Is climate change the most important life issue today?

"Until you start focusing on what needs to be done rather than what is politically possible, there is no hope. We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis." - Greta Thunberg

At election time, which issues should we focus on when marking an 'X' on our ballot? Eons ago Bill Clinton's presidential campaign famously said, "It's about the economy, Stupid." In 2016 Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Catholic Knights of Columbus, said that abortion is not “just another political issue" but "is in reality a legal regime that has resulted in more than 40 million deaths. What political issue could possibly outweigh this human devastation?" As a result a large number of Roman Catholics voted for Donald Trump who had declared himself against abortion. Again, there are many people today who have voiced the opinion that immigration and migrants make up the issue of the day.

Daniel P. Horan, a Franciscan friar and assistant professor of systematic theology and spirituality at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago writes:

What good is it to prevent abortions or save the elderly from euthanasia or ensure the elimination of capital punishment if there is no air to breathe, water to drink, land to farm, plants or animals to eat, or habitats free from flooding, hurricanes, wildfires, tornados, earthquakes or some of the other devastating weather phenomena? I'm not suggesting that we ignore those discrete life issues; they demand prayer and action, too. However, there is a uniquely dire valence to what is happening to our planet and a very limited window to do anything to save the very possibility of life on this planet at all.

I highly recommend that you read the full piece here: Climate change is the most important life issue today

Anti-abortion does NOT equate to being pro-life

Being anti-abortion does NOT equate to being pro-life - not if your government...

• Brutalizes refugees and migrants, tearing families apart by deporting people who have no greater wish than safety, opportunity and hard work;
• Is willing to rip health care from tens of millions of people;
• Denies climate change and jeopardizes creation itself with retrograde policies on the environment;
• Intends to increase defense spending more than $50 billion while cutting social welfare programs for the most vulnerable;
• And whose leader, the president, boasts openly of sexual conquests that many would describe as assault.

This editorial in The National Catholic Reporter is a must-read for any fellow Knights in the Knights of Columbus.

Pro-life advocates with the Indiana State Knights of Columbus carry a banner past the U.S. Supreme Court Jan. 27 during the annual March for Life in Washington. (CNS/Leslie E. Kossoff)

Banning abortions only stops the safe ones

I am pro-life and anti-abortion.

I just wish life were that simple.

I remember when I was a boy that the Catholic mother of my friend phoned my non-Catholic mother to ask her if she would help her abort her baby. (Illegal in South Africa with stiff penalties.) My mother, who did not realise I could overhear her side of the conversation, said she certainly would not but she did know somebody who did that stuff.

My friend never did get that or any other baby brother or sister. I know that their family struggled financially compared to us, and I know how our family struggled and had to do without things that lots of other people seemed to have.
Life is complex and people suffer terrible stress that clouds judgement and removes freedom.

Much as I want to defend unborn children and their God-given right to life, I don't think it is for me to judge others by my religious and moral standards or to impose my religious and moral standards by turning them into legislation.

I am very conflicted by all of this. Those who disagree with me, please try not to judge me too harshly.

Pro-Life and pro-life: is there a difference? For me, huge.

Jan. 27 joint letter to President Donald Trump from some Catholic groups.

This letter from some Catholic groups in the United States of America exemplifies the difference that I see between the pro-life movement and Pro-Life, which seems to me to place extraordinary if not exclusive emphasis on being "Pro-Birth". If you are truly pro-life then your concern has to extend beyond protecting the unborn and, in protecting the unborn, to do so in the most compassionate and effective way possible in the long term, not merely the most vociferous and judgemental - which is a common perception of Pro-Life. Interestingly, another difference between pro-lifers and Pro-Lifers seems to manifest in a difference of support for Donald Trump as president.

Jan. 27 joint letter to President Donald Trump by National Catholic Reporter on Scribd

Supreme Knight Carl Anderson on abortion - with due respect, I have to disagree

"Catholics need to stop voting for pro-abortion politicians," Supreme Knight Carl Anderson told an international gathering of the Knights of Columbus in Toronto, Canada, Aug 2, 2016.

