Organized, legal theft, promulgated by government, encouraged by (perhaps) a majority of taxpayers, is held here to be an intrinsic evil. Its violation is not only against the 7th commandment’s prohibition of theft, but fosters violations against other commandments as well, most especially the 9th and 10th, in the temptation to covetousness, but also the 1st and 2nd in the temptation to idolatry; the 3rd because the ongoing march of secularism and its singular perception of well-being in the sole realm of the physical here-and-now demands the abandonment of any notion of setting aside one day of every seven for contemplation of our relationship with our Creator God.  The 4th describes disregard for higher, legitimate authority; when expressed toward God, it is blasphemy.  The 5th because taking another person’s life can be, and usually is done in small increments of time; the 6th because it fosters the view that one can be “entitled” to the body of another person merely for his or her own sexual entertainment; and the 8th because we must lie to ourselves and each other in order to perpetrate and justify the immorality.

Regardless, the USCCB defends the government’s taxation/redistribution scheme as if it were the eighth sacrament.  Congressmen attempting to construct a plan to bring solvency, stewardship and economic sanity to our government have been chastised by many bishops for their plans having “failed a moral test” of some sort.  What moral test does the present state of  matters pass?

Pope Benedict XVI has said:   “At the heart of every culture,… perceived or not, is a consensus about the nature of reality and the moral good, and thus about the conditions for human flourishing.  In America, that consensus, as enshrined in your nation’s founding documents, was grounded in a worldview shaped not only by faith but a commitment to certain ethical principles deriving from nature and nature’s God.  Today that consensus has eroded significantly in the face of powerful new cultural currents which are not only directly opposed to core moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but increasingly hostile to Christianity.

“For her part, the church in the United States is called… to proclaim a Gospel which not only proposes unchanging moral truths but proposes them precisely as the key to human happiness and social prospering. … The Church’s defense of a moral reasoning based on the natural law is grounding [sic] on her conviction that this law is not a threat to our freedom, but rather a “language” which enables us to understand ourselves and the truth of our being, and so to shape a more just and humane world.  She thus proposes her moral teaching as a message not of constraint but of liberation, and as the basis of building a secure future.”  Benedict XVI, January 19, 2012, Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Bishops of the United States of America on their “Ad Limina” Visit.

Lest we mince words, let us refer to those of a writer known as  “cmanion1″ who observes in the Wanderer Forum Foundation (“The Bishops, The Laity and the Budget”, 24 April, 2012), quoting Pat Buchanan,  “the… almost unfathomable corruption in the federal government that… mirrors the sumptuous appetites and smug sense of entitlement in which the Democratic Party leadership wallows.”

Indeed, it is the Democratic party platform which is committed to the taxation/redistribution scheme, as well, as many other aspects of the Culture of Death, described herein previously, as a method of buying votes with the taxpayers’ own money.  From the writer “cmanion1″ again,  “… the bishops’ century-long alliance (some might call it a marriage) with the Democrat party has profoundly damaged both the Church and the country…”  This week’s  Common Lectionary selections include this from Hosea 11:7– “My people are diseased through their disloyalty…”

As Walter Williams reminded recently, stealing from one to give to another is still wrong, even if 200 million of our fellow citizens instruct government to do it.

There is no reason to have any confidence that our protests will be heeded and the evil insanity will stop.  Protest we must, however.  It is what we can do, and we must do what we can.

