jesus
spoke to “our” Father (meaning his) about “our” sins (meaning mine). If he can
do that without holding his nose, why should I hesitate to do the same for
others? Who do I think I am?
At
this time, I do not know anyone in the country who is studying nonviolence, making
serious preparations for a serious campaign of nonviolence. We can’t make perfect preparation, but we have got to
make some preparation! Pray, study,
practice. Preparation is not optional. So
I would not support someone who wanted “nonviolent action” on the streets
today.
Most
campaigns of nonviolence in the past century were failures. And the failure comes from within;
nonviolence cannot be defeated from outside. If you don’t know what that means,
then please – please, please! – pray and read and study before you launch.
The
kindness of God leads to repentance. I believe it. How about you?
#6: Study Eugenics:
the Ideology of Arrogance
I
see many compelling reasons to focus on eugenics. For example …
First,
the history and power and funding of the abortion movement is in eugenics. We
misunderstand our opponents when we get maneuvered into focusing on feminism.
To understand our opposition, study eugenics.
Second,
we can split the opposition down the middle.
The first direct application of the study of eugenics is to split
feminists apart from eugenicists, over issues of population control and cloning
and human embryonic stem cell research. They split us successfully, slicing
Democratic pro-life activists away from Republican pro-life leadership. We
should heal our split, and cause theirs. At any pro-choice event, if you can
poll people about coercive abortion in China, you will find them split down the
middle – about half opposed to depriving women of the choice to give birth, and
about half defending the Chinese government which is making tough decisions and
should not have to deal with Western cultural imperialism. So split!
Third,
when we understand eugenics – and its pet project, population control – we can
denounce the work of Planned Parenthood around the world with more precision
and more effect. And that opens doors for us to recruit ethnic support –
Chinese, Indian, African, and Latino.
Fourth,
when we have a firm grasp on eugenics, we can look at it on university campuses
– to publicize the horror, but also to recruit. The study of eugenics gives us
a reason (or excuse) to be on campuses, collecting allies.
Fifth,
there’s immigration. It’s not just that the chief enemy of abortion is also the
chief defender of immigrants (the Church). It’s also that the chief
pro-abortionists are also the leading anti-immigrationists (the eugenics
movement). Understanding this is not a side show. Margaret Sanger’s life work
was harnessing the feminist movement to attack motherhood. But in our time,
something deeper and far worse is underway: John Tanton and others (FAIR,
Numbers USA, Center for Immigration, etc) are harnessing the pro-life movement
to promote population control! WOW! That’s some serious perversion!
#7: Reach left!
It
would be silly and offensive to visit New Jersey [this pamphlet was originally
written for NJ] and talk about civility and bipartisanship and reaching left
and such – without saying a word about Rep. Chris Smith. He was elected to
Congress in 1978, but he never got involved in the divisive rancor of that
time, or of later years. He has always been respectful of his opponents. I
admire him deeply. He is a model for what I am trying to do here.
Reach left!
It’s
destructive beyond imagination that the Church is divided, left against right,
justice activists against pro-lifers. The Church has been divided since the
time of Jesus, but this particular division is quite new (since the 1960s), and
has no precedent or justification anywhere in Scripture, nor in the history of
the Church, nor in the teaching of the Church, nor in the leadership of the
Popes and bishops of the past century. Justice and morality are flip sides of a
single coin. Every bird that flies has a left wing and a right wing – that operate
together! It’s healthy when some people emphasize
justice and others emphasize
morality; but when they denounce each other, this is lunacy, an epidemic of
paranoid schizophrenia.
Let’s
do the numbers first. If you want to close all the abortion clinics in North
Dakota, a simple majority in the state legislature might be able to do that.
And then parents seeking to escape the burden of parenthood will … go to
Minnesota. A state ban will save some lives, but not many. The law must be
national – and, in fact, global. But nationally (skip globally for the moment),
we can’t end the slaughter without an amendment to the Constitution. We can
(and will!) tinker, and save lives. But ending
the slaughter requires 68 Senators, 290 Representatives, and 38 states. That’s
not possible without some Democrats. So if you have written off the Democrats
totally, and are accustomed to asking what you can do with 50.1% of the vote, you have already given up. You are
planning to tinker a bit – but you are not
planning to end abortion.
Changing
the law will come after a campaign of
nonviolence, not before, not instead of. But that’s a different
issue. My point here is, it’s harder and harder each year to imagine leftwing
pro-lifers. (I promise you, it’s harder and harder each year to be a leftwing pro-lifer.) But: if you
won’t reach left, you have already given up.
Pro-abortion
strategists examine states, and develop state by state plans. But they also
develop detailed strategies for building alliances with movements. The key
takeover, of course, was a century ago: the eugenics movement swallowed up the
feminist movement. Then the environmental movement. Later, the civil rights
movement. The peace movement. Labor. Human rights. They didn’t begin by swallowing
the Democratic Party whole; they gnawed at the edges, then bones and limbs,
then they went for the heart.
