Chapman also has the wisdom to understand that talk, even talk put to music, is cheap.  In The Walk, he asks whether he has lived as Jesus taught, whether he has answered God’s holy call to serve Him.  “When the music stops, am I doing the Walk?”  For Chapman, it’s a matter of faith in action.  Nothing else is as important.  Or as Chapman puts it: “You can run with the big dogs, you can fly with the eagles, you can jump through all the hoops and climb the ladder to the top; but when it all comes down, you know it all comes down to the Walk.”

On January 22 in Washington D.C., pro-lifers from across the country will literally and figuratively walk.  They’ll join forces in the March for Life, a march that sadly still must be made.  This year’s march marks the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision destroying our culture and country.  Since Roe, we have legally killed almost 50 million unborn babies. Almost 200 sovereign lands aren’t that populous.  The abortion rate here is about 1.2 million annually, meaning that around twelve human lives are destroyed every five minutes.  It’s the American Holocaust, colored in blood red.  Freedom for women?  The hundreds, if not thousands, of women dead from legal abortion would surely say no.

The marchers figure to be even more determined this year because of another D.C. walk just two days earlier.  It’s the inaugural parade ushering in the presidency of Barrack Obama.  Though we are thankful for the peaceful transition of power, the transition will be anything but peaceful for the unborn.  The president-elect has pledged himself to reversing pro-life gains, actions that will make him the most pro-abortion president in our history.  By the time the pro-life walk steps off, the reversals will likely have already begun.

No church has been more outspoken in defense of the unborn than the Catholic Church, yet 54 percent of Catholics voted for our new president.  What explains it?  The economy?   It’s hard to believe that people put pocketbooks ahead of life.  I’d like to think that it was due to the lack of national attention given to the abortion issue during the campaign. It went virtually unmentioned.   And I’d like to think that Catholics would be appalled by what now looms.  President-elect Obama has promised to support taxpayer-funded abortions and destructive embryo research, the end of parental notification restrictions, the forced participation of health care workers in abortion regardless of their beliefs, the reinstatement of partial-birth abortions, and the removal of safety restrictions at abortion mills.  He will only nominate judges for the Supreme Court who will support legal abortion.  And he will fund United Nations agencies that advance abortion, even forced abortion, worldwide.   Is this what you want?

So how do we respond?  Perhaps we can start by remembering an American whose walk has allowed our new president to occupy his new office. Sitting in a city jail during Easter weekend in 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King penned a letter explaining to clergymen why he was protesting in Birmingham, Alabama.  In a word, it was because of injustice. Citing the teachings of Sts. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, King wrote that a just law is one that “squares with the moral law or law of God.”  An unjust law is the opposite.  King told us that we have a “moral responsibility” to disobey unjust laws.  It didn’t matter to King that he was viewed as an extremist, for so were many great figures.

And the first on King’s list was Jesus, an “extremist for love.”   Jesus walked from village to village seeing the injustices of life.  He saw the Roman oppression of His people.  He saw the oppression caused by misguided religious leaders who talked the truth but walked a different path.   He saw the oppression caused by sin itself.  He heard the cries of all, and He responded by sacrificial love.  His life was a walk, and it led to the top of a hill.  For us.  He taught us the Walk.

Jesus didn’t face legal abortion in His time here.  He left that one for our walk.   He calls us to see the unborn.  He asks us to hear their cries.  And He challenges us to resist the madness of legal abortion.  Just as we have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws, we have a moral obligation to resist their enactment.  Tell our new president about your opposition to his pro-abortion plans. Contact your federal and state representatives.  Let them all know that you did not elect them to continue legal abortion and will walk away from them if they do.  And walking with Jesus means that like Jesus, we must work to change hearts.  Train your kids in the beauty of life and the horror of abortion.  Engage your friends, workmates, even fellow Churchgoers on the issue.   Speak the truth that legal abortion is a tragedy and a sin, not a loving choice.  Volunteer for pro-life work, or start your own projects.  Pray always.

Come January 20, a new set of big dogs and eagles are hitting D.C.  They come with a harmful set of plans for the unborn.  Jesus challenges us to respond.

It all comes down to the Walk.

Paul V. Esposito is a Catholic lawyer who writes on a variety of pro-life topics.  He and his wife Kathy live in Elmhurst, Illinois, where they raise their six kids.

© Paul V. Esposito 2009.  Culture of Life.  Permission to copy and distribute for pro-life purposes is granted.  Visit us on the web at http://www.the-culture-of-life.com/

We all have favorite Christmas albums (albums?), and one of my wife Kathy’s favorites comes from her childhood.  It’s a Frank Sinatra recording that for years was the only Christmas music her family owned.  They had great taste.  Arguably the best pop crooner of the 20th century, Sinatra sings the gamut, from those J-I-N-G-L-E Bells to our Church’s most profound carols.

One song that has stayed with me is Whatever Happened To Christmas.  Though written as a statement, its title is a question — and a great one.  What did happen to Christmas?  We sing about grandmas getting run over by reindeer.  We buy Nativity scenes portraying baby Jesus as a bird, Mary a cat, and Joseph a dog.  We decorate trees with Coke bottle ornaments.  No doubt Darth Vader is hanging on a branch.  We go to meaningless parties and hand over meaningless gifts.  All too often, we find ourselves overbooked, overdrawn, overwrought, and just waiting for it to be over.

In truth, Ol’ Blue Eyes’ question can only be answered by asking another: what ever happened to us?  There are many explanations, but one stands out among the rest.  We’ve lost our sense of awe, our wonder and reverence for a gift so implausibly planned that only God could have come up with it.

Remember how it all began.  God’s first two of us, His greatest creations, couldn’t control their pride and desire long enough to overcome the temptation to sin.  They lost the Garden, but they didn’t lose all.  For in God’s love He promised a Savior.  Generations followed Adam and Eve, and so did sin, but the Promise was never withdrawn.  Many misunderstood God’s plan; they expected a king who would crush those who held them in captivity.  Then, as now, it was hard to read God’s mind.  They waited and waited: “Why not today?”  But the time was not right.