Regular readers of this blog know that it is a major contention here that the current “war of wills,” so to speak, between Obama’s federal government and the Roman Catholic Church is the result not of merely recent developments but of a long, almost 100 year history of capitulation of the Church to government.
The Church was in favor of the federal government’s bailout of mortgages during the 1930s, for example, and of government “relief” efforts otherwise as well. Admittedly, these efforts may have eased the burden of poverty for many. The question remains, however, as to whether government is the right actor to perform the tasks of what is rightly considered “charity.” Charity works only one way, in only one direction– from the one who has toward the one who needs and does not have. It is not charity, but theft, if the one who perceives a need presumes some moral moral legitimacy, a “right,” to take from one who has.
An idea which must be disposed of early in this debate is that “It is fine to claim philosophical purity in a reliance on private charity, but it will not work and requires the involvement of secular entities, such as government. This is closely akin to saying that Jesus’ myriad admonitions in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere in Scripture are mere hypothetical fantasies; nice ideas but not realistically achievable. Apparently the leadership of the Church in the United States is of this persuasion.
One such example of the reliance on secular entities to do the Church’s charitable mission (not its primary mission, incidentally) is through the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. This organization is the main charitable arm of the USCCB.
One of the beneficiaries, indeed, the biggest beneficiary of CCHD funding is the Industrial Areas Foundation. The goals of the Industrial Areas Foundation are generally expressed in innocuous language that sounds much like Catholic social teaching. Claimed activities include the promotion of the “Nehemiah Housing Program” which claims to have helped many low-income people purchase taxpayer-subsidized housing in Brooklyn, the South Bronx, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington D.C. Another activity is to promote the growth of federal welfare spending. The Industrial Areas Foundation was begun by Saul Alinski, who dedicated one of his his books, Rules for Radicals, to “Lucifer.” Yes, that “Lucifer.”
The inclination of the USCCB, through its Campaign for Human Development to support organizations such as the IAF, is at odds with the United States’ founding principles of a free market, absence of government involvement in churches, the sanctity of privately owned, legitimately and honestly acquired property, the preservation of peace, (which can only be accomplished in our fallen world by means of a powerful military and the willingness to use it). These are some (certainly not all) things we know, by our God-given intellect and from observation, to be good and right and true.
Opposed to these principles are beliefs by many that there are universal human rights to things which we are obliged to provide for ourselves, as best we can. A “right” to that which has been honestly earned, paid for, and legitimately is owned by another simply does not exist. There is, however, a flip side: As one in need has no right to simply “take possession” of what he perceives he needs, the one who does own goods in reality is obliged by a moral responsibility to be a prudent and wise steward of those goods. Part of that stewardship is the provision of needs to those who cannot, for whatever reason, provide these for themselves. This is that beautiful characteristic we know as Christian charity.
It is the purpose of this entry and others to follow to prevent, as much as possible, the funding of the Campaign for Human Development.

The common lectionary of 7 May, year B, includes this tidbit of history from the book of the Acts of the Apostles: “The people in the city were divided, some supported the Jews, others the apostles, but eventually with the connivance of the authorities a move was made by pagans as well as Jews to make attacks on them [the apostles] and to stone them.”  (Acts 14: 4-5, Jerusalem Bible)
It is fair to assume that those referred to here as “the Jews” and “pagans” were not natural allies. The situation is described as the city being “divided” and the event requiring “connivance.” Consider that the Romans who were not Jews, (and therefore, by default, considered “pagans”) had multiple deities all or almost all represented by some man-made imagery, usually sculpture. Compare to “the Jews” who were worshipers of one God and were forbidden graven images of Him, and there becomes evident a natural antagonism.
What brought these two groups together? The very same factor that brings Islam and the Western political left into alliance with each other today: The old adage, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Until the perceived common enemy is vanquished, the alliance is viable and useful, even necessary, harmoniously focused on the common goal.
Consider further that the political left, with its dogma that any dogma is inherently oppressive, compared to the unyielding dogma of Sharia’s minutiae. Sharia declares a death sentence on homosexuals, for example, while the Western political left regards homosexuals and generally “all sexually perverted” as protected under the umbrella of victimhood according to the edicts of political correctness. This is direct opposition, akin to the proverbial “unstoppable force and immovable object.”
Another obvious example is the permission, even admonition, given husbands and fathers, via Sharia, to beat, maim or murder their wives or daughters for even minor perceived slights or gestures considered incorrect.  This,of course, cannot in any way be synchronous with the Western left’s adopted visions of feminism, women’s liberation, or even common decency. Regardless, it demonstrates the almost indescribable intensity of the left’s hatred for all things religiously and politically conservative that they ally themselves with Sharia, the Muslim Brotherhood, et al.
Such intensity of vehemence is daunting to those not of the left’s revolutionary mindset, but who, instead, seek to preserve what we know to be good and right and true. Faced with such opposition, our realistic strategy for prevalence is unification. A unified Christianity is a force that the strength of the gates of hell cannot overcome. The Roman Catholic Church is the spearhead in this conflict, presently. Let us put aside doctrinal differences and petty arguments and disagreements. Our opposition has put aside far greater differences than exist among us. All who wear the name “Christian” must rally together against the legions who seek our demise.  A unified Christianity will constitute a formidable Holy Alliance.

The Church hierarchy, not only in the U.S. but at the Vatican and around the world as well, is fully under the spell of the environmental “green” obsession. It is, of course, only common sense to seek to be good and wise stewards of the earth on which we are born, the earth which we are to subdue and use wisely, but use nonetheless.
This most reasonable concern has been captured and carried to an obscene and deadly extreme by those who answer to an evil master. Just one of the myriad manifestations is “climate change,” (originally “global warming,” until the term was shown demonstrably to be fraudulent). This idea has inflamed the passion of much of the world-wide political left, including the Church hierarchy. A fact worthy of note is that many, if not most creditable climate and meteorological and geological scientists do not believe this phenomenon to be of significance, if it exists at all, and even so, human activity would not be the cause of any climate shift. Rather than being driven by credible science, the “climate change” issue is driven by a political agenda. Any crisis, real or imagined, begs solutions. The believers claim that it is human activity that is responsible for “climate change,” which will, without draconian measures, result in untold horror of heat waves, droughts, rising seas, disappearing islands, flooding of coastal cities, and more.
Describing the desired ends in friendly terms, (“sustainability” is a favorite) wins favorable responses because almost no thought is given to how these ends might be sought. The believers have great enthusiasm for their proposed remedies. These remedies are in two areas: economic shrinkage and population decline. These two efforts work hand-in-glove with each other: A slower economy will only support a smaller population and a smaller population will demand a smaller economy. There also seems a certain gleeful tone in the advocacy of shrinking both economies and population, primarily in the first world and primarily in the United States.
The Church claims that “climate change” will hurt the poor and vulnerable the most. Statements issued by bodies such as the Vatican and the USCCB do not mention the effect that measures to combat “climate change” will have on these “preferential” poor and vulnerable.
The methods of combating “climate change” all come down to this: Consume less. This can only be done by stymying economies or contracepting and aborting significant portions of humanity, or both. Either way, less will be consumed. Either way, it means death to humanity– either partial death to all through a crippled economy and vastly lower living standards, or absolute physical death to those specific individuals who will be contracepted, aborted and euthanized in order to achieve population “control.”
The measures proposed to implement the “salvation of the planet” are so extreme as to seem the stuff of dark fiction, as if they could not possibly be taken seriously. The proponents are, however, quite serious– quite deadly serious. An example from Crisis Magazine will illustrate: The article of 23 March 2012 by Jeffery Clark, entitled Remaking Man to Save the Planet, relates the quite serious proposal by S. Matthew Liao, (a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University) that promotes genetic engineering and other ‘biomedical modifications’ of body function for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Jeffery Clark goes on to observe, “That’s obviously crazy, but it illustrates the absurd lengths to which eco-fanatics will go in the quixotic quest to fix the weather.”  This Huxley-esque image is not even close to the most extreme, but only one in a plethora of the kaleidoscope of nightmares poised for implementation.
Paul Joseph Watson reports, (prisonplanet.com, 3 April 2012) that Oregon University professor of sociology Kari Norgaard asserts “that skeptics of man-made climate change should be ‘treated’ for some kind of psychological disease…” Furthermore, “Finnish environmentalist Pentt Linkola publicly called for climate change deniers to be ‘re-educated’ in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted…” There’s more: Martin Kreiggeist, another Finnish environmentalist writer, “hails Linkola’s call for eco-gulags… as ‘a solution,’ … Kreitggeist wants fellow eco-facists to “act on” Linkola’s call for mass murder in order to solve overpopulation.” James Lovelock, (the creator of the Gaia hypothesis) has said that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet…” Author Keith Farnish calls for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age. Dr. Eric R. Pianka, a biologist based at the University of Texas in Austin, advocated (in 2006, in a speech to the Texas Academy of Science) “the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s population through the airborne ebola virus.” These examples are not even close to exhaustive.
What ultimately drives this passion for inflicting death on humanity, whether by economic sabotage or selective murder? What has prompted (and maintains) the shift from reverence for the Creator to idolatry for the creation; (all of creation, that is, except for humanity, for the believers’ own selves)? The proponents of this extremism are in the grasp of what Pope John Paul II named the Culture of Death, and indeed, that is exactly what it is. It is a tragedy that the Church is in alliance with those who promote the very opposite of its most vehement and foundational teachings. That the USCCB, through its bloated, leftist-indoctrinated staffing, is among the most devout “climate change” believers is, sadly, not in question.
In his 2009 Statement for Respect Life Sunday, Cardinal Justin Regali said that the Church should not advocate for the typical population control (read “reduction”) methods but should stick to economic sabotage only. This is from a website called “Catholic Climate Covenant,” which claims “Care for Creation. Care for the Poor.” The same site promotes the adoption of what is called the “St. Francis Pledge”: to wit:

“Pray and reflect on the duty to care for God’s creation and protect the poor and vulnerable.
Learn about and educate others on the causes and moral dimensions of climate change.
Assess how we– as individuals and in our families, parishes and other affiliations– contribute to climate change by our own energy use, consumption, waste, etc. [cf. "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa."]
Act to change our choices and behaviors to reduce the ways we contribute to climate change.
Advocate for Catholic principles and priorities in climate change discussions and decisions, especially as they impact those who are poor and vulnerable.”

