"I am pro-choice but not pro-abortion". How many times have we heard this pile of rubbish dripping from the mouth of some foolish politician like John Kerry, Jennifer Granholm, Kathleen Sebelius, whom I wrote about in my last column, or a score of other insults to human intelligence? The truth is, this empty phrase is a form of relativism, and further makes no sense when properly studied. It is typical of Satan's double-speak, or should we say, "devil-speak"?
Relativism as Logically Contradictory
Relativism is the philosophical notion that what is true is subjective to each person and depends on individual and circumstances and situations. Relativism holds that there are no moral absolutes and that therefore attempting to force moral absolutes on anyone is narrow-minded, arrogant, presumptuous, and intolerant (sound familiar?). The relativism expounded in the ambiguity of the Vatican II agenda is a prime example of how the this cancer has taken hold. Liberals and Democrats tend to subscribe to relativism whether they admit it or not. It drips from every issue they argue, and colors every justification they make.
The initial problem is that relativism is logically contradictory. If I say that there are no moral absolutes, then my mere statement that there are, in fact, no moral absolutes is either an absolute or not. If it is an absolute, then my statement that there are no moral absolutes is an absolute itself and therefore refutes itself. If it is not an absolute, then there is the possibility that there are moral absolutes, in which case my statement that there are no moral absolutes is false since there may be moral absolutes.
What relativists either inexplicably fail to see or foolishly ignore is that there must be absolutes in nature and natural law and justice from which some relative branches may develop. The Church got itself in trouble when they abandoned the moral absolutes that sustained her for so many centuries. Why? Because these absolutes represent the bedrock, the anchors that hold logic and rational thought together. Without these logical and philosophical anchors, our entire moral, ethical, and philosophical structure melts into a sea of confusion, illusion, and delusion. Do we have such today in the Church? There is no question about it.
Yet, the progressivists who advanced the radical changes from Vatican II in the Church and the liberals and Democrats in the secular sector love this sea, however, for it allows them to swim freely and further spew their mental trash. Why is it they cannot sense the devil's denisons who have been on a feeding frenzy for the past 40 years?
"I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion" as Illogical Rubbish
The bright lights that typically make the above proclamation are telling us that they are personally against abortion, but that they publicly celebrate the right of each person to choose their own path on this issue. Sadly, this is not just the politicians, but supposedly 'Catholic' politicians, and many dumbed-down Catholic voters, and, even sadder, many bishops including cardinals who are roadblocking any logic to the truth that they are sinking and taking so many souls down with them through scandal and recoiling from their duties as shepherds of the vulnerable, dumbed-down flocks.
If we look at choices as paths to a goal or target position, and the logical end of those choices as the expected target or goal of that choice, it becomes clear why the above claim is absurd. Suppose I say that I am not in favor of theft, but I respect the right of others to choose to steal. When I respect the choice to steal, then I must be respecting the logical end of that choice which is theft. But, how can I say that I am personally against theft, but I respect and honor the choice to steal? If I respect and honor the choice to steal, I must be respecting and honoring stealing, since stealing is the logical end of choosing to steal. How can I say, for example, that I am personally against drunk driving, but respect and honor someone's choice to drink and and drive? Is not the logical and expected result of choosing to drink and drive that one will therefore drink and drive? If I am against drinking and driving because of its dangers, are these dangers therefore not more likely once someone chooses to drink and drive? So, you see, it is absurd to argue that one is against something personally, but publicly validate another's choice to do that thing unless one admits to having at least two standards!
You hear this illogic nonsense constantly from Bill O'Reilly to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. The former in railing against homosexual marriages, prefaces his arguments with "it's none of my business what they do in their own homes and it's fine with me, but..." The latter has publicly proclaimed the same that when someone sins it's none of his business and he doesn't believe preventing sinners from receiving communion should be used as a weapon. Pardoning his Eminence's opinion but that is all it is for it flies in the face of Catholic doctrine and undermines the efforts of men like Colorado Springs' Bishop Michael Sheridan who has literally taken the devil by the horns
and holds Catholic voters accountable as well, or the Coadjutor Bishop of Orlando Bishop Thomas Wenski who launched the broadside, "You cannot have your 'waffle' and your 'wafer,' too. Those pro-abortion politicians who insist on calling themselves Catholics without seeing the contradiction between what they say they believe and their anti-life stance have to do a lot more of 'practicing' [holiness]. They need to get it right before they approach the Eucharistic table."
Admission of At Least Two Standards?
The only way to even try to squeeze the idiotic statement that one is personally against something but publicly respects the choice to do that thing would be to admit that one has at least two standards, one for oneself and one for the public at large. In fact, one would likely have to admit that there are multiple standards, given the unique and varied situations and beliefs of each person. Once one admits that there are multiple standards for everything, then it is easy to see how morality, sin, hell, and various other notions slip into oblivion since one cannot judge or effectively evaluate anyone's decisions or choices. Given such a situation, all hell breaks loose although hell would not exist!