CNA - Catholic News Agency

Supreme Knight Carl Anderson. Photo credit: Knights of Columbus

I am a pro-life Catholic who believes in the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception, and an active member and office bearer of the Knights of Columbus local council, so why do I find this statement by the Supreme Knight extremely concerning?

The reasons are many and complex.

Simplistic dualism

Firstly, at its most elemental, it simplistically divides politicians (and, by extension, people in general) into two groups, anti-abortion and pro-abortion, representing good and evil, clean and dirty, right and wrong, life and death, righteous and damned (if they don't repent.) If only life were that simple - black or white with no shades of grey…

With that simple statement to stop voting for pro-abortion politicians, Brother Carl Anderson has reduced the decision making process around the presidential elections facing Americans today to an obvious, no-brainer choice that is really no choice at all. Hillary Clinton is pro-abortion, Donald Trump is no longer so - well, except with "caveats" such as rape and incest and other "it depends's". (See the piece in Charisma News.) Therefore American Catholics must vote for Donald Trump! Say, what?

Single-issue voting

This is the world of single-issue voting where you identify one issue that outweighs all the other issues combined. “What political issue could possibly outweigh this human devastation? Abortion is different. Abortion is the killing of the innocent on a massive scale,” says Brother Anderson. The argument is perfectly logical - but only up to a point:

Moral issues outweigh political issues.

Killing innocent children is a moral issue.

Therefore killing innocent children outweighs political issues.

From which the argument continues:

But abortion is killing innocent children on a massive scale.

Therefore the issue of abortion outweighs all political issues.

However, after this there is a leap to the next conclusion:

Therefore Catholics need to stop voting for politicians who are pro-abortion.

Why is this a leap of logic? … because the premise presumes that all other issues are purely political, non-moral issues - which is false.

There are many other moral issues than "killing innocent children in the womb". For instance, how about tolerating that, after being born, children are growing up malnourished (with the accompanying brain under-development that this causes) or even starving to death, or being exposed to perilous sea-crossings and long overland treks on foot, or months and years of sub-human living in refugee camps? Not just children, of course, but their parents and other adults as well. How about knowingly leaving impoverished communities to drink mercury-laden water, or water polluted with arsenic or other toxic substances from gold mining? How about continuing to export asbestos to third-world countries that do not yet have regulations in place to prevent exposure to asbestos and the resultant harm to health and life this causes?

Ah, the objection goes, but abortion is "on a massive scale", involving "millions of children". Far be it from me to try and defend abortion, but to try and make abortion the only single moral issue based on numbers is indefensible. How do you stack up and compare x million abortions against human suffering that cannot be measured, the human suffering that is being endured daily and has been endured for decades by the millions of environmental, economic and conflict-driven refugees that Pope Francis talks about in his encyclical, Laudato Si, for instance? What if your (somewhat) anti-abortion political candidate wants to ban refugees from immigrating and to build walls to address the 'security problems' caused by refugees, and shows little or no compassion for children who are homeless and hungry, dressed in dirty clothes and lacking the essentials of healthcare?

Photo credit: Macleans.ca

Whenever I read the account of the sheep being separated from the goats in chapter 25 of the gospel of Matthew I am struck not only by what is listed in the "citation" but also by what is missing: the Ten Commandments are completely missing. The goats are not condemned for lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, fornication, buggery - or even murder - but for a lack of compassion! It's all about sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, assisting the sick and imprisoned. Read Matthew 25 and see for yourself.

Culture of Death

The other leap of logic is with the phrase, "culture of death." It is presumed as axiomatic that pro-lifers support a "culture of life" and pro-choicers a "culture or death." I am pro-life - in small letters. A couple of years ago I made a conscious decision to stop identifying with the "Pro-Life" movement (capital 'P', capital 'L') because of its exclusive fixation on life before birth. I see it as even worse with some fundamentalist evangelical Christian churches than with Catholic Pro-Lifers. The perception is that they will proudly and loudly, and extravagantly, go to the ends of the earth to elect politicians who will enact laws to prevent a child being aborted, but once the child is born they have no further interest in the child's welfare in terms of nutrition, health, home circumstances or education, or even whether the mother will be executed for 'immorality' - usually by stoning. It is perceived by its critics as a single issue movement that calls itself religious and Pro-Life but is mainly anti-abortion and loudly political.

