To Vote or Not to Vote--There Is No Question

They approach you on the street, or at the library, or any place where people gather, clipboard in hand. “Yes, yes,” I wave them off, “I’m registered to vote.” Leave me alone, I add mentally.

     I just discovered why this cadre is so active—did you know that 40 to 50% of Americans don’t vote?

     I understand that people wonder, What’s the point? One vote won’t make a difference. But if millions of individuals think this—as evidently they do—then millions of votes are not cast, and that certainly makes a difference.

     Voting is more than a privilege, more than a right: it is an obligation. Under the section “Duties of Citizens”, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that it is “morally obligatory…to exercise the right to vote” (no. 2240).

     It's not just the big races that matter. Electing the senators and congressmen who make our laws and good judges for our community is also of vital importance. (Nowadays it is chiefly through the courts that anti-Christian organizations have succeeded in eroding the Judeo-Christian foundations of our society.) Moreover, there are often critical issues and propositions that demand our getting out to vote.

     Even if you don’t like either candidate, it’s still worthwhile to go to the polls. In this presidential election, the stakes are too high to stay home.

     Many people (especially Catholics) claim to be “personally opposed” to abortion, but feel that they cannot “impose” their morality on others. (Though we impose our morality on thieves, abusers, etc.) They also point to other issues in which they feel that Obama has the higher moral ground than Romney, and speak of the importance of those issues as well as the relative powerlessness of a president to put an end to abortion.

     At the other end of the spectrum, some pro-lifers feel that in conscience they cannot vote for Romney because he’s not pro-life enough (he makes an exception for cases of rape and incest).

     For both these groups, some enlightenment might be helpful regarding (A) the hierarchy of issues, (B) what cooperation in immoral civic matters is and is not morally permissible, and (C) what the President can do.

The Inequality of Issues

While the human dignity of each person is equal, the importance of each issue is not. The economy, poverty, immigration, even national defense—while all important issues—are simply not as important as the issue of life itself.

     As the bishop of my diocese puts it, "we need to ... recognize that these issues [that enhance human life] only matter if human life itself is a value of fundamental priority and is always protected. If human life is expendable, then these other issues really lose much of their significance.”[1]  

     He goes on to point out that people of good will can disagree about how the lesser issues are handled, whereas there is only one morally licit stance on the non-negotiable issues.

Moral Cooperation

As Christians we must not cooperate with intrinsic evils: “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ... vote for it."[2]

    Because we elect those who write the laws, this means we have to take their stance on such issues into consideration when deciding which candidate we'll vote for. “Citizens support these evils indirectly if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them.”[3]

     Sometimes, though, there's no thoroughly moral choice. In such cases, the Magisterium teaches that a legislator "whose personal absolute opposition to these programmes or laws is clear and known to all, may legitimately support proposals aimed at limiting the damage caused by such programmes or laws.”[4]

     Thus when both or all candidates for an office support an intrinsic evil such as abortion, "citizens must vote in the way that will most limit the harm that would be done by the available candidates.”[5]

     In this presidential election, however, the difference between the two candidates with regard to abortion is vast. (See for instance, "Obama vs. Romney--The Choice Is Clear".) While Romney makes a small (but regrettable) exception, he is otherwise pro-life; Obama’s political record, on the other hand, shows him to be the most pro-abortion president in American history.

What Difference Can the President Make?

True, the President can’t overturn Roe v. Wade himself, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have an impact on abortion.

     Whoever wins on Tuesday will most likely appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court, and perhaps as many as three or even four justices during his term. This is huge. The next President will probably have an enormous impact on the composition of the Court for many years. This not only will affect abortion but also religious freedom and other important matters.

     The President also increases or decreases the number of abortions not only in America but also in other countries by his stance on the Mexico City Policy, the Hyde Amendment, federal support of Planned Parenthood, and U.N. proposals.

