These past weeks have been filled with concerns and worries. These concerns and worries don’t seem to touch our children at all. Yet they weigh heavily on my hearts and minds. Of course, this is how it should be. This is exactly what the Church means when it teaches that the innocence of children must be protected (most people see the term “innocence” in a purely sexual context — this is not the way the Church defines the term). Children are mentally, emotionally, and spiritually unable to handle the stress of the adult world in a Fallen world. By protecting them from this stress, we give them a chance to mature so that they are able to handle it by the time they are old enough to start taking on the responsibility.

Of course, as I watch their carefree play, I began to get a little jealous. Why can’t I be that carefree? Then it struck me that this is exactly the desire expressed in humanistic psychological philosophies. Philosophies such as Transactional Analysis Theory have made us believe that a healthy adults is able to recapture the carefreeness of childhood, and that being weighed down by adult concerns is a sign of psychological dysfunction. The more I thought about this the more ridiculous I felt about being jealous of my children. Humanistic psychology has proven to be untenable. It just doesn’t work. When adults try to be carefree in a Fallen world, we tend to become careless instead. When we try to reclaim our childhood we just end up hiding from reality.

Indeed, God’s design is for human beings to grow into what He has planned for us to become. Childhood is a preparation for adulthood — earthly life is a preparation for eternal life. All the while we are meant to grow in our capacity to love. So, what is in this desire to recapture our childhood that the gloomy adult world may be missing? What does God want to develop us into as adults that is reflected in the carefree play of childhood? Certainly God’s plan stands in opposition to the two extremes:

Humanism that would have us stick our heads in the sand and ignore evil, embracing a carefree childish attitude that ignores our responsibilities as adults

“Realism” that sees only the evils in the world and believes that all joy is nothing more than wishful thinking

The Christian is called to a balance. We must face the realities of this world, including the sinfulness and the evil that is was brought about by original sin. However, we face these evils knowing that good wins in the end. We faced them with joy, hope, and love. In that sense we can recapture some of the carefree joy of childhood. If we are not living in joy, hope, and love, we are missing out on what God has planned for our adulthood lives.

Joy is more than happiness. It is a deep-seated satisfaction that our lives have significance and meaning. The difference between the innocence of childhood and the joy of adulthood is that the innocence of childhood exists in oblivion to the evil around us, while the joy that occurs in adulthood often exists despite needing to face that evil.

Joy is the fruit of hope. Hope is trust in God. We trust that He will remain true to His promises to make all things right in the end — to bring about His Kingdom. We have hope in His power to bring good out of evil.

Love is the very life of God — the power to freely give ourselves as gifts to others for the sake of their good. When we love others, we are willing to face the evil that comes our way, and even to sacrifice good things that we may have coming to us for their sake. Love is strengthened by hope, and love is what makes our lives significant and meaningful, bringing us joy.

These are three of the elements that the innocence of childhood prepare us for and grow into. In the end, joy, hope and love are better than carefree innocence. If we are not living these three fruits of grace and maturity in our adult lives, we are missing out on what God has planned for us.

Like I said, it’s amazing what thoughts come to me as I mow the lawn.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I am willing to admit that I may be ignorant of the total ramifications of this issue. Margie made the point that some prolife groups are filing lawsuits over this document, which shows that the “accusations” are not routine and are serious. I hope that she is right, and that these lawsuits do not prove to be frivolous.

However, after reading the entire document I continue to be convinced that prolife reactions were more alarmist and propaganda than legitimate self-defense. The document was a “lexicon” – a glossary to help law enforcement agents understand the lingo used in documents from the Department of Homeland Security. One of the definitions in this glossary was

antiabortion extremism – (U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who are virulently antiabortion and advocate violence against providers of abortion-related services, their employees, and their facilities. Some cite various racist and anti-Semitic beliefs to justify their criminal activities.

Margie reflected reactions that I have heard from prolife groups – that this definition amounts to an accusation that prolife groups are violent. What I see is a very narrow definition of people who are willing to commit violence in the name of anti-abortion activism. This definition does not even pertain to prolife groups, but only to the few violent whackos who have placed bombs at abortion centers or shot at abortion providers.

Secondly, I have heard prolife leaders ask why prolife extremists were singled out. While it is true that pro-abortion extremists were not mentioned in the lexicon, other “liberal” causes were. The lexicon included terms such as leftwing extremist and environmental extremist. All of these “extremism” terms are used in the same way as the term “Muslim extremism,” specifying a subgroup of a population who are willing to use violence in the name of their cause.

Whether or not I am correct in my read of this situation, my warnings remain true. Alarmism and propaganda have no place in the prolife movement. These are the tools of the enemy because the enemy does not have the weapon of Truth. Truth is stronger in the end than emotional deception. We weaken our own cause when we react with only emotion rather than with reasoned passion.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tagging Pro-Lifers as Rightwing Terrorists

There’s been much talk about the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI warning America about potential rightwing terrorists. One of the sources of these terrorists they predict will be veterans returning from war. I always thought of them as heroes. A second group they pointed their finger at was those who are “dedicated to [an] opposition to abortion.” Another of their concerns was people who believe government has taken control away from state or local authorities—exactly what Roe versus Wade did. I never thought working to protect innocent unborn babies was remotely an act of terrorism. But I guess we’re in good company with the veterans. Kidding aside, this new document could be used as a platform for a pro-abortion president to try to silence his opposition.

From Life Issues Radio Transcript 05/04/09

I think we need to exercise a little bit of prudential caution here. I have noticed that pro-life reports are becoming ever more alarmist and hypersensitive since President Obama took office. We do ourselves no favors by playing this game. This “document” was actually an alert memo – something that is by its very nature temporary. It was intended to give law enforcement a profile of potential for violence so that they could catch early signs. It was not intended as a permanent profile of criminal populations.

The memo’s mention of veterans was not an indication that all veterans are violent threats. Rather, it was an indication that veterans are more likely to be disgruntled or even angry at the current administration (especially given their strong support for Bush & McCain), and that anger could potentially lead to violence because any group who is angry at the government is more likely to have members who express their anger through violence.

Likewise, can any pro-lifer claim that our stress levels have not risen since President Obama took office? Isn’t it possible that some of the less emotionally stable members of the vast pro-life movement could express their increased frustration in violent ways? The memo was not stating that all or even most who are opposed to abortion are likely to be violent, but simply that the current political situation has increased the ire of pro-lifers, and any group who is angry at the government is more likely to have members who express their anger through violence.

My guess is that under the Bush administration, similar memos were issued about homosexual activists and ardent abortion supporters. Just because we didn’t hear about it doesn’t mean the memo wasn’t there. These memos are routine.

A more legitimate target for concern is the press that chose to make this memo public while ignoring similar memos that could have been interpreted to call homosexual activists terrorists.

Pro-life groups really need to exercise more prudence. It does us no good to use propaganda and “political speak” that have no truth behind them. When we do this, we turn the fight against abortion into just another political wrangle. We have the Truth behind us. We should use it.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things (Phil 4:8).

Scripture is filled with warnings about guarding your senses in order to guard your mind and heart against evil. While Christians are often criticized for being “isolationist” and “protectionist,” I know in my own life that the areas that I failed to protect myself have become my largest areas of struggle for holiness as an adult.

It is true that a true attitude of isolationism and protectionism does exist within some Christian circles, and that this is not a healthy and true understanding of Scripture. Creation and culture are good things that are sometimes influenced by evil. To create a separate “Christian culture” that parallels but does not intersect human culture is not what Christ wants for us. Yes, he tells us not to be transformed by the culture, but to let our minds be transformed by the Holy Spirit, but he calls us to then go into the world and transform it.

Furthermore, natural law tells us that human culture is a necessary part of human life. To isolate ourselves from culture not only robs us of the chance to bring the Gospel into the world, it robs us of true human life.

We need to find the balance that allows us to find what is True, Good and Beautiful within human life while we interact with culture, but also to avoid what is false, evil and depraved. We need to make the good things in culture even better by revealing the supernatural as well as the natural source of their goodness. We also need to try to heal areas of our culture that have been given over to evil and depravity.

On the other hand, we cannot give ourselves to the culture to be transformed by it (as has sadly happened to many in the Catholic Church and in many Protestant communities as well). Listening to music or watching movies that glorify in using people as objects of gratification, or enacting violence against others, or in other evil acts only draws us into the lure of sin. Christians begin to wonder if they are really missing out on something (“You certainly will not die. No, God knows that when you eat of this fruit you will be like gods who know good and evil.”).

It is always interesting to me when secularists claim that certain ideas that are found in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition are just “religious opinions,” only to have science “discover” the same ideas eventually. Science plays catch-up with revealed Truth all the time. To me, that’s one of the greatest proofs of the truth of our faith.

We really should not be surprised that immersing ourselves in the message that evil is good would eventually turn our minds and hearts toward evil.

[adrotate group="1,2"]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The wife had been nearly bullied into getting a sterilization as a young woman. She was told that there was severe medical need for the sterilization due to the dangers posed by pregnancy complications. She was told, “If you get pregnant again, you will die.” At the time she had only a vague sense that sterilization was wrong. She was hit especially by the permanence of the procedure. She had serious doubts, but in the end she trusted her doctors, family and friends who were all telling her to have the tubal ligation.

Years later, her heart was moved closer to Christ and she was convicted that she had committed a serious sin^T. Eventually her husband joined her conviction and together they sought out a way to right the wrong by getting the sterilization reversed. Of course, they met with serious opposition from doctors who said, “Why would you want to do this? You have two kids. You don’t have to worry about getting pregnant. Why go back?” But they persisted and eventually found help through One More Soul. The operation was successful.

It was a beautiful story of conversion and restitution. The couple went through quite a trial (not to mention major surgery) to undo their sin. Their suffering and struggle was part of their restitution. Restitution is part of the conversion process, which usually runs the path of:

1. Compunction: conviction of sin
2. Confession & reconciliation: usually both personal and sacramental
3. Penance: making some act that turns the heart more completely toward sorrow for sin and connects us to the forgiveness of Christ on the Cross.
4. Restitution: putting right the wrong done by the sin

The only problem that I had with this beautiful testimony is that it left the impression that sterilization was a necessary step in being forgiven for the sin. I think the wife even told the priest that she could not accept Christ’s forgiveness until she got the tubal ligation reversed. The fact is that sterilization reversal is major surgery, and like all major surgery carries a very large risk. The risk of life outweighs the evil of the sin enough to make sterilization reversal extraordinary restitution. Extraordinary restitution is not required for forgiveness. Let me say that again. Those who have been sterilized do not need to go through major surgery to have their sterilizations reversed before they can be forgiven by Christ.

That is to take nothing away from the experience and personal convictions of this couple. In the privacy of a couple’s own conscience, the Holy Spirit may lead a couple to undergo heroic measures of restitution. This is especially the case when further conversion is necessary. Some are indeed called to extraordinary restitution.

As the husband continued the story, he shared that while his wife struggled with the choice to have her fallopian tubes tied, he internally rejoiced in his wife’s sterilization. Furthermore, while his wife became convicted that sterilization was wrong, he was enjoying the sex without consequences and the higher standard of living he was able to have with only two children. Obviously, God had more work to do on his heart. I believe that the Holy Spirit did indeed call this couple to extraordinary restitution to complete the husband’s conversion from selfishness to generous love.

In the end, God did bless their conversion toward life with new life. They had another child and have learned to accept the risks of pregnancy and the rigors and joys of parenthood in truly selfless love.

On the other hand, I know a couple in the same situation who underwent a similar conversion who decided that they were not called to sterilization reversal. Their conversion and dedication to life is no less complete. The Holy Spirit did not call this couple to extraordinary restitution because their conversion to life was complete without it.

Sterilization reversal is extraordinary restitution. When extraordinary restitution is necessary to complete one’s conversion, the Holy Spirit will call us to it. If he does not call us to it, we are not required to make extraordinary restitution. We need to discern the call of the Holy Spirit in our own hearts. However, we must be careful not to be misled by scrupulosity on one hand or by selfishness and a desire for the easy way out on the other hand. The Christian life is one of balance and careful discernment. But it is always a life led by love.

End Note

^TThere is no doubt that sterilization is morally wrong. However, the woman who gave the testimony may have fallen victim to a misunderstanding of what constitutes a sin. It seems to me through her story that the pressures to get herself sterilized were great. The greatest influence was perhaps the voice of the professional as her doctor told her that sterilization was necessary to save her life. A person is only culpable for sin to the degree that she knows that it is evil and freely chooses it anyway. Her story indicated that she did not have true knowledge of the evil, and that she was practically coerced into the decision. Therefore, while the procedure is still gravely evil, she was probably not guilty of actual sin. Once she gained the knowledge, she chose against the sterilization in the form of remorse for her action. That choice was true contrition. I got the sense that this woman carried with her some unnecessary guilt. On the other hand, God used her guilt to bring her healing, not only of her body but also of her heart.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

What caught my attention wasn’t the tired debate about literature, but the underlying worldview of the entire indoctrination debate that is shared by both sides. As we abandon intellectual skills of reasoning and critical thinking as a culture in favor of more practical educational outcomes of fact memorization and job skills, our culture has simplified, polarized and politicized every aspect of social life.

Marxist principles have been dripping steadily into the minds of American youth for more than a century. This isn’t altogether surprising. After all, most parents want their children to be far left in their early years — to share toys, to eschew the torture of siblings, to leave a clean environment behind them, to refrain from causing the extinction of the dog, to rise above coveting and hoarding, and to view the blandishments of corporate America through a lens of harsh skepticism. But fewer parents wish for their children to carry all these virtues into adulthood. It is one thing to convince your child that no individual owns the sandbox and that it is better for all children that it is so. It is another to hope that when he grows up he will donate the family home to a workers’ collective.

Simple virtues such as sharing, respect, taking care of your surroundings, etc. have somehow become Marxist principles that are the sole possession of the Left. Teaching your child to share the sandbox will lead to that child embracing Socialism or Communism and fighting for the universal ownership of all goods.

The best way to make sure our children are not indoctrinated is to teach them to reason things out and to think critically. For example, thinking through the virtues listed above would help us to realize that virtue is always about balance. Sharing is a good thing as it engenders generosity and thoughtfulness of others, drawing us out of ourselves and making us aware the needs of others. However, the extreme abolition of all private property does not have these benefits. In fact, removing private property removes the option of generosity by forcing what should be freely chosen. Sharing is a balance between selfishness and extreme ideology. In fact, all virtue is a balance between extremes. Reasoning can help us see that. Politicizing cannot.

I am increasingly concerned with the division of our culture between Left and Right. If you are a conservative, you cannot care about the environment or promote generosity in immigration policy. If you are a liberal, you better promote universal health care and you can never admit to the benefits of the free market system. We are becoming indoctrinated – not by children’s books, but by our inability to think things through in a critical and reasonable way and by our tendency to accept ideas as all or nothing propositions.

[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

We can certainly see this trend in modern culture. Those who take the world too seriously and have no humor include the “hate crime police.” These descendants of the politically correct crowd tolerate no humor about any group of people they deem “persecuted.” I’m not promoting humor that occurs at the expense of another’s dignity. I’m talking about the kind of humor that is rooted in a people’s ability to laugh at themselves and then to allow others to join in that laughter. Such humor is rare today.

Those who refuse to take anyone seriously include the “free sex” crowd. These people want sexual pleasure without the serious task for which sex was created – the task of bearing and caring for children. They define freedom as the ability to do whatever you want (personal autonomy) as free from consequences as possible.

The Catholic life is one of balance. In this case, we are called to enjoy life – to laugh, to love, to receive the goodness of Creation. However, we are also called to take certain things very seriously – the well being of others, the consequences of our choices, our physical and spiritual health, our salvation and the salvation of others. Such a balance ensures that we receive the fullness of the goodness of life. Jesus emphasizes this balance – this paradox – in His own teachings. “Blessed are those who mourn.”

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.