Then there is the pejorative phrase, 'culture of death' that is juxtaposed (self-righteously?) against 'culture of life'. A number of my close friends and family who believe in a woman's right to choose to have an abortion are warm, caring and nurturing people. I would unhesitatingly call them 'good' people even though I do not share their views on abortion. If I have to compare, I would call them a lot more caring and compassionate than some Pro-Lifers I know or have read about, or seen on the news screaming "Murderers" at Pro-Choice activists. My point is that Pro-Lifers and pro-lifers do not have the monopoly corner on a culture of life. To suggest that a United Church minister of my acquaintance is spreading a 'culture of death' because he believes in situation ethics and is supportive of members of his congregation who have felt the need to have an abortion creates and perpetuates the kind of division between Christians that is actually contrary to a culture of life. Or to suggest that an agnostic doctor of my acquaintance lacks a moral compass and promotes a culture of death - a woman who is a loving mother, dedicated to saving lives and improving the health of her patients, but who is quite prepared to refer a pregnant patient for an abortion where she deems appropriate - would be blinkered, pietistic moralism devoid of any constructive, life-giving energy.

Election guidelines

In the 2015 Canadian federal election I was very pleased to see that the Canadian bishops did not propose simplistic, single-issue voting to the Catholic faithful. On the contrary, they published a very helpful guide covering a multiplicity of issues - none of which were purely political.  Actually, they published as many as 3 guides - all of which can be found at the above link:

Link to the Guide of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB)

Link to the Guide of Development and Peace

Link to the Guide of The Canadian Council of Churches

May I propose that, in choosing a president, American Catholics follow guides such as those recommended by the Canadian bishops rather that the simplistic exhortation of the Supreme Knight who seems to imply that the only Catholic belief of political relevance is to be Pro-Life. 

Children without a voice

Writing his regular column for the Toronto Star Martin Regg Cohn's piece today is about the failure of Ontario's children's aid societies to properly protect some of the most vulnerable and needy children.

He concludes, "Unlike the grown-ups who get all the attention, kids can’t vote, and lack a voice. But they still need politicians in power to hear them."

True as this is about the children Cohn is explicitly writing about, I believe this to be even more cogently true about kids in the womb. Kids 'in utero' do not even exist as humans in Canadian law. They suddenly appear, Voila!, and enter into the ambience of law with human rights and freedoms when they pass through the magical birth canal, or, like rabbits from a hat, are yanked out by C-section 'deliverers'. Until that moment, these are the most voiceless kids on the planet.

"The Scream" by Edvard Munch

You can read Cohn's column online here: Premier ponders blowing up our CAS mess. It's an excellent piece and I recommend it to Canadians living in Ontario. For non-Canadians, CAS is an acronym for Children's Aid Societies.

Picture credit: "The Scream" by Edvard Munch - WebMuseum at ibiblioPage URL: http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/munch/munch.scream.jpg. 
Licensed under Public Domain via Commons

Can Pope Francis' visit to the US influence Canadian election?

For many 'traditional' Catholics, abortion and the right to life have been far and away the largest and most important moral issue for consideration when voting for a candidate in an election - whether Federal, Provincial or, even, municipal. For some, it is the only issue. (Disclaimer: I am pro-life and believe in the sacredness of human life from the moment of conception.)

I have had Catholic friends urging me to vote for a particular candidate because he or she is the only 'pro-lifer' in the field of candidates, never mind that the political party leader has made it abundantly clear that  "We are not going to reopen the abortion debate."

Pope Francis calls for help for refugees

Now, along comes Pope Francis to visit the United States primarily to  attend the World Meeting of Families, though he did not shy away from speaking to American and World politicians when the opportunity arose. While in the States he reiterates repeatedly (tautology intended) the moral imperatives regarding the environment, refugees, the poor, the lowest in society. He hardly ever mentions abortion and when he does, from what I have read, compassion or a synonym is never more than a breath away.