Now, if one accepts that there are other standards beyond one's own, then a new problem develops. Why does one choose one's standard over the others? Is it because one feels that one's standard is better? If so, how can one's standard be better given the notion that everything is relative? Is it because one just picks a standard from a hat and goes with that standard?
Has this not happened with the entire ecumenical movement that praises false religions as being good and that those who practice pagan religions have a chance for salvation? If that is true, why did Jesus Christ die for us? Why did He establish His Church upon the Rock of Peter (Petrus) and why did He say, as the Gospel for Ascension Thursday says, "Those who believe and are baptized shall be saved; those who do not believe shall be condemned."
It doesn't make sense does it? To continue on the path of universal salvation is a contradiction of what Jesus says. Same with the "I'm pro-choice, but not pro-abortion" nonsense, or "I'm for gay unions, but not same-sex marriage" garbage. With such illogic one is saying that there is no difference between standards, that all are equally valid, and therefore we return to the question of why we chose to personally believe one thing yet publicly validate other positions? Why not just be consistent between our personal and public positions? What would be the true motivation for such a riding of the issue fence?
Admission of Cowardice and Unreliability
To my mind there is only one conclusion that one can gleam from someone who contends one personal belief while honoring any differing choices. That conclusion is that the person in question is a moral coward, having some belief in a position but fearing its repercussions and therefore "hedging their bets" by claiming some enlightened "respect for differing views". Once it is determined that cowardice is involved, then unreliability closely follows, since one cannot count on cowards to come through with the goods when called upon. Only a fool would rely on a coward to come through in the clutch since that coward will likely be running for the hills when things get tough.
We have seen this with the bishops, and yes even the pope who has hedged so many times when the evidence is overwhelming that a bishop should be removed, even defrocked. Cardinal Roger Mahony, Bishop Thomas O'Brien, and Archbishop Rembert Weakland are just three names that come immediately to mind. There are countless others but it took the pressure of the secular media to finally elicit an acceptance of the resignations of the latter two prelates. The pope did virtually nothing but a hand slapping over the terrible sex abuse scandal here in the United States. What kind of message does that send the common Catholic? As harsh as it might sound, yes, the pope has been a coward in upholding the standards of the Faith! Followers see this and they falsely embrace cowardice and unreliability because if the pope doesn't see it as that grave, then it can't be. They forget again Christ's words in Scripture and Church teaching on the moral plane. The result has been a steady lowering of the moral bar to where there is hardly room for a rat to run under it, but there have been plenty of rats in the U.S. who are running wild, celebrating cowardice as politically correct.
Now, by cowardice here I do not mean general cowardice, as Kerry supporters may contend that he is a war veteran and the like. What I mean here is moral cowardice, which means being weak in one's moral convictions and their correctness. Such people are typically wishy-washy and tend to change positions on issues often. Democrats and the hierarchy are infamous for this.
The Cowardice of The New Order
It should be no surprise to anyone that those who play the game of The New Order like Kerry, who is basically baiting the Church, are moral cowards since The New Order itself is cowardly. This should be obvious from the fact that The New Order never directly confronts God, Truth, Tradition, or those proudly carrying the Banner of Christ the King. Instead, it relies on insinuation, deception, distortion, agitation, and vulgar arrogance and insolence to combat the majesty of God and His Truth.
You will note how, for example the contradiction of how pro-abortion advocates do not confront photos of aborted babies or research findings contrary to their claims directly, yet they were outraged by the infamous photos out of Abu Ghraib prison. They decried the violence of the holocaust, the horror of people plunging to their death on 9-11, the brutal reality of Christ's suffering shown in Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ' or the decapitation of Nicholas Berg, but say nothing about the violence in the womb or the decapitation of millions of innocent unborns. Instead, they resort to rhetoric and lies to fog the issues and avoid looking foolish or appearing narrow-minded. Since The New Order is the work of Satan, the ultimate coward, then one cannot expect anything else.
Truth and Tradition as Logical and Courageous
The moral and actual opposites of cowardly relativism are Truth and Tradition, tried in the kiln of time as fine gold, whereas cowardice and unreliability are fools' gold that from the fool will soon be parted. A treasure is true when it enriches the soul. If a position of belief is based on natural or moral truth, natural justice, or divine absolutes, then such a position will be consistent, strong, and confident. Popularity and changing fashion and fads will have no bearing on absolute truths that have persisted before and will persist well beyond present changing weather. The position will inspire courage in those who are firmly loyal to its beliefs. The weight of proven tradition will likewise inspire confidence, courage, and even deserving reverence where those traditions have proven themselves over and over. Thus is the solid and holy footing of Traditional Catholic Beliefs, for they are based on those ingredients, doctrines, beliefs, and teaching which have come to us from God and His Divine Son Christ "Who canst neither deceive or be deceived."
All else is the empty frosting and bitter condiment of this superficial, passing world. The aggiornamento of the world has proven stale and polluted with poisons that have claimed way too many souls over the last four decades. May God Almighty provide us with the strength and courage to stand firm against the onslaught of relativism and rubbish that have metastasized today's civilization and the church!