Democrats
for Life exists. It’s a great group: please support them (us). But I think
there are many different ways to reach left outside the party, and Pope Francis
has pushed two very forcefully – mentioned above, but let’s shift left
explicitly, review them, and expand a little.
There’s
the immigration debate. The teaching of Moses, the Prophets, the wisdom and
history books of the Old Testament, the Gospels, the Fathers, the lives of the
saints, the Second Vatican Council, papal encyclicals, every pope since 1915,
the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
every American bishop – it’s unanimous. Welcoming immigrants is not optional.
But even if you set aside Scripture and Tradition, immigration is a pro-life issue in two huge ways. First,
immigration restrictions here support population control programs including
forced abortion overseas. Second, immigrants are pro-life allies, unless we
work hard to alienate them! “O Lord,” we pray, “send us help!” He offers: “How
about 40 million Catholic and Muslim immigrants?” “NO!” pro-lifers respond at
the top of their lungs, then a lot of blah-blah. KISS: 40 million allies: do you want them, or
not? Reach left.
There’s
the environment. Look, global warming is not the issue; that’s a detail, a
sideshow, a catchy little plastic arrow off on the side pointing out some
challenges. Forget your hot air a moment! We have rivers that catch fire. We have
500 mountains in West Virginia (the Flat-Top Mountain State) that got castrated
for a pocketful of black dollars. We have ocean industries shutting down:
Maryland crabs, Maine lobsters, Oregon salmon. We got large mammals going
extinct (white rhino, North Atlantic whales). We got pollution in Beijing as
bad as the pollution that killed thousands of Londoners a century ago, and
Beijing is much bigger – and these Chinese polluters are buying up development
rights all over Africa and Latin America. The third largest freshwater on earth
has disappeared, shrunk to a stinking puddle of poison if you can find it
(start in Kazakhstan). We’re trying out mining techniques that might or might
not stir up some Balrogs and get us some new earthquakes. Have you seen the
Palm Island of Dubai? When you flush a toilet there, where does it go? Light pollution: are there a billion people
on earth who have never seen a night sky full of stars? Two billion? How many
Psalms lose their punch if you’ve never seen a night sky? Heat, schmeat: that’s a detail! The thing
about climate change is that it provides a neat shorthand for insisting that
crazy people are damaging rivers & lakes & oceans & mountains &
wildlife & air (& women’s bodies) & the sky – and when damage
estimates climb that high, the problem is global! Global: that means, no one
nation, not even America, can stop the Chinese from raping the Amazon and the
Congo, the Soviets and their successors from killing off a lake, Dubai from
polluting a whole Gulf, poachers and trawlers from raping jungles and savannahs
and oceans – without – horror of horrors! – without
some global authority. You can help locally: limit your use of AC. But the
attack on our Sister, the Earth, is global! And so is the solution! There are a
lot of activists who care about this stuff. Pope Francis has captured their
attention and their respect, and his encyclical talks about abortion and
marriage in a way, in a context, that reaches people – on the LEFT. The door is
open. You want a conversation? You want allies? You want to take over a
movement, or a piece of one? Go get it! Reach left!
That’s
two doors that Pope Francis pried opened. So you can expand the movement to
protect babies, or you can nail those doors shut again. Choose. But there are
others as well. Once you see what Pope
Francis is doing, do some more!
Islam.
Muslims have their hands full today, trying to work their way through the
challenges of modernity. Look at the Catholic Church’s effort: the Second
Vatican Council wrote a fascinating challenge called The Church in the Modern World, and we are still struggling to make
that work. Muslims are facing similar challenges, without the guidance of the
Second Vatican Council or anything like it. Still, like Latinos, they are
pro-life, they are allies – unless we
alienate them. Go get their help!
The
civil rights movement is in turmoil. But there’s an idea worth exploring that
could revive this once-great movement. Archbishop Cordileone is onto it (and so
was Cardinal O’Boyle, at the time of the March on Washington). Rev. Martin
Luther King built on Baptist churches and strong matriarchal families. But
today, both family life and church life are gasping for air in African American
communities – and leaders are finally starting to notice it. It won’t be
possible to do anything solid and lasting about jobs and housing and employment
unless we also rebuild families and churches. So help! The civil rights
movement needs strong pro-life leaders! Do it because it’s right. But also, by
the way, maybe you can pick up 20 million allies.
Other
issues where it is plausible that pro-lifers can look for and find some allies
include: pornography, forced abortion in China, lemon laws and informed
consent, reporting statutory rape, providing body parts for cash, censorship,
and civility.
There
are so many potential allies, if the pro-life movement would just go get them,
instead of denouncing them! Reach left!