Until out of the clear blue an angel appeared to a virgin to announce her pregnancy.  Just try to wrap your mind around that thought.  “How can this be for I do not know man?” Mary asked.  “Nothing is impossible for God,” Gabriel replied.  With all eyes on her and her betrothed, Mary and Joseph journeyed forth to be counted as Caesar’s subjects and as God’s faithful ones.  On a cold winter’s night she gave birth to the Promise.  The Babe could look up and see stars that He had fashioned, that He had placed.  God had come to earth! Most people hadn’t a clue.

As the Child grew in size and strength, He grew in stature.  Miraculous things happened.  He walked on water.  He multiplied loaves and fish.  He healed the sick.  He forgave sin.  But He was rejected, made to die a criminal’s death for our sins.  It was a death that the Father had planned.  A Promise dashed?  No, a Promise fulfilled for on the third day He who raised others raised Himself.  By His death and resurrection, we can be saved.  It’s a gift that we’ve never earned.  Nor ever could.

God’s plan for our salvation is even more awesome when we realize that it could have been far different. He could have found an easier way.  Instead, He chose to come to earth as a human.  And He chose to save us through the active involvement of humans.  Jesus was born of Mary because that pregnant unwed teenager freely said yes to the Plan.  The same God-given free will that allowed Adam and Eve to choose death allowed Mary to choose life.  She did not know where her yes would lead her.  But she understood that there could be no better path than the one God had mapped.

If we are going to recapture the meaning of Christmas, then Christmas must become far more than a time to pull out the decorations and music.  It must become our time for being in awe of a God who loved us enough to be one of us—and who continues to work through us.  It must be our time to see God’s eyes in the eyes of His children, to feel His hand in their touch.  And it must be our time to remember that in each unborn child, far more than the miracle of life is at work.  The awesome Plan of God is continuing to reveal itself.  We need not be pregnant to say yes to it.  We do so by an active ongoing commitment to respect and revere the life that only He can create.  Like Mary, we have no idea where our yes will lead us.  But we know that it is the best way.

God so loved the world that He sent His only Son.   He still comes, and through each human being, no matter the circumstances of her conception.  Born or unborn, each human life is His expression of love.  The mere thought should leave us speechless.

What ever happened to Christmas?  It’s still here for those who let themselves say yes to the awe.  May it be you.

Merry Christmas!

Paul V. Esposito is a Catholic lawyer who writes on a variety of pro-life topics.  He and his wife Kathy live in Elmhurst, Illinois, where they raise their six kids.

© Paul V. Esposito 2008.  Culture of Life.  Permission to copy and distribute for pro-life purposes is granted.  Visit us on the web at http://www.the-culture-of-life.com/

But one sacrament is little used: Penance.  Lines for Sunday Communion are long, but lines for Saturday Confession are short.  Why don’t we go more often? It’s probably because of our fear of honestly examining our consciences. We avoid Confession like the plague because we don’t like to admit that we are sinners.  We invent a personal morality that turns our big sins into little sins and makes our little sins disappear. And by confusing our consciences, we often cause a world of hurt.

We will soon vote for our next president. The candidates’ differences on abortion are stark: Barack Obama supports abortion rights; John McCain opposes them. Voting for these candidates (and others) may come down to a matter of conscience. But as faithful citizens, we must vote with a well-formed conscience.  The bishops remind us: “Conscience is not something that allows us to justify doing whatever we want, nor is it a mere ‘feeling’ about what we should or should not do.  Rather, conscience is the voice of God resounding in the human heart, revealing the truth to us and calling us to do what is good while shunning what is evil.”  Forming Consciences For Faithful Citizenship, par. 17 (Nov. 2007).

Blessed Mother Teresa said that abortion kills not only the child but also the conscience.  Fifty million deaths have numbed our consciences to the horrible reality of abortion.  All too often we have ignored the plight of the unborn, and even ignored their existence.  We dehumanize them through terms like mass-of-tissue, zygote, embryo, or fetus.  Those are our words, not God’s.  We know the truth: at every stage, every unborn is a life with potential, not a potential life. Would He want them aborted?

Some justify their support for abortion-rights candidates by claiming that abortion is just one of many problems.  They argue that those candidates overall have better solutions to today’s problems.   But there is a two-word difference between abortion and every other problem: legalized evil.  No candidate proposes that we end poverty by killing the poor.   No one suggests that we solve our immigration, education, and health care woes by killing immigrants, school kids, and the sick.  But to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy, some would have us kill the unborn.  And we have ⎯ by the millions.  Do we honestly believe that God approves our sacrificing the most innocent and defenseless humans of all because we like a candidate’s views on other issues?

Some try to justify their supporting abortion-rights candidates by arguing that we may not impose our morality on others. But if so, why does our society prohibit theft, fraud, prostitution, drug and alcohol abuse, discrimination, and a host of other moral wrongs.  Long before Christ instituted the Church, God wrote in all hearts that we must not kill.  Freedom from abortion is a human right, one advanced by all religions and even supported by atheists.

Some argue that they may morally adopt a “pro-choice” position in voting for candidates.  The pro-choice-not-pro-abortion argument is the concoction of those mistakenly seeking moral cover for immoral votes.  Whatever their personal beliefs, pro-choice voters actively support the right of others to kill the unborn.  By knowingly and willfully giving support, they “cooperate with evil.” Forming Consciences, par. 30.  Would God ever approve of our helping another to kill an unborn human?

For some, voting for a candidate is a matter of family history and party loyalty.  The pull to remain faithful to the past is strong.  It can be subconscious.  But the stakes are too high to let those influences control our votes; innocent humans are being slaughtered.  So we must remember another history and a greater fidelity.  To ransom a slave, God gave up His Son.  We are the slaves.  If He can sacrifice His own Son for us, can’t we sacrifice a party vote for Him?

Barack Obama intends to restore partial-birth abortion, appoint pro-abortion judges, eliminate right-of-conscience and parental notice protections, and require taxpayer funding of abortions.  John McCain won’t. For voters, there will be no avoiding the abortion issue.  The lives of millions hang in the balance.  So before you vote, imagine yourself saying to God: “I may let my vote support legal abortion because . . ..”  You complete the sentence.  Ask God for His advice.  Listen with your heart, and follow.