It seems clear to me that any Catholic who is in tune with the Pope and who wants to know where a political party stands on abortion needs also to be asking where that political party stands on the environment, refugees and the poor. An answer in platitudes will just not cut it. What are the numbers, the  dates and the dollars? Dates after 2015 also do not cut it. The need is now, in the next weeks and months.

Go. I urge you. Ask your political parties what they think about Pope Francis' ideas on the environment and refugees. Compare their answers.

Photo credit: Express

Sssh! Single Issue Voting Not Encouraged By Canadian Catholic Bishops

One of the problems bedevilling many elections is the phenomenon of 'single issue' voters. The issue is usually a very worthy one such as 'healthcare' or 'care for seniors' or 'right to life for the unborn' or 'education' or 'immigration' or 'jobs' or 'the environment' or 'higher/lower taxes' or 'crime and punishment' or 'national security' or (your pet issue here). The trouble is that real life is never about one single issue even if that appears to be front and centre at a point in time for you and me.

It seems to me that voting on the basis of a single issue is very much like choosing a particular expensive gourmet restaurant over other candidate restaurants based purely on the fact that the restaurant of your choice is the only one that offers Pacific Blue Fin Tuna in its third course, and without regard to what is in the other courses at that or any other competing restaurant. Don't you care that your Valentine partner will have ethical issues with Confit Foie Gras? It seems silly, doesn't it? But isn't that what single issue voters do? I've had emails from well-meaning friends urging me to join this or that political party and then vote for this or that person to be leader of that party because he/she is the 'only one' taking a stand on a pet, controversial issue.

Contrary to what many people might presume, the Canadian Catholic bishops are not single issue voters. I know this because I have read their Guide for the 2015 Federal Election. As with previous federal elections the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued an 'Election Guide' for Catholics. I get the impression that it is meant to be kept a secret as I never hear anybody talk about it and no priest of my experience has ever mentioned it, privately or publicly, in my hearing. If it was not for the fact that I have an email subscription for new publications from the bishops' conference I myself would have no idea of its existence.


The email begins: (CCCB – Ottawa)... With the federal election campaign underway, the Commission for Justice and Peace of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) has issued a guide inviting Catholics to vote with discernment. In its "2015 Federal Election Guide", the Commission lists some basic principles from Catholic moral and social teaching to help voters analyze and evaluate public policies and programs.

It then provides this link to their web page titled Guide for the 2015 Federal Election.
http://www.cccb.ca/site/eng/media-room/4243-guide-for-2015-federal-election

How incredibly circumspect, inviting Catholics to vote with discernment, Obviously the bishops do not want to alienate anybody by being forceful in any kind of way about Catholic moral and social teaching! The web page in turn provides three more links which I reproduce below for your convenience and invite my family and friends to read with discernment - and anybody else who cares to. I expect you will find, like me, that none of our political parties measures up. Sometimes the way to find the best is find the least worst.
Link to the Guide of the CCCB (PDF)
Link to the Guide of Development and Peace
Link to the Guide of The Canadian Council of Churches

Do Conservative Party MPs represent Stephen Harper or their constituents?

This is obviously a question which leads to a lot of confusion in the minds of parliamentarians today - right up to the Government House Leader, the Hon. Peter Van Loan. If MPs are confused I can be forgiven for my own confusion in the matter, and so can you. Fortunately we now have Elizabeth May in Parliament to explain it to all of us in very simple words that even I can understand.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Langley, as well as the hon. member for Vegreville—Wainwright. As a specific case, may I say this is one of the most important points of privilege I have heard in the brief two years, almost, that I have been serving here? It cuts to the core of what is wrong with parliamentary democracy that the hon. government House leader could put before you a sports metaphor that we are here as teams, as brands or colours, and we are all to take instructions from our team boss.