     Terrible as any deaths of soldiers or civilians in war are, they do not outweigh the deaths of the totally defenseless—the unborn—whose numbers are staggering. In the U.S., over 55,000,000 babies have been aborted since Roe.[6] More Americans were killed in abortion clinics in the year 2003 alone than in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars combined.[7]  

     The next president will also play a significant role in both the arenas of religious freedom and gay marriage. Government sanctioning of homosexual partnerships has led to religious persecution in several countries, including Canada. Putting these relationships on a legal par with marriage results in the push to give them equal status in the classroom and the public forum. Those who preach the biblical teachings on the matter from the pulpit have been arrested for hate speech. Our own religious liberties are already shrinking (see The Criminalization of Christianity for many examples.); another Obama term will surely shrink them further. 

The importance of tomorrow's election can hardly be overstated. We each have been entrusted with a single vote, like the servant given a single talent in the parable. Spend it well, for each of us will have to give an account for it.

---

[1]Statement from Bishop Richard Lennon regarding Faithful Citizenship and Voting.

[2] John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, no. 73, quoting the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Declaration on Procured Abortion, no. 744.

[3] Catholic Answers’ Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics.

[4] Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 570.

[5] Catholic Answers’ Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics

[6] National Right to Life, "Abortion in the U.S." 

[7] National Right to Life, "Abortion in the United States--Statistics".

Will You Let Your Freedom Float Away?

Ever wonder how Hitler came into power? In working on A Noble Treason for Ignatius Press, I recently learned more about it. The book reports how Sophie and Hans Scholl and their friends launched the White Rose movement to spark an uprising against the Nazi machine (an effort that cost many of them their lives).

     Hitler’s rise is an unsettling story—it’s almost a fluke.  It seems to have occurred largely because people simply weren’t paying attention. Hitler wasn’t seen as a threat; people didn’t take him seriously. Then, things changed so gradually that most didn’t notice what was happening until it was too late. Enough people came to agree with the Nazis that they were able to take over, while the few who recognized the danger were ignored by the majority who were asleep to what was transpiring.

     A small minority of us in America feel similarly surrounded by somnambulism. We’re living among millions who seem to be sleepwalking these days, focused only on their own day-to-day concerns.

     I admit that I’ve done a lot of sleepwalking myself over the years. But I am finally awake and extremely concerned. We have only nine days left; if Obama wins, the continued erosion of our religious freedom is certain.

      We're like Ophelia in Hamlet, singing as we float to our destruction.

      Or like a child reaching for a new toy, forgetting her balloon and the string in her hand—if we aren't careful, our freedom will float away.

Don’t be such an alarmist, you may be thinking. What’s the big deal? Didn’t Obama come up with some compromise? 

     If a compromise has been reached, why are over forty Catholic organizations suing the Obama administration? Why are Belmont Abbey College and Franciscan University and EWTN, among many others, asking for prayers lest they have to decide between exorbitant fines or closing their institutions?

     If everything is going to be fine, why did Cardinal George predict that, “unless something changes,” the page listing all the Catholic hospitals and health care institutions in the Chicago archdiocesan directory by Lent 2014 “will be blank”? (Cardinal's Column—the whole article is well worth the read!) 

     If there’s nothing to worry about, why does the Obama administration speak now of “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion”? As Cardinal George observes: “Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship—no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and the works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. All of these were co-opted by the government” (ibid.).

  

     The only thing preventing Obama from mandating that institutions—Catholic, Christian, Jewish,  Muslim, or any other pro-life institution—fund abortion itself is his personal assurance that he won’t. Such an assurance isn’t very assuring, considering his record. He’s already changed his mind on gay marriage: as a candidate he said he opposed it; as president he decided the Defense of Marriage Act was unworthy of being upheld—despite his oath of office.  The job of the president is to execute the laws; it’s the job of the legislature to write the laws, and the job of the judiciary to judge if the laws are constitutional. This is a mammoth breach on Obama’s part, and few have even noticed.

     If he’s willing to do these things during his first term—risking that there won’t be a second—what would he be willing to do in his second term, without that worry?

     We have a short period of time before us in which to make a difference in the course of our country, in the course of history. Voting against such a regime is critical, but not enough. We must try to encourage and inform others who may be sitting on the fence to do the same.

     My personality shrinks from controversy; I don’t even talk about politics with my extended family. Until now. My husband and I are not only praying and fasting, and urging our children and friends to do the same; we're also going door-to-door and making phone calls. I’m doing whatever I can—including writing this blog.

     

     What will you do?

Time to Wake Up

I recently found myself awake in the middle of the night thinking about abortion.

      With a nursing baby, it’s quite usual for me to wake several times a night. Being middle-aged, it’s not unusual for me to have trouble sleeping on occasion. But, sadly, thinking about the horrors of abortion is not something I often do.

     It’s not a pleasant thing to think about. But is that a reasonable excuse?

     It’s so easy to disparage those living in Nazi Germany for not doing enough—or anything—to stop the Holocaust. How could so many ordinary people let such atrocities happen in their midst? True, the system became very tyrannical and it would take heroism to oppose it. But how could they let that regime take over their democratic country and get so powerful in the first place?

     But am I in any position to criticize? In my own corner of the world, am I doing enough to stop the holocaust of innocents in my own community? Sure, the government has raised the stakes—I can’t peacefully block clinic doors and get arrested merely for a day anymore; now such peaceful civil disobedience could result in the loss of everything or years in jail. Paul’s words on how being single frees one up from such concerns comes to mind; I have to raise my children.

     But even so, there are other avenues open to me. Besides praying, supporting pro-life organizations, educating myself and others, I can also participate in prayer protests. Right now, 40 Days for Life is underway in over 300 locations. This is a particularly powerful campaign, but I don’t have to limit my prayer to those 40-day periods. There are many groups who pray outside abortion clinics every Saturday year-round. I can also help pregnancy centers in a myriad of ways.

     And the next few weeks offer a huge opportunity to make a difference. This year’s election is critical for many reasons. One may hear a lot about the economy, but the issue of abortion is more important. (Hitler, after all, did great things for the German economy.) During the next term, the President will very likely choose at least one new Supreme Court justice, which will impact the court’s balance one way or the other. Obamacare is already geared up to swell abortion, plus it gives the Administration tremendous leeway to expand it even further. The results of this election—not only for the White House but also in Congress—will likely amount to a watershed moment in our country.

     It’s not enough to go and vote to protect the littlest little guys. We must also try to encourage others to do the same. I’m not only volunteering to educate voters and help get the vote out—something I’ve never done before—but also trying to get others to do the same.

     Horrific as their plight is, it’s not just “little ones” (the meaning of fetus) who are affected. Both women and men suffer from post-abortion trauma. My friend and spiritual director, the late Fr. Blair Raum, was the head of Project Rachel in Baltimore and provided post-abortion counseling. He told me that, over and over again, these women would tell him, “The day I had my abortion was the day I entered hell.”

     Many of them have been lied to; they were told that the fetus is just a “blob of tissue.” The vast majority of women who see their little ones via ultrasound see a baby not a blob, and choose not to abort. They’re lied to about the possible complications, only to find themselves bleeding from unintended wounds, or sterile, or with breast cancer years later; some of them die. There are emotional wounds as well; many post-abortive women become depressed, turn to alcohol or drugs, or even attempt suicide. Most relationships with the father don’t survive the abortion; subsequent relationships are also negatively affected.

     A number of those who have left the abortion industry indicate that it is founded on deception. Dr. Bernard Nathanson admitted later that he lied before the Supreme Court during the Roe v. Wade proceedings, exponentially exaggerating the number of women who died in illegal abortions. Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” in that case, says now that she wasn’t even pregnant. Carol Everett, who owned several clinics, reports in her book Blood Money a whole system of lies in the business. Notably, she states that the reason behind getting contraceptives to young people is to produce unwanted pregnancies and provide clients for abortions, in other words, to keep the money rolling in. With regard to abortion, they lied about the fetus, they lied about the procedure, they lied about the risks. It was all about the money.

     Planned Parenthood, in particular, has a vile foundation. Margaret Sanger admired Hitler, promoted eugenics, and founded PP in part to reduce the births of African Americans. Many maintain that racism is still intertwined with the organization, pointing to the fact that most of its clinics are located in minority neighborhoods.

While little ones are being ripped apart, limb by limb, in their mothers’ wombs, while mothers and fathers are suffering from post-abortion trauma syndrome, while I know all this, the surprising thing is that I can get any sleep at all.

Challenges to Changing

The past two blogs have been about dressing modestly. Now for the nitty gritty. Finding modest clothes these days is no easy task.

More than once I've approved buying something for a teenage daughter only to wonder later, What I was thinking? After seeing a couple dozen very immodest options, I guess by comparison and out of sheer exhaustion, that one didn't look too bad. Not until we've bought it and I see her wearing it outside the dressing room....

 

It’s not an easy thing to change how we dress. It can be inconvenient; it can be difficult for those who can't afford it. Where can I find clothes that are modest? What about being fashionable? Do I have to look totally out of it? What if my husband or boyfriend objects?

But it's not impossible. There are companies that sell—some even sell only—modest clothes. You may have to go online, which has the advantage of ease, but the disadvantage of not offering the opportunity to try things on. There are also usually some modest options at most retailers. If you can't find them, ask. Sometimes they're grouped together in a certain section; if the store doesn't have any modest choices, your asking will raise awareness.

If buying a lot of new clothes is not an option, there are cheaper possibilities. Many schools and churches nowadays host second-hand sales to raise funds. You can also find some very nice second-hand shops; once for $10, I bought a new skirt which still had the price tag: $115. Outlet stores are another fruitful source.

One can also work with or supplement one's wardrobe to make it more modest. If you realize a pair of pants are too form-fitting, you can wear it with a top or sweater long enough to cover the seat, or add a long vest. If you're handy with a needle, you can try buying a bigger size and altering as needed.

All of these options involve a lot of hassle, I admit.

It may not seem worth it. It's easy to get discouraged and want to give up. 

We need to remind ourselves of the bigger picture. We need to think of more than our vanity, our pocketbooks, our convenience.

There are three good reasons why women and girls should take the trouble to dress modestly: for our own good, for others, and for the Lord.

For our own sake. Now that we realize what effect dressing (even somewhat) immodestly may have on the men we encounter, don't we want to watch what we wear? It's one thing to want to be attractive; it's another to conjure up intimate details about oneself potentially in the mind of any man one meets. Granted, if a man wants to lust after a woman, he can do it even if she's dressed modestly. But why make it effortless for him? Why seek to be viewed as an object? Immodesty draws attention to only one aspect of a woman, while the rest of her richness as a person is overlooked.

Moreover, immodest clothing puts us in some danger with aggressive males who think, if you put a pie in an open window, you're asking for someone to take it.

For the sake of our own dignity, we should dress modestly.

For the sake of others. Jesus revealed lust to be a serious sin when he said, “Whoever looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt 5:28). Dressing immodestly can tempt men into this serious sin. But women must also beware: recall Jesus’ warning, “Woe to the one by whom temptation comes!” (see Mt 18:6-7).

Jesus said we are to be in the world, but not of the world. Our moral standards must differ from the world’s. What that means in daily life requires prayerful reflection and constant vigilance to make sure we’re not adopting the wrong cultural norms. Though some are called to be radically countercultural, like St. Francis, most of us are called to dress well—we’re more appealing to others if we’re not too weird. But we’re never called to compromise Christ’s standards.

To be “salt for the earth” means we should stand out in some ways. When we dress modestly, we remind men of the dignity and the inner beauty of women. We have a positive effect on those we meet, both male and female. And we are examples to other women and girls. People notice how we dress, and it says something about our beliefs and values.

For the sake of the Lord. We should be concerned most of all about what our Lord thinks. If we wish to follow Jesus, we must imitate Him in everything and obey Him. ("If you love me, you will obey my commands" [Jn 14:15].) Being a Christian means wanting to please Christ. In everything, even in the little details of daily life, we should think about what He wants us to do. So we must ask: Lord, how do You want me to dress? Are You calling me to change, to be an example, even a trend-setter?

Nuggets on modesty from the Catechism  of the Catholic Church “The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man” (2524). “Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies” (2523).    “Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love” (2522).

Conclusion

The Lord is calling males not only to guard their eyes, but also to speak up: boys and men to challenge their peers, husbands to ask their wives to save certain outfits for their eyes only, and fathers to teach their daughters how to attract attention to their inner beauty.

And He wants Christian women to set an example for the world. There is a growing modesty movement in our country. Imagine the impact we can have if as individuals we dress modestly and if we band together to demand more modest fashions from the clothing industry.

Women's Wear: What Should Be Revealed—and What Shouldn't

Our culture has some double-think going on when it comes to what we wear. We have an incredible increase in raciness with a simultaneous denial that it’s of any significance. Anyone who questions it is labeled a prude. But if it’s really so insignificant, why do so many ads take full advantage of it?

Surrounded by immodesty, often we recognize it only when it’s extreme. I've heard that the definition of a slob is “anyone messier than yourself”. It would seem that we define immodesty in a similar way: it's what those people wear, on the screen, on billboards, or in magazines. But think about it: what used to be the hallmarks of a prostitute only 30 years ago is the fashion of today.

So, although as Christians we know our culture’s morals are shrinking steadily, we have to be aware that our culture still influences us. And if we merely avoid what society considers to be immodest, we will not be modest enough. We must “not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of [our] mind[s]” (Rom 12:2).

Moreover, men's minds work differently than women's in this area, so women need some enlightening. In addition to what I mentioned here last week, there's also the matter of what psychologists call “visual closure”. This is the mind's ability, when presented with a partial picture of something, to fill in the gap.

Something similar can happen to a man when he's given too much information about a woman's figure. For instance, when a woman sees another woman wearing a low-cut, strapless dress, she'll just see what's in front of her: the face, the bare shoulders and arms, and the dress. But a man's mind, on the other hand, might automatically leap to what the rest of the bare torso probably looks like.

So between our cultural astigmatism and this imagination dissimilarity, many of us need a little help in recognizing immodesty. Here are some factors to keep in mind.

Three Factors of Immodesty

The skin factor is what we usually think of when it comes to “immodesty.” But it’s made light of now because standards have changed so much in the past century. While in our culture the sight of a mere ankle is no longer titillating, a lot of visible skin is still suggestive. Too much information yields too much imagination.

But immodesty isn't merely a matter of showing too much skin. In fact, other factors can be more alluring. Some women look more immodest in a pair of snug pants than in a bathing suit. Why? Well, pants can accentuate the shape while hiding imperfections. Which brings us to the next factor...

The shape factor is the kind of immodesty most commonly overlooked by Christian women today. I suspect this is due to the fact that the male imagination can be lightning-fast in this department, whereas the female imagination in this area is usually slow or even requires a push.

Low-cut tops and mini-skirts aren’t the only triggers: for countless men, form-fitting pants and tops are also triggers. And “form-fitting” doesn’t just mean “tight”. We need to expand our notion of what is "revealing" to include what reveals one’s shape.

Anything that emphasizes the lower half of a womanly curve (in front or back) is probably too shape-revealing. Unfortunately, nowadays, this includes a large proportion of pants and tops.

Clingy, silky materials are also suggestive even without being close-fitting. (Hence their use in lingerie.)

The accessibility factor is also frequently overlooked. It’s what makes a mini-skirt immodest when shorts the same length would be fine. “Accessible” clothing requires only a minor cause to reveal key areas of the body. We can't be naive about how music videos, racy movies, and pornography have exacerbated the unfavorable tendencies of the post-Eden male imagination.

Even items that only appear to be accessible—such as “skooters”—are problematic. Many a man won’t realize they include shorts. He sees what appears to be a mini-skirt, and the accessibility factor kicks in.

Now if you've gone shopping anytime in the last ten years, you may be feeling some dismay about the possibility of finding any clothes without one of these factors, especially for the younger generation. I know! I have five daughters—and the only who's easy to buy clothes for is the five-month-old.

But don't despair or conclude it's impossible. Next week, I'll discuss the practicalities of dressing modestly.