God sets before us fire and water, life and death, and tells us to stretch forth our hands over one; He will give us what we choose (Sir. 15:16-17).  It is a process much like voting.  For far too long we have chosen death, and it has been given us.  If we open ourselves to the voice of God speaking to our hearts, we will make Godly choices.

Choose life!

Paul V. Esposito is a Catholic lawyer who writes on a variety of pro-life topics.  He and his wife Kathy live in Elmhurst, Illinois, where they raise their six kids.

© Paul V. Esposito 2008.  Culture of Life.  Permission to copy and distribute for pro-life purposes is granted.  Visit us on the web at http://www.the-culture-of-life.com/

In the 50’s and 60’s, kids carried little money.  If you had a quarter, you were lucky; if you had 50 cents, you were rich.  If you had a buck, you were a thief.  But it didn’t matter because in those days penny candy really did cost a penny.  Any kid with just one cent was a Pearl customer, one we hated to see in line.  His choice took the longest.  With only a penny, he had to get it right.

Life is full of choices, and not all as sweet as candy. Some have huge moral implications for others and us.  Thankfully, there are rules that will guide us in making morally sound ones.  These rules will help us as we consider the issues and candidates over the next month.  Like it or not, the time to choose has come.

When our choice is between one good or another, we can choose either without moral concern.  Supporting a soup kitchen or a crisis pregnancy center is a matter of personal option.  Either choice is morally good.  When the choice is one between good and evil, we must always choose the good, never the evil. We are never permitted to cheat, lie or steal.  Honesty must always prevail.

We run into problems when we try to find good reasons for bad choices. Robbing a bank is morally wrong even if we give the loot to a mission.  Owning slaves is morally evil even though we may give slaves a place to live and three squares a day.  We may not do evil to accomplish good.  The end does not justify the means.

And this leads to the related problem we often face in considering candidates.  We may not balance goods against evils.  We may not separately count a candidate’s morally good and bad positions, and then compare figures. Sound moral decision-making not a matter of scorekeeping.  If a candidate supports one moral evil but also supports ten morally good positions, we may not conclude that the candidate is acceptable.  That one evil position is enough to outweigh the good ones.

Want proof?  Consider a real live elected official from not long ago—Adolph Hitler.  Assume that you’re a German voter. He did some pretty impressive stuff.  While the American economy was in the tank, he brought unemployment down to one percent, even less.  He built roads and improved cities.  He loved architecture.  The kids were being educated.  The culture was hopping.  He restored national pride. He had a record of accomplishment.  But to Hitler, the only good Jew was a dead Jew.  And under his leadership, six million people were slaughtered, mostly Jews.  Would it matter to your vote if we added many more “goods” to his scorecard?  What if we lowered that kill-figure to one million? How about just 1,000?

Legal abortion has not killed just 1000 or just six million.  The kill-figure now approaches 50 million unborn babies.  And that doesn’t count the killed and badly wounded women, the destroyed relationships, and all other related harms.  So, if a candidate supports legal abortion, what possible “good” position balances off that evil?  Universal health care?  Include immigration.  Add unemployment and education for good measure.  Heck, throw ’em all in the mix.  May a candidate’s positions on other issues ever excuse our voting for the continuation of a legal evil?  It didn’t in Hitler’s time.  It didn’t when Americans owned slaves.  It doesn’t now.

But what if we must choose between alternatives, both seemingly evil?  The old saying is the right one: we must choose the lesser of two evils.  Not all evils have the same moral weight.  Killing a person is worse than lying about him.  Our choices must be the ones that will do the least harm.  This rule must guide us when considering candidates who, for example, oppose the war or capital punishment yet favor legal abortion.  Question: which is the worse, or worst, evil?  How many people were killed last year in the war or by capital punishment? Do those figures even come close to the about 1.2 million or so killed by abortion each year — all of whom were absolutely innocent and completely defenseless.

Finally, don’t believe those who may say that a pro-life vote is a single-issue vote.  Those who voted against Hitler or American slavery were not single-issue voters. They were voters who soundly prioritized the issues.  If more people had voted like them, millions of lives would have been saved.

This year’s election is a bad news-good news thing.  The bad news is that like the kid with only a penny, each of us has only one vote.  But the good news is that by voting together, we can buy the store!  It comes down to just that.  If we vote as a block in support of life, we can end legalized abortion.

And, oh, how sweet it will be!

Paul V. Esposito is a Catholic lawyer who writes on a variety of pro-life topics.  He and his wife Kathy live in Elmhurst, Illinois, where they raise their six kids.

© Paul V. Esposito 2008.  Culture of Life.  Permission to copy and distribute for pro-life purposes is granted.  Visit us on the web at http://www.the-culture-of-life.com/

M*A*S*H did more than make us laugh. It introduced us to the dedicated men and women who battled hostile conditions to save badly wounded soldiers. Often besieged by waves of soldiers airlifted to their doorstep, the medics fought a relentless enemy: time. They needed to make quick but tough choices about whom to treat first. Lives depended on their decisions.

How did they make the right ones? They triaged the wounded. To triage means to sort, sift, or select. Medics prioritized the wounded according to the nature and severity of their wounds. Although everyone needed treatment, some could wait until the more seriously wounded received care. The triage system worked then, and it is standard medical procedure today. If a victim breaks a wrist, cracks a rib, and severs an artery, doctors know what to treat first—and fast.

The need to triage is not limited to physical injuries, for humans suffer in other ways. Triage also applies to the issues of life. By the mid-1800s our expanding country was feeling the growing pains. There were issues about foreign policy and a war with Mexico, the economy, public education, and transportation. But one issue towered over all others—slavery. It so badly infected our culture that when slave Dred Scott escaped to freedom, our own Supreme Court held that he was not a person and must be return to his master. Because we failed to close the gaping wound of slavery, we fought a civil war that killed and injured millions and brought us thisclose to destroying our country.

Our problems today differ from those of past years, but the need to prioritize remains. All issues are important, but we cannot effectively treat them at the same time. So we must dispassionately triage. What wound is causing us to bleed from our arteries? Left untreated, what wound will continue to infect our entire culture? Our triage must guide us as voters in choosing the candidates who will tend to our worst problems first.