We are not here as teams. The principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy is that we are here as representatives of our constituencies and our constituents. We are merely incidentally members of political parties. Political parties do not exist in our Constitution. They are not an essential part of our democracy. They have grown to be seen to be the most interesting thing going on, and we have grown to see politics as some sort of sport. However, democracy is not a sport. We are not playing on teams, and each individual member has individual rights, and the members for Langley and Vegreville—Wainwright feel their rights have been infringed.

I would add that I rose on a point of order to you some many months ago on the question of S.O. 31s and the fact that they were increasingly being used for purposes that, while not against our Standing Orders as they are written, are against the spirit of Standing Orders as described by former Speaker Madam Justice Sauvé, who pointed out that they should typically speak to matters of local concern in our constituencies and should not be used as a place for attacks on others, specifically ad hominem personal attacks.

At the time you said you might comment on that later. Perhaps this point of privilege might give you a chance to further elucidate when it is inappropriate for the approved S.O. 31s from the Conservative war room to be very vicious attacks and the ones that members wish to make about the concerns of their own constituents to be censored and prevented from being presented in this place.

from Elizabeth May's Parliamentary web site.
http://elizabethmaymp.ca/parliament/statements/2013/03/26/privilege-s-o-31/

Friendship Appreciation Day

Today I want to express my appreciation to all of you my friends. Thank you for being my friend and letting me be your friend. This includes members of my family, blood and in-law, and starts especially with my wife, Ingrid, my best friend.

You, my friends, make up a widely and wildly disparate group of people. Some of the variations are common to most people's friends : I have friends who are old, friends who are young, male and female, friends of different nationalities, racial backgrounds and different economic and educational backgrounds. Many of my friends are apolitical while others are decidedly left or right wing or fringe. I even have a very few friends who, like me, are Green supporters. I have American friends who support the Republicans and some who are Democrats. Some of my Canadian friends seem to know more about American political issues than Canadian. Some Canadian friends are wannabe Americans and some define their identity as decidedly not-American.

To my knowledge none of my friends are neo-Nazis and if you are a closet neo-Nazi then I don't want to be your friend any more.

I have been out of South Africa so long I no longer know who supports which parties but I think the ANC and the DA account for most of you.

Some of my friends are Québécois who think that the best thing for Quebec is to leave the Canadian federation. I have some English speaking Canadian friends who think that the best thing for Canada is for Quebec to leave the Canadian federation.

Some friends are deeply religious, whether Jewish, Christian, Hindu or Moslem. Some are decidedly atheist. Some don't know and don't care if there is a God or gods and aren't sure what the difference is between atheism and agnosticism. They don't mind if I pray for them. Thank you.

I have friends who are straight as a laser beam and other friends who are, or whose children are, gay, lesbian or queer.

I have friends who are passionately Pro-Life and others who are just as passionately Pro-Choice. For the record, I am passionately Pro-Life but I seriously doubt the usefulness of hurling insults at people who believe differently to me.

I am under the impression that very few of you have a similar mix of ingredients to me. It is highly probable that most of my friends would not like most of my other friends. I should be used to that by now. My mother would not have liked many of my friends and I was careful not to bring them home.

But I like you all and I value your friendship. Heck, some of you even asked me to be your friend on FaceBook! I value that, especially considering one of my own family clicked ignore to my friend request !:-) I can live with that. We are good friends in other ways.

Once again, thank you for being my friend and thank you for letting me be your friend.

This is my daughter Miriam (right) and her friend Liora.

Childhood friends and still friends today.

Response to Reinier's letter re U of C wasting money

Dear Reinier,




Whether we are talking about abortion or free speech, the essential premises of the pro-life group are based on the following aphorisms:
1. human life begins with conception
2. there is a human being from the moment there is human life.

Syllogism 1 (Abortion).
Human beings have a right to life.
This foetus is a human being,
Therefore this foetus has a right to life.

Syllogism 2 (Free speech)
Human beings have a right to be heard.
All those foetuses (fetuses,foeti) about to be aborted are human beings,
Therefore all those foetuses have a right to be heard.


