GK Chesterton- a Catholic- wrote this in regards to eugenics in 1917:
I know that [proponents of eugenics] numbers many disciples whose intentions are entirely innocent and humane; and who would be sincerely astonished at my describing it as I do. But that is only because evil always wins through the strength of its splendid dupes; and there has in all ages been a disastrous alliance between abnormal innocence and abnormal sin. Of these who are deceived I shall speak of course as we all do of such instruments; judging them by the good they think they are doing, and not by the evil which they really do.
Given what would transpire in the 1930s and 40s in the cause of eugenics, one might view Chesterton as a prophet. But earlier in the foregoing passage he writes,
There exists to-day a scheme of action, a school of thought, as collective and unmistakable as any of those by whose grouping alone we can make any outline of history. It is as firm a fact as the Oxford Movement, or the Puritans of the Long Parliament; or the Jansenists; or the Jesuits. It is a thing that can be pointed out; it is a thing that can be discussed; and it is a thing that can still be destroyed. It is called for convenience “Eugenics”…
Chesterton was no prophet. The philosophies that gave rise to and promoted eugenics were as plain as the nose on your face, and the consequences of those philosophies equally obvious and equally inevitable. One does not need a special dispensation of the Holy Spirit to determine this. One needs only eyes, a brain, and a willingness to take reality as it really is, rather than bathe oneself in pipe dreams and figure that everything is on the table for consideration, so long as the intent is sincere.
Chesterton could say the same thing today, for Eugenics is not dead. It has merely changed its name and its approaches. I have discussed this and am discussing this at length on this blog. But this goes beyond the issue of ‘eugenics’ and speaks to one of the core premises that makes eugenics possible: it is right and appropriate for the government to manage the human race, much as the DNR manages the deer population. The underlying principles between the two ideas are exactly the same, only the unique characteristics of the two species in question are different, requiring differing approaches, tactics, and considerations.
So we find ourselves today observing the Catholic Church in America completely besides itself because the Obama administration has refused to exempt Catholic organizations from certain provisions of Obamacare that require them to provide access to abortion and sterilization ‘services.’ That is, their insurance plans must include such things, which is to say, that Catholics are going to have to specifically pay for things they are religiously opposed to.
I will not here dwell on the fact that they have already had to do this via public funding for organizations such as Planned Parenthood, with hardly the passion that they oppose this new announcement by the Obama administration.
Instead, what I’d like to point out is that Obama received 54% of the Catholic votes cast in the 2008 presidential election.
On top of that, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote a letter to Congress in early 2010, just months after the passing of Obamacare, seemingly endorsing the legislation and even urging more of that kind, while offering the request that moral consciences be respected on issues such as the public funding of abortion.
Now that considerations of the moral consciences of Catholics have been thrown to the curb, I think it is reasonable to inquire as to whether or not any reasonably informed and sane person could have expected anything else from Obama and his administration.
Anyone who took the time to look into Obama’s ideology would have found many reasons to conclude that there is no way on God’s green earth that the Obama administration would produce anything in accord with the consciences of Catholics or Christians in general. I am of course referring to people who actually are Christian, who accept as truth the notion that there is a God, that he is trinitarian in nature, that Jesus was God incarnate and died to atone for our sins, and so on. There are people who claim to be Christian and by that they merely mean that they have a certain fondness for Jesus as a man; but they like Ghandi equally as well, and could just as well call themselves Ghandians. And to be fair to the Catholics on this point, there were millions of genuine Christian protestants who also voted for Obama, even if on the whole many of those did not.
Obama plainly aligned himself with folks on the radical left, some of whom not only advocated for the overthrow of the United States, but, like Bill Ayers, actually tried to pull it off once. Obama not only carried out the principles set forth by Saul Alinsky, but actually taught them himself. I could go on and on about these connections, but the Alinsky one is especially telling, because in Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, we hear some pretty disconcerting ideas that we must assume that Obama himself accepts, like for example the notion that the ends justify the means and that gaining power is in itself an end to be pursued at all costs. I wrote about this previously.
So now we have a man in office that openly aligned himself with the radical liberal left and proved it by ramming through all sorts of radical leftist notions all the way through and including Obamacare, which as is well known, is modeled after Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts Romneycare. You know, when Romney was a governor there. What happened under Romney’s watch when the Catholic Church requested certain exemptions from legislation requiring them to allow gay people to adopt children? Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to simply stop handling adoption; Romney, meanwhile, weakly tried to get legislation after the fact that would have granted an exception. (I don’t actually know if he succeeded, or if CC is back in the adoption business or not. Anyone?)
Do we have any question what happens to the conscience of Christians when the conscience of liberals and secularists get hold of the reins of a bureaucracy? Look what happened right underneath the nose of a ‘Republican” governor, now front-runner Republican candidate for president in 2012.
Given simple facts of reality, if any Catholic was concerned about their religious liberties and consciences being preserved, the time to have expressed this concern was with their vote in 2008. It is, and was, as plain as the nose on your face; candidate Obama represented “a scheme of action, a school of thought, as collective and unmistakable as any of those by whose grouping alone we can make any outline of history.’
Frankly, the Catholic Church in America needs to clean up its act and get its own house in order. It was played, and big time, and they have no one but themselves to blame for it. They tried to make a deal with the devil, and the devil didn’t even spend much time hiding himself. I’m having trouble feeling sorry for them. It’s partly their fault we’re in this mess to begin with.
But this leads to a fundamental issue in America, something far bigger than the Catholic Church. That requires a separate post. But I hope I’ve made the point clear: don’t complain when the people YOU HELPED ELECT implement policies YOU DON’T LIKE when YOU KNOW THEY SUPPORT THOSE POLICIES.
It is not a difficult concept. Lucky for you, there is another election coming up, and you get a chance to show you learned your lessons.