This moral confusion can be traced, at least in part, to a notion that caring for the poor, for the environment ,for the common good, and other leftist causes generally, can qualify as “pro-life.” This is the same phony twisting promulgated in USCCB’s “Forming Consciences…” document a few years ago. It is a deliberate lying and misrepresentation for political ends and much of the Church hierarchy is complicit.
The Trojan Horse has come to us through history as a metaphor for the invasion of destruction into a society disguised as goodness and innocence and well-meaning.
As the Soviet Union was termed “red,” as Communist China is described as “red,” as “red” was so prominent in Nazi Germany, so thoroughly “red” is the environmentalist agenda. In our own time, care and concern for God’s creation, “saving the planet” (from humans, presumably), “sustainability,” and so forth, have entered our society as goodness, innocence and well-meaning. Hidden by their “green” exterior is the fact that their essence, their core, can be symbolized by the “red” of their  tyrannical agenda.
Nowhere is it acknowledged that it is the proposed remedies of this “climate change” which will result in horror, primarily and first of all, visited upon the “poor and vulnerable.”
Nowhere is there an admission that the phenomenon is most likely non-existent and that the supposed “crisis” is fraudulent and imaginary.

There can be no isolated point in time, nor any single pivotal event which occasioned the Church’s confusion of charity with government redistribution of property. To reiterate, this means the taking of one person’s legitimately owned property, the “fruits of his labors,” and its “redistribution” to someone else, not its legitimate owner. In retrospect, one wonders how such a blatant lie ever could have been believed, much less achieved such longevity. Now that the lie is entrenched in modern culture and its axioms almost universally accepted in the popular lexicon, it is rather a bewilderment how to reset the course to “truth.”
Take heart! Do not be afraid! There have been radical cultural shifts before: The Crusades were prompted, nay, were rendered necessary and inescapable by the inherent barbarism and insatiable aggression of Islam. The Protestant Reformation followed an extensive and entrenched pattern of misbehavior by the hierarchy of the Church, not the greatest of which was the well-known wide sale of indulgences.  The Declaration of Independence of Britain’s thirteen colonies was a response to King George III’s oppression, largely economic, of his American subjects.  The American Civil War might well never have happened if the intractable problem of slavery could have been resolved at the nation’s founding.  (The attempts were made but no common ground upon which to compromise could be found.  Indeed, there was none, as the Civil War testifies.)  Hitler’s rise to power followed not only the Versailles Treaty but a complex interaction of unfortunate  social and cultural variables in Weimar Germany.  Many more examples could be offered but these may suffice to illustrate the point.

Let us, then, return to the present dilemma:  Charity is not in any way the same as, nor can it have a substitute, in whole or even in the smallest part, by government’s taxation/redistribution scheme.  Government welfare programs, in all their myriad forms and guises, merely “rob Peter to buy Paul’s vote” (as Rush Limbaugh observed on 16 March 2012).

A sobering realization it is that in any discussion of this scheme we must keep in mind that in a civilized society it is government which alone has a monopoly on the legal use of lethal force.  (Redundancy for emphasis.)  It is this which ultimately permits the perpetration of the crime of theft.

The presently-realized consequences of  government’s intrusion into the operation of Church functions and programs and even into its subsidiary facilities such as hospitals and schools and so forth blatantly illustrate the inherent wrong of government’s involvement in Church activity.

Seeing how blatant is the wrong begs the next question of how to remedy the situation.  A good beginning would be for the Church to accept no government money beyond what is unavoidable and necessary.  Examples of “unavoidable and necessary” include hospitals which treat medicare and medicaid patients.  A college’s acceptance of government-funded or government-guaranteed student loans is an area which should be declined.

As bad as is the government’s nose being into the Church’s business, there is another side to the coin:  Church, in the  persona of the USCCB, should keep its nose out of the secular business of government.  For examples, recent policy statements on agriculture, “global warming,” taxation policy, unemployment insurance, medicaid qualifications and funding, and myriad other such issues, should not be  products of the Church.  Not only has the Church no plenary competence in such purely secular matters, but nor should they– it is not their purpose nor their proper function.

Please, God, let this divorce proceed.