What is our greatest and gravest wound? It is legal abortion. It violates our most fundamental and cherished right as humans and Americans—the right to life. In many ways, it is worse than the horror of legal slavery. In 1860, there were about five millions slaves in this country. So far, abortion has killed about 49 million pre-born babies. Unlike slaves, they could not escape the destruction awaiting them. Dred Scott was returned to slavery, but at least he was able to run. To where can the unborn flee?

As an unchecked hemorrhage weakens our bodies, so the gush of blood from abortion has weakened our national conscience. Hundreds, maybe thousands of women have died from legal abortion. Where is the outcry? So far, thirteen women have died from RU-486, the “safe” abortion drug. It is still sold. School personnel unwilling to give aspirin to kids without parental consent give them contraceptives and even help them obtain abortions, all without any parental input. It continues. As for the unborn, they struggled to find protection outside the womb. Barack Obama opposed legislation requiring medical care for babies surviving abortion. We show more compassion to injured animals. His votes are frightfully reminiscent of Dred Scott, and even more so of infanticide. But Obama remains a candidate for president. From all appearances, abortion has bled our desire to care for the most defenseless of all humans.

And abortion has caused massive secondary infections within our culture. Human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, sex-selection abortions, the abortion of the disabled, the marketing of fetal body parts are but a few. Medical personnel are now threatened with the loss of licenses for not being accomplices to abortions. Our culture condones assisted suicide and even the forced starvation of the infirm. It all stems from the loss of respect for life. And that stems from abortion.

No problem has caused the damage done by abortion. No issue requires more immediate care. For like slavery, legal abortion is legalized evil. Whatever our problems may be in the areas of health care, immigration, unemployment, welfare, education, housing, public transportation, even war, we do not allow the intentional killing to innocent human life to solve them. We may disagree about the solutions, but we still seek the good of all. But nothing good comes from abortion. Nothing.

Our most serious wound is abortion, and left untreated it is deadly for the unborn and for us. It must be fixed, and soon, for time is running short. Certainly we should not throw in the towel on solving our other problems. But we must realize that as committed Christian voters, we can put an end to a deadly evil. And we must.

Countless soldiers were given new leases on life because men and women dispassionately made the right calls. By doing the same in November we can close a gaping cultural wound, and save the lives of millions in the process.

Paul V. Esposito is a Catholic lawyer who writes on a variety of pro-life topics. He and his wife Kathy live in Elmhurst, Illinois, where they raise their six kids.

© Paul V. Esposito 2008. Culture of Life. Permission to copy and distribute for pro-life purposes is granted. Visit us on the web at http://www.the-culture-of-life.com/

Censorship involves the suppression of a message. Had the archdiocese forbid all anti-torture messages or had edited Miles’ message as part of a pre-approval requirement, it would have been censorship. Miles’ situation was different. The problem was not Miles’ anti-torture message; the problem was Miles himself. The archdiocese barred Miles from speaking on archdiocesan grounds because he supports abortion rights. But the archdiocese publicly stated that its action “is in no way a repudiation of Dr. Miles’ commendable work in the area of torture and torture victims.” That fact is crucial, but McBrien omits it. The parish was free to present the substance of Miles’ topic and message though a speaker who did not support abortion rights.

The bishops’ wise 2004 guidance protects Church moral teaching from being misunderstood or diluted. What if that parish had instead invited a known racist to speak on Catholic education, his field of expertise? Probably even McBrien would cancel him. Why? Because the Church opposes racism, so the speaker’s appearance would make the Church’s stand against racism look half-hearted. And opponents of other Church teachings could use the speech to attack the Church’s credibility. Look how they have used the sexual abuse scandal to attack the Church’s moral teachings on sexuality.

McBrien accuses the Church of applying a double standard by censoring those who oppose Church teachings on sexuality but not on other issues. As to the “other” issues — like war, immigration, or global warming — the Church correctly recognizes that prudent judgments must be made about which reasonable people often disagree. The Church does not even always oppose capital punishment. But abortion and stem cell research involve the purposeful killing of innocent human life. It is always morally wrong, and the Church always opposes it. As for homosexuality, the Church does not oppose it, only the legalizing of immoral conduct though marriage. Distinctions among issues must be drawn, but McBrien fails to draw them.

And he fails to acknowledge the inconsistency of Miles’ position. Centuries ago humans were condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered: hanged until nearly dead, disemboweled, then cut into pieces and scattered. Today, an abortionist grabs a pre-born baby, cuts her into chunks, sucks her out of the womb, and dumps her in the garbage. Or he might inject the pre-born baby with saline, which dehydrates her and scalds her skin. For late-term pre-born babies, he pulls her mostly free of the womb, punctures her neck near the base of her skull, and vacuums out her brains. If it all sounds like torture, that’s because it is. As for their mothers, they are left to live tortured lives, often physically damaged or clinically depressed, sometimes so full of guilt and shame that they turn to suicide for release. Miles may regret abortion, but apparently not enough to oppose it. By supporting abortion rights, he effectively supports the torture of a whole class of human beings—the pre-born. How much credibility can he have on the subject of torture?

McBrien concludes his essay with the criticism, “For some Catholics, it seems, pro-life still refers only to abortion.” McBrien doesn’t knock Dr. Martin Luther King, Blessed Mother Teresa, Elie Wiesel, or the many others who have passionately focused their life’s work on fighting a single problem or evil. Contrary to McBrien’s belief, pro-lifers do realize that pro-life covers more than abortion. But they also realize that the right to life is the fundamental right from which all others flow. Torture is immoral because it violates the human dignity endowed by God at conception. Because the right to life is so fundamental, pro-lifers have vigilantly guarded the Church’s message from all compromise.

And in doing so, they are helping to combat many other problems. We must always remember that God works through people, and in protecting His pre-born we give them a chance to do God’s work. Sad to say, we may have aborted many whom God has sent to provide us with desperately needed answers to our problems. But this is no reason to despair, for in life there is hope. Each and every unborn re-confirms God’s own message: I love you and will remain with you. The next Dr. King, Blessed Mother Teresa, or Elie Wiesel, the next generations of champions of true freedom, justice, and compassion will still come ⎯ provided we zealously defend their right to life.