Obviously my presentation of the pro-life premise is heavily flavoured by my faith as a Roman Catholic but I believe that this, purely and simply, is the crux of the great divide. If pro-choicers are basing their conclusions on premises contradictory to these then all discussion on the conclusions will sound like a discussion with the Mad Hatter.

It seems to me that people are spending too much time debating, arguing, fighting, whatever, over conclusions to syllogisms based on different or contradictory premises instead of discussing the differences between the critical premise. (For readers who don't know, a syllogism is a conclusion based on two propositions called premises, e.g.: all dogs are mammals; Lassie is a dog; therefore Lassie is a mammal.)

Before going on further down this road I would like to get your response to the above. Also, I have presented you with what I believe to be, at least the Catholic cohort's version of, the essential premise of the pro-life movement. I would be curious to know how you would state the essential axioms and premise(s) of pro-choicers.

Best regards
Terry

A response to "U of C wasting money"

On Feb 3 I posted an article published by the Calgary Herald, U of C wasting money.  My brother-in-law in Scotland, Reinier, sent me an email expressing reservations and defending the university's position. Reinier and I have had many debates and discussions on many things. I love him dearly, as he does me, and we have a deep respect for each other. We simply do not agree on some issues - this being one of them. With his permission I post his response here. The photos are nothing to do with the article or Reinier's response but were taken when Ingrid, Judith and I visited Glasgow two years ago. The one on the left is Judith, Maya, Reinier and Ingrid walking along the bonnie banks o' Loch Lomond. On the right is Fleshmarket Close in Edinburgh where Ian Rankin had somebody murdered in his book of the same name.

Hi Terry

I, too, expected you to disagree with me. But, perhaps, both of us are wrong to’expect’ these stances from one another. On second reflection, me, you, and people generally are far more complex in their emotions and reactions to life’s challenges than we would credit.

I know that the ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ debates conjure the most bitter and emotionally-charged arguments. Your  blog entry and links to the U of Calgary and their SU webpage (I’m sorry! …don’t know how to do these links!) reveals an abundance of opinions regarding the rights and wrongs of abortion. 

The issue regarding banning the particular group, though, seems to be about the rights and wrongs of free speech. And the right – if that is claimed – of a group of people to confront very vulnarable women regarding their fucundacy or pregnancy. I believe that’s wrong - and if you go to the U of C website and read the comments I think you’ll agree that, at the very least, the pro-life campaign is problematic.

Of course you are welcome to publish my response. Like, you – even if from the opposite angle – I would welcome further debate. 

Fond regards,

Reinier

University of Calgary trampling on free speech

The following is taken from today's online edition of the Calgary Herald

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/wasting+money/1246995/story.html

U of C wasting money

In pursuing trespassing charges against students who set up a pro-life display on campus last fall, the University of Calgary is not only trampling on free speech, it is wasting money on an expensive court case at a time when the global economic crisis has cost the university $78 million of its endowment fund. The money the U of C is about to fritter away on lawyers and court costs in its oppression of students whose only "crime" is publicly espousing pro-life views, could be better directed to research, infrastructure, scholarships for underprivileged students or other practical purposes.

The university's hypocrisy is appalling and not just because a university by its very nature is supposed to be a forum for free speech, dissent and debate. As the Campus Pro-Life club points out, theirs is the only group whose graphic display the university ordered turned inward so passersby couldn't see it. A bare 30 metres from the pro-life display, graphic pictures of atrocities inflicted on members of Falun Gong by the Chinese government were al-lowed to be on display with nary a word of protest from university authorities. The university clearly appears to be muzzling views with which it does not agree -- a shameful stance for any institution worthy of the name "university" to take.

Last November, the club received a letter from Paul Beke, the U of C's lawyer, claiming that the university is private property and has a right to control what happens on that property. The university, in reality, is a publicly funded institution, and students who have paid tuition to attend the U of C cannot be accused of trespassing when they're on campus. They also have a right to express their views, regardless of how unpopular those views may be with the administration.

A court must rule on the side of freedom of expression, for if students' opinions are successfully muzzled today, then perhaps tomorrow the university's professors need to start looking over their shoulders, too.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald