Who Hijacked Christianity?

June 26^th, 2007

“Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked.” So lamented Barack Obama, presidential candidate and senator from Illinois, as he addressed the General Synod of the United Church of Christ (UCC) about his own spiritual journey and the social duties of faith in this world.

Obama subscribes to the Social Gospel brand of Christianity, in which the death and resurrection of Jesus are superseded by His social teachings. It is this theologically and politically liberal faction that acted as the religious wing of the progressive movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Their ultimate goal is to perfect government and man to create a society devoid of social evils. This type of activism has its repercussions, however, and in the years since we have witnessed its consequences: the steady decline of responsibility and the disturbing expansion of government intervention on behalf of the individual. In decades past the Social Gospel manifested itself in labor reform, mandatory public schooling, and prohibition, utilizing Christian language and sentiments to achieve progressive ends.

It is this history that Obama was influenced by when he stopped being a spiritual man skeptical of organized religion and joined the UCC. "In time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world." He discovered the efficacy of religion as a tool for the defense and extension of liberalism - the Democratic Party's emotional pleas hidden behind the cross. The Social Gospel is a hijacking. It is socialism marketed as socially conscious religion.

So what is the senator's message? Essentially, the right has stolen the Christian label and maliciously used it to divide the nation. It has focused exclusively on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and the lack of religion in school, all issues we must move beyond because…cue vague Obama abstractions about division and renewal. The speech quickly descends into a catalogue of political initiatives we can undertake to participate in his faith-based Marxism, each carefully wedged between the words "conscience" and "moral." To even begin to perfect society we must end poverty, adopt universal health care, end the genocide in Darfur, acknowledge the value and dignity of every person regardless of "where that person came from or what documents they have," redeploy the troops in Iraq, and close Guantanamo Bay.

If his lecture weren't viewed through the prism of opportunism, it would be comical. Obama's only two mentions of abortion involved seeing past it. Almost immediately after the first mention, he applauds communities of faith across the country that are instead "sponsoring day care programs, building senior centers, and in so many other ways, taking part in the project of American renewal." There is something naïve about believing the American public should be so selective about human dignity; it is God's will that there be day care programs, but there's nothing in there about abortion?

Obama frequently abuses and misuses words. When he says we must look beyond abortion and gay marriage, what he means is embrace. He would not congratulate the UCC for being "welcoming" (it is the first denomination to ordain a gay man and it supports gay marriage) if he didn't. He condemns divisiveness by asking us to isolate and disregard religious issues important to conservatives while accepting the Democratic Party agenda as the twenty-eighth book of the New Testament. Nonsense. Either Obama believes Christians must "rise above" conservatism and take up the banner of socialist government or he believes there is a genuine debate in America over whether or not poverty is a good thing. These are all merely the same liberal ideas dressed in Christian terminology. Tell me again Senator, who is hijacking faith?

The Absurdity of Pro-Choice Catholics

On February 28th, 2006, 55 House Democrats led by Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro signed a "Statement of Principles." The following is a breakdown and response to the aforementioned statement.

"As Catholic Democrats in Congress, we are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition -- a tradition that promotes the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need."

They claim to be part of the Catholic tradition, and especially proud of that tradition's promotion of "a consistent moral framework." They express concern for "those individuals in society who are most in need." Keep this in mind.

"As legislators, in the U.S. House of Representatives, we work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has moral purpose."

They work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being! Everyday with the exception of June 6, 2003 and October 2, 2003, the dates on which 60% of the 55 that signed this statement voted "No" on passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. In that abortion, especially of the particularly abhorrent partial-birth variety, murders human beings prior to birth, it inherently seems at odds with "respect for life and the dignity of every human being."

"We are committed to making real the basic principles that are at the heart of Catholic social teaching: helping the poor and disadvantaged, protecting the most vulnerable among us, and ensuring that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country."

Except for those in the advantageous and invulnerable position of unborn children, who deserve no such opportunity or blessing.

"That commitment is fulfilled in different ways by legislators but includes: reducing the rising rates of poverty; increasing access to education for all; pressing for increased access to health care; and taking seriously the decision to go to war. Each of these issues challenges our obligations as Catholics to community and helping those in need."

This is entertaining at most. As they attempt to correlate Catholicism with their weak policies on various political issues, they reveal that they are in fact attempting to apply their Catholicism to their positions on various issues. Again, keep this in mind.

"We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion—we do not celebrate its practice. Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term. We believe this includes promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and improving access to children=s healthcare and child care, as well as policies that encourage paternal and maternal responsibility."

That's fantastic. They value human life (especially those which are "most in need"), but the vast majority of the undersigned decisively oppose anti-abortion legislation. But rest assured that they find the slaughter of unborn children "undesirable." Not celebrating the butchery of innocents doesn't put you in accord with the Catholic Church; it makes you a rational and decent existence. Furthermore, their following commitments that are included to prove their dedication to and belief in what the Church teachings are no where near satisfactory. If you seek to be in accord with the Church, you should take note of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stating in "Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility" that they "support constitutional protection for unborn human life, as well as legislative efforts to end abortion and euthanasia." It is not enough to only work towards dissuasion and to provide alternatives. Catholics must also work to restrain and end abortion.

"In all these issues, we seek the Church=s guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience. In recognizing the Church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas."

The consciences of Catholics are shaped through the moral teachings of the Church. Pro-abortion voting records indicate a conscience contradictory to Catholicism. In that doctrine of the Church is infallible, there is no gray area. A Catholic believes abortion is a grave evil. Secondly, for a Catholic to "acknowledge and accept" that they are opposed to essential Church teaching is to be heretical (more on this later.) There is no such thing as selective Catholicism. As ridiculous as they are, there are pro-abortion churches. If you cannot identify with the Church, find an institution with which your beliefs are in accordance, but do not call yourself a "pro-choice Catholic." That word is an apparent contradiction.

"Yet we believe we can speak to the fundamental issues that unite us as Catholics and lend our voices to changing the political debate -- a debate that often fails to reflect and encompass the depth and complexity of these issues."

Don't trivialize, abortion is a fundamental issue. An issue in which there is no change or debate. In 1995 Pope John Paul II asserted that the Church’s teaching on abortion "is unchanged and unchangeable." The reference to depth and complexity is also laughable. It suggests that the Church and those who embrace her pro-life teaching overlook intricacies in the abortion debate. There is no circumstance or involution that can affect the Church's absolute and unconditional opposition to the atrocity that is abortion.

"As legislators, we are charged with preserving the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. In doing so, we guarantee our right to live our own lives as Catholics, but also foster an America with a rich diversity of faiths. We believe the separation of church and state allows for our faith to inform our public duties."

Recall their application of their faith to other political issues earlier, but in the formulation of their positions on abortion, they leave their faith out, citing the separation of church and state. Their reference to other faiths refers to the faith to which most Democrats now subscribe: the protection and preservation of abortion and the relentless assault on the Bush administration. Additionally, there is nothing in the constitution about a right to abortion. To suggest that in conflicting with the Church you are only abiding by and preserving the Constitution is nonsense. Rather, it suggests they do not include personal morality in their decision-making, and that is a character flaw I do not want in office. This statement is simply an attempt to justify heresy.

"As Catholic Democrats who embrace the vocation and mission of the laity as expressed by Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles Laici, we believe that the Church is the "people of God," called to be a moral force in the broadest sense. We believe the Church as a community is called to be in the vanguard of creating a more just America and world. And as such, we have a claim on the Church's bearing as it does on ours."

In section 38 of the same Christifideles Laici that they cite, Pope John Paul II declares that, "in effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defense and the promotion of the rights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself." A more just America and world does not include abortion. Again, the church's stance on abortion is unalterable and inflexible. It is a constant; do not attempt to impose your twisted beliefs on it.

The attempt to reconcile Catholicism and pro-abortion beliefs is foolish and impossible. St. Thomas defines heresy as "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas." This "statement of principles" appears to apply. To consult canon law, Canon 750 states that "Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church." Canon 751 states that, "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith." There is no doubt that it is taught that abortion is a grave and immoral evil. Therefore, the suggestion that it is conceivable to be both pro-choice and Catholic appears to be heresy.

Pertinacious heresy, what this "statement of principles" seems to be, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication. Latae sententiae excommunication is excommunication that is automatic, meaning that it is incurred simply by the commission of the offense. Although it would not require any ruling from any authority, Church leaders should still look to affirm its existence in this case. I believe that it is evident that all "pro-choice Catholics" that promote heresy are excommunicated.

Above all else, I propose that all Catholics take a closer look at what it means to be a "pro-choice Catholic" and where they stand in defense of the faith.