In the end, McBrien misses the chance to combat the real censorship at work in our culture. It is legal abortion, the state-allowed censorship of God’s message ⎯ the cruelest censorship of all. Come November, we must vote for those who will end it.

Paul V. Esposito is a Catholic lawyer who writes on a variety of pro-life topics. He and his wife Kathy live in Elmhurst, Illinois, where they raise their six kids.

© Paul V. Esposito 2008. Culture of Life. Permission to copy and distribute for pro-life purposes is granted.

We know well the words of the first stanza but sometimes miss the important words of the second: America, America, God mend thy every flaw.  Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law.  True freedom comes from God.  Its free exercise requires that we maintain proper relationships with God and our neighbors. That’s why God gave us the Ten Commandments and why they are the root of our entire system of law.  Ordered liberty is the hallmark of the American experiment.

Our liberty is not maintenance-free.  The freedoms secured by over 230 years of blood, sweat, and tears, can disappear in relatively short order.  The slide down a mountain is always faster than the climb up.  We must remain vigilant for any loss of the true freedom that God intends for all of us.  We can serve God only if we are free ourselves.  So we must we understand our system of government, how it preserves our freedom to serve God, and how it can threaten that freedom.  Faithful citizenship demands no less.

The Declaration of Independence proclaims the fundamental truth that God has endowed on us the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Government exists to secure those rights, drawing its power “from the consent of the governed.” So important is the right of self-governance that with God as their witness, our forefathers pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to secure it.

The Declaration did not establish how the new nation would govern itself.  Our Constitution does.  Its genius starts with the first three words: “We, the People.”  The power to govern is placed in the hands of the governed.  Law comes through the will of the people, as enacted by elected legislators. Presidents are elected to lead, not control. The powers of congress and president are checked and balanced so neither could gain control.  Judges resolve disputes.  The Constitution provides for their appointment, not election, to preserve their independence from politics.

Our Constitution does not provide answers to the nitty-gritty problems of life.  It creates a framework that specifically leaves that power to the people of each state.  The people are to decide for themselves on the best ways to protect their health, safety, and morals.  Over the years they have done just that, and have done it well.  When elected officials fail to perform, the people know what to do come next election.

But the system has become flawed.  Some judges have overstepped their bounds by reading into the Constitution “rights” not found there.  One is the so-called right to abortion on demand.  Abortion is now so entrenched in our legal system that parents cannot protect their own children from it.  Or protect any other child.  What’s happening is that we are losing our constitutional right to set Godly standards of decency.  With every judge-created new “right,” the people lose an old one—the right to be faithful citizens. And because it is virtually impossible to amend the Constitution, wrong decisions will be corrected only when right-minded judges are placed in position to correct them.

This makes the appointment of judges the critical issue of our day.  Because presidents nominate judges, we need to know the candidates’ views regarding the role of judges in interpreting the Constitution.  In a speech to Planned Parenthood (a tip-off if there ever was one), Barrack Obama expressed his views.  Unlike his opponent, he wants judges who share his “broader vision” of the Constitution.  That’s legal-speak for wanting judges who will use the Constitution to create their own social order.  According to Obama, his view prevents the courts from being the rubber stamp of the powerful.  But just check out the math.  The president nominates a judge. Only 51 senators are needed to confirm him.  Only five judges are needed to create bad law.  A mere 57 people can create a virtually unchangeable policy governing over 300,000,000 citizens.  So just who is powerful?  And who is powerless?   Ironically, the signers of the Declaration broke from King George because he “made Judges dependent on his Will alone.”

Over the next four years, two judges favoring abortion may leave the Supreme Court.  The next president will nominate their replacements.  He will set the wheels in motion to either end legalized abortion as we know it or continue it for years on end.   So far, the “right” to abortion has caused the death and suffering of millions.  Come next election we, the people, will decide the fate of millions more.

America, America, God mend thy every flaw.  Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law. For all its flaws, America is the freest country in the world.  If we vote as citizens faithful to God and our Constitution, it will remain that way.  For all.

Paul V. Esposito is a Catholic lawyer who writes on a variety of pro-life topics.  He and his wife Kathy live in Elmhurst, Illinois, where they raise their six kids.

© Paul V. Esposito 2008.  Culture of Life.  Permission to copy and distribute for pro-life purposes is granted.

It’s only natural that as parents, we have big dreams for our kids. Unfortunately, not all dreams come true. Stumping for votes, Barack Obama recently said that he plans to teach his girls about morals and values, “but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” A daughter pregnant before marriage — it’s every parent’s nightmare. The candidate’s comment tells us much about his views about the right to life. And it calls us to examine our own.

Until abortion was legalized, civilized society held sacred the belief that no child may be killed for the sins of her father (Deut 24:16). The reason is apparent. Children have no hand in their parents’ sins. A pre-born child does not choose to be involved in an act of rape, incest, or premarital or extramarital intercourse. So where is the justice in killing her? Abortion is capital punishment of the truly innocent. And what does our allowing abortion teach our children? It teaches them that they need not face their mistakes. They can kill them. That’s hardly a lesson in Christian morals and values.

Ironically, Obama’s desire to spare his children from “punishment” may inflict a punishment far more horrendous. Why? The one thing worse than making a mistake is compounding it. Abortion kills. Although an abortion ends a woman’s pregnancy, it does not erase the woman’s memories of her child or her action. They stay with mother, all the better to haunt her. That’s the devil’s way. It wants the worst for even those it lures into sin. Guilt and regret are abortion’s constant companions.

Ask Jo Woodgate. At age 27, she aborted her child. Now 67, she cannot shake the memory. Watching a niece cradle her newborn, tears filled Jo’s eyes. She found herself “being transported back in time almost 40 years.” She could still smell disinfectant and see disapproving hospital workers. Until recently, Jo was afraid to admit, “All I could think about was the baby I’d killed and what might have been.” The wound has festered, not healed, over time. “[W]ith each year that has passed I’ve only felt a growing sense of guilt and regret over my actions.” Jo now understands the problem. “Like so many young girls, I just saw it as an easy way out of a messy situation. With maturity, I’ve realized that life is complicated, and that getting rid of a baby to solve an immediate problem is not always the obvious solution it appears to be.”

Jo’s suffering is not unique. A study published in 2007 in BMC Pyschiatry found that post-abortive women experience high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder. About 20% of the women experienced PTSD symptoms within one month of their abortions. The number climbed 61% by the third month. These figures support a 25-year New Zealand study concluding that woman having abortions are more likely to become severely depressed. And a 2004 U.S. study found that post-abortive women were 30% more likely to suffer emotional problems than women who did not have an abortion.

What does it all mean? Subjecting anyone to an abortion exposes her to a possible lifetime of problems. It is a needless risk because adoption is always an alternative. Thousands of couples would love the chance to raise someone’s “mistake.” A woman is not “punished” by having a child. She is punished by having an abortion. Christian compassion calls us to give women something better than abortion.

Perhaps more than anything, Obama’s comment challenges us to examine our own beliefs about God’s power and love. As much as we’d like to think that we create children, we really don’t. Only God does. No child is ever conceived without God’s permission. None. We are here because He allows us to be here. Is he mistaken?

Strange as it may sometimes seem, God has His reasons. For God dreams, too. When He’s not smiling at our folly, He’s dreaming of our potential. To God, no child is a mistake or a punishment. Each and every child is a gift of His boundless love. And regardless of the circumstances of a child’s conception, God has given each one a purpose — to serve Him. Maybe it’s by sheltering the homeless, feeding the hungry, or healing the sick. Perhaps it’s by fighting for justice in a world gone nutty. Or maybe just being a needed friend. Imagine all the contributions to society made by the “mistakes” of the world, mistakes allowed by others to live. God’s ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8). If we see each child through God’s eyes, we will realize that every child is the sweet dream of a loving Father. Punishment? Not on your life.

Our country will be far more Christian when those who seek to lead it truly appreciate that God doesn’t punish anyone by creating human life. And God doesn’t make mistakes. We do, when we try to play God. So maybe we should let God be God. He does a much better job of it.

And boy, can He dream!

Paul V. Esposito is a Catholic lawyer who writes on a variety of pro-life topics. He and his wife Kathy live in Elmhurst, Illinois, where they raise their six kids.

© 2008 Paul V. Esposito. Culture of Life. Permission to copy and distribute for pro-life purposes is freely granted.

Staying the weekends gave me a chance to attend Mass on Sundays at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church. I enjoy going to Mass away from home. It’s interesting to see different sanctuaries, statues, and stained glass. It’s good to hear different preaching and singing, to watch the faithful interact in worship, and to learn of their special ministries. Variety is the spice of life, and with some things that’s true in Church life, too.

But some things about Church remain the same, and one in particular caught my eye. It was a young couple dealing with their two-year old. It brings back memories! Dad would hold her for a while, but usually not for long. The child wanted mom, and with mom she found contentment. It comes as no surprise. Mom usually handles those late night feedings. She’s changes more poopy diapers than dad. Mom coos and sings better than anyone. Mom is the proudest of those first steps and first words. When the child falls, mom is the one who comes running. And no one in the whole world hugs like mom. These things come naturally for her. They are part of the mother-child bond that starts to form the very moment a mom learns that a child grows inside her. That two-year old instinctively knew and felt the bond.

The mother-child bond is so strong that there may be no greater pain than that caused by its breaking. Sophie’s Choice tells the story of a young Polish immigrant. Although freed from Nazi imprisonment, Sophie lived under the dark cloud of her past. Her captors had forced her to choose which of her two children would remain with her and which would be killed. Alone, afraid, and absolutely desperate, Sophie chose. Life for her was never the same. Sophie lived in regret and guilt until she could no longer stand to live at all. The war had ended years earlier, but the Holocaust had claimed another victim.

Tragically, we have not done much better for mothers. Our culture forces desperate women into decisions they would rather not make. This coercion does not come through prison camps and guns, but it is just as effective. It’s called “pro-choice.”

Before 1973, women confronted with unexpected pregnancies babies found protection in laws that made abortion an illegal and socially unacceptable. The law gave women the answer they need in dealing with unhappy husbands, boyfriends, and family members pushing for abortions. And distressed women contemplating abortions had to think twice, and then some, because the law made abortion illegal. Abortions still occurred, but with far less frequency than they occur now.

With the legalization of abortion, the whole dynamic changed. Abortion is now available at any stage of pregnancy. Society has made abortion an alternative to an unplanned pregnancy. Without the law’s protection, many women must make a Sophie’s choice. Embarrassed? Choose! Unsupportive boyfriend? Choose! Angry parents? Choose! Unhappy husband? Choose! Unhealthy child? Choose! Oversized family? Choose! Financial problems? Choose! Job pressures? Choose! “Pro-choice” is not a liberating freedom. It is a scream into women’s very souls: “Time is running out! Choose!” Too often, desperate women chose wrongly with consequences that haunt them for life. Some bonds cannot be reconnected. Life just doesn’t work that way.

It didn’t for Emma Beck, a talented artist. She aborted her twins after her boyfriend reacted badly to her pregnancy. Emma deeply regretted her abortions; she realized that she would have been a good mom. Emma wrote about her suffering: “I told everyone I didn’t want to do it, even at the hospital. I was frightened, now it is too late. I died when my babies died. I want to be with them: they need me, no-one else does.” Emma’s writing was found in her home—where she was found hanging. Emma died on February 2, 2007, her 31st birthday. Another holocaust, another victim.

May is the month for celebrating mothers. On Mother’s Day, we will show our love for our mothers with flowers and cards and gifts and brunches and barbeques and words and hugs and kisses. In parishes all over, moms will be feted in homilies and raised up in blessings and prayers. All as it should be. But this year, we should add something to the way we as Church honor mothers. We should fall down on our knees and beg their forgiveness for what we have made them choose. Then we should take action to end the holocaust once and for all. With elections drawing nearing, we will have a great opportunity to show our love. We don’t need more Emmas.

During May we celebrate also another mother, our Blessed Mother. She who was forced to watch her Son die a hideous death on a cross surely knows the sufferings of mothers who cannot protect their children. She knows our culture’s desperate need. And she knows better than any of us why He came to earth in the first place: to restore a broken bond. There can be no greater intercessor for us all than her.

After all, she is our Lady of Perpetual Help.

Happy Mother’s Day!

Paul V. Esposito is a Catholic lawyer who writes on a variety of pro-life topics. He and his wife Kathy live in Elmhurst, Illinois, where they raise their six kids.

© 2008 Paul V. Esposito. Culture of Life. Permission to copy and distribute for pro-life purposes is freely granted.

Although the O’Neill’s book was a bestseller, their idea was not embraced, and thankfully so. Nena, whose husband was apparently more “open” than she, later said that she underestimated the impact of jealousy. Actually, she underestimated the impact of infidelity. Marriages failed because one spouse was victimized by the infidelity of the other. Of the 100 sexually open couples interviewed by O’Neill, only two couples survived beyond two years. Doing your thing doesn’t work for the victim.

The pro-choice attitude driving legalized abortion is the ultimate in doing-your-thing thinking: abortion may not be my thing, but it’s your thing, so let it be. It sounds all so open, all so Aquarian. But our culture doesn’t think that way when it comes to other moral issues. We have not legalized robbery or cheating and surely never will. Why? Unlike with an abortion, we can be victimized by those wrongs. Legalized theft and cheating mean that our homes may be invaded, our life savings raided. We won’t let that happen. No one wants to be the victim of someone else’s “thing.”

Legalized abortion would be gone a week if we, the born, could be surgically annihilated, but we are spared that fate. So let’s trade places with the unborn. Imagine that you are inside of a womb, threatened by a death machine that has already chewed up 49 million victims. Imagine that your survival depends on the kindness of strangers. What would you say to them in hopes of saving yourself?

Perhaps it would be the words said long ago in an after-breakfast conversation between two friends. One had just gone through hell, literally and figuratively. He had been beaten and spat upon, His body savaged by whips and nails and thorns, then left to hang before a jeering mob. He was a victim, the Victim. The other had professed to stay with Him, even die for Him. But when trouble came, so did the denials, three to be exact, one under oath. Miraculously together again, the two sat along the seashore. And there the Victim’s words came: do you love Me? Again and again He asked. And with each profession of love that His friend offered in return, the Victim wanted proof: feed My lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep . . . and follow Me. For the conversation was really not about a question at all. It was about a challenge (Jn 21:15-19).

The issue of abortion may challenge the depths of our love for others like no other social issue. We feed the hungry because we know what it’s like to miss a meal. We tend to the immigrant because we’ve been lost or stranded far from home. We shelter the displaced because we’ve been required to deal with the aftermath of natural disasters. Our ability to feel our own needs is a gift allowing us to feel the needs of others. It stirs us to show our love for them, and that’s a good thing. But we really cannot feel what it’s like to be unborn. Our abilities do not allow us to remember our existence inside the womb. We cannot consciously feel the threat from an abortion, nor for that matter can we feel an abortion itself.

The challenge of helping the unborn really is the challenge of fully loving. For love isn’t really about feeling. It’s about doing. Love is about sacrificing ourselves for those whom we will never know, at least this side of Heaven. It is about giving ourselves in willing service to those with whose experiences we really can’t identify. And it is about giving ’til there is nothing left to give. True sacrificial love rarely is easy. But then neither was dying on the Cross, where true Love was defined.

If we are going to save the unborn, that conversation between Jesus and Peter needs to be our own. If we were the unborn, Jesus’ question is the very question that we would ask to those who can either save us or let us die: do you love me? As Jesus did, we need to ask it again and again until it penetrates our hearts. And as Peter did, we need to accept it as a challenge. Do you love me? Do you love me enough to pray for my safety? Do you love me enough to witness for my life? To tell others that I am fully human and deserving of the same love as everyone else? To disagree in the public square with those who treat me as garbage? Do you love me enough to write a letter or make a phone call for me? Do you love me enough to vote for those who would end the legalized slaughter and vote against those committed to continuing it? Or will you walk away from me, you, my only hope?

If our survival depended on our vote, we know how we would cast it.

God did not intend for the unborn to be victims of abortion, let alone legal abortion. The survival of the unborn should not need to depend on the kindness of strangers. After all, they have us their brothers and sisters, the brothers and sisters of the Victim.

Or do they?

Paul V. Esposito is a Catholic lawyer who writes on a variety of pro-life topics. He and his wife Kathy live in Elmhurst, Illinois, where they raise their six kids.

© 2008 Paul V. Esposito. Culture of Life. Permission to copy and distribute for pro-life purposes is freely granted.

In our home we heard this ditty so very often during the 80’s. It’s from Sesame Street, and you may recall the words. They taught kids about firemen and bakers and all sorts of people. It’s amazing how some things don’t fall prey to senior moments!

I split my time between two neighborhoods. One is where we’ve lived for over 30 years. Elmhurst has everything we need — a fantastic parish, wonderful schools, a well-stocked library, and beautiful parks. The people are friendly; the streets are quiet. It’s a comfortable neighborhood, a great place to raise a family.

My other neighborhood is downtown Chicago. It’s nothing like Elmhurst. All day long and into the evening, the sidewalks are filled will tons of people — accountants and brokers, lawyers and judges, office workers, an occasional celebrity or two. Visitors come from far and wide to shop the Magnificent Mile, visit world-class museums, or catch an opera or play.

There are other people in this neighborhood, but all too often they are ignored. They aren’t seeing the sights or hustling to an appointment. You won’t see them in a fancy restaurant. Mostly they stand in one spot and try to hold it for the entire day. They line the route from the train station to my office. They’re the street guys.

Who are they? Well, Mohammed worked for years at Western Union until his job disappeared. Ron liked being a mechanic. Tyrone is about 40, way too young to be on the street, but he’s attending a Salvation Army school. Herbert sells newspapers a few days a week; he walks with a noticeable limp. David stood on a corner until his murder, quite possibly by his roommate. He gave to the poor. Tommy and John are new guys. Every so often I see Jacqueline sitting on a fireplug. A.C. and Regina are teammates except when A.C. is mad at her. Reggie doesn’t hold a spot; he walks an entire block yelling, “Happy Tuesday!” or whatever it is. My favorite is Poochie, who calls me Brother Paul and keeps a photo of my Marine Corp son. These are the people in my neighborhood.

For years, I didn’t know them or their kind. I would walk right past them, not making eye contact and wishing that they would be gone. But God would have none of that, for like me they are His children. And so He called me to ask each one a simple question: what’s your name? And to a one, each became real to me. I could no longer just walk past them.

We know relatively little about the details of Jesus’ life. The Evangelists were writing for a different purpose. But most assuredly, Jesus didn’t just enter a town, give a sermon, perform a miracle or two, then head out — kinda like if-it’s-Thursday-it-must-be-Caesarea. Certainly He came to know His neighbors by name. They were real people to Him, not figures walking the streets. Knowing them by name allowed His human love grow deeper in ways that manifested intense prayer and astounding works. And it allowed His divine love to propel Him up a hill, where with broken body He crawled onto the Cross that has saved us all.

It can be difficult to focus on the tragedy of abortion because we lose sight of the humanity. The unborn are often termed a “mass of tissue” or relegated to the status of a social issue that strips them of their dignity as humans. But we know different—and better.

We are called to walk with the unborn, and we can do so if they become real to us. Here’s a suggestion: spiritually adopt an unborn child in danger of abortion, and give that child a name. Pick a favorite name, one that you would have used on a child, maybe even one that you did use. Like twins or triplets? Pick ’em and name ’em! They are often the victims of selective reduction, the abortion of “unwanted” children resulting from the use of fertility drugs. While you’re at it, name their parents. Put their names somewhere visible, and pray for them. And at the end of nine months, do it again, and again.

God does not consider any of us as one of the masses—people here to take up space and give Him laughs. He knows and loves each of us, and by name. He challenges us to extend His Love to the weakest among us. He calls us to break down the barrier that separates the blob of tissue, the social issue, from the reality of the unborn. They are the people in our neighborhood — all of ours. If we give them names, we won’t be able to walk past them any more, wishing that they weren’t there. And we may come to do the things that we need to do to protect them.

One day, in a much nicer neighborhood, we may hear “thank you” from neighbors we’ve never met. Chances are, we’ll remember their names.

It has all the makings of one heck of a block party.

Paul V. Esposito is a Catholic lawyer who writes on a variety of pro-life topics. He and his wife Kathy live in Elmhurst, Illinois, where they raise their six kids.

© 2008 Paul V. Esposito. Culture of Life. Permission to copy and distribute for pro-life purposes is freely granted.

It hasn’t always been that way. Between 1932 and 1972, federal scientists conducted a study of almost 400 illiterate, black Alabama sharecroppers suffering from advanced syphilis. Men were told that they suffered from “bad blood,” and they were not treated when penicillin became available. Scientists wanted to study how the disease spread among and killed blacks. The men were uninformed guinea pigs valued for their corpses. Scientists learned nothing of value. The Tuskegee Experiment has been rightly compared to the Nazi medical experiments on imprisoned Jews.

The year after the Tuskegee Experiment ended, a new experiment began. Since 1973, American society has been conducting an uncontrolled experiment on women: legalized abortion. The hypothesis is that legalized abortion allows women to control their bodies, which liberates women from unwanted pregnancies and so frees them for life’s other opportunities. But years of data have proven something much different. Post-abortive women often pay for their short-term release from pregnancies with long-term problems.

The most obvious is death, women’s death. So far there are hundreds of confirmed women’s deaths from legalized abortion. In fact, there may be thousands more. Abortion kills women in other ways. Whatever a woman’s immediate relief, she cannot escape the reality that she killed her own child and surrendered her God-given role as bearer and nurturer of a new generation. Making the abortion legal did not make her act guilt-free. Shame and regret gnaws at her core, and with tragic consequences. In 2005, a thirteen-year study concluded that post-abortive women are 154% more likely to commit suicide than are other women. A 1986 study found that teenagers having abortions are ten times more likely to commit suicide within the next six months than are like-age girls. The desperate need to escape the guilt becomes unbearable.

Those who do not die often lead shattered lives. Marriages, relationships and friendships are often permanently destroyed. A study in 2002 established that as long as eight years after their abortions, married women were 138% more likely to suffer from clinical depression than married women who had not aborted. The conclusion as to unmarried women was not significantly different. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop recommended a federal study on the subject, but a divided Congress killed his recommendation.

How do many women cope with their abortions? Sixteen published studies have revealed that women often turn to alcohol and drugs. They are twice more likely to use alcohol, five times more likely to use drugs, and ten times more likely to use marijuana in subsequent pregnancies than women who had no or one previous pregnancy. Why? Women abuse alcohol and drugs to cope with the memories of maternal emotions felt before the abortion.

What about subsequent pregnancies? There may be none at all. God did not design women’s wombs to tolerate scissors and scalpels and vacuum cleaners. Sometimes a complete hysterectomy is needed to stop bleeding from a punctured uterus. An abortionist’s tools force open a cervix far faster than normal, which may cause “incompetent cervix” preventing child bearing. The scraping of the uterus may make implantation of the embryo impossible. According to a 2007 study, abortion increases a woman’s risk of delivering a pre-term child by over 31 percent because of damage to the woman’s cervix during the abortion process. Premature birth puts a child at greater risk of physical and mental problems, including cerebral palsy.

And have you noticed an alarming increase in breast cancer over the years? Growing medical evidence indicates that women who aborted their first child stand a higher chance of breast cancer in post-menopausal years. Researchers project thousands of abortion-related breast cancer cases annually.

For far too long women have been the victims for a failed social experiment. Thirty-five years of research tells us what legalized abortion produces — death and untold misery for women. Uninformed women. And yet the experiment continues.

In this year’s election we’re hearing lots about “change.” It’s funny, no, it’s maddening how some politicians who mouth “change” have no desire to change the fate of women caught in a social experiment gone ugly. Want to liberate women? Liberate them from legalized abortion. They’ve been guinea pigs long enough.

The experiment won’t end until we say so. It starts with a vote.

Yours.

Paul V. Esposito is a Catholic lawyer who writes on a variety of pro-life topics. He and his wife Kathy live in Elmhurst, Illinois, where they raise their six kids.

© 2008 Paul V. Esposito. Culture of Life. Permission to copy and distribute for pro-life purposes is freely granted.