Canadian Cowards

IN what comes as no surprise, the Canadian “conservative” candidate in the upcoming federal election has announced his position on the fate of the unborn in our country:

My personal position has always been open and consistent. I am personally pro-life but I’ve also made the commitment that as leader of this party it is my responsibility to ensure that we do not re-open this debate, that we focus on issues that unite our party and unite Canadians… that’s exactly what I’ll do and that’s why I’ll vote against measures that attempt to re-open this debate. —Andrew Scheer, leader of the Conservative Party, October 3rd, 2019; cbc.ca

Let me say upfront, this is not a political issue. It is one at the very heart of “faith and morals.” That is, the Church has something to say about this; the Church here must have something to say about it. However, even though we are less than three weeks from a crucial election in this country where freedom of speech and religion are increasingly under threat, there is a haunting vacuum of silence from the hierarchy (and those priests who do speak boldly on moral issues are often told to be silent). But it has been this way for decades now. Faithful Catholics have long understood that they are virtually on their own when it comes to an evangelical voice in the public sphere. And so, onward.

Mr. Scheer’s statement is deeply troubling. It’s schizophrenic. To say one is “pro-life” in this context means that one is against the intentional killing of an unborn child. How, then, can this be a “personal” thing? What if a politician said, “I am personally against stealing things from someone else’s property, but I will not impose this view on others.” Or, “I am personally against killing someone who is an inconvenience to you, but I will not enforce it.” Of course, we’d say that’s absurd and immoral. But when it comes to the killing of an unborn child behind closed doors, which in Canada, can happen right up until birth since there are no laws restricting abortion here… this is not open to debate? This is intellectually dishonest.

Not only that, but to even prevent simply the debate is undemocratic. It’s totalitarian. It’s exactly what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been doing for nearly four years. The current PM has gone so far as to bar anyone who is pro-life from his party. Worse, in what can only be described as Orwellian, he made government grants to organizations dependent upon them signing an agreement that they will support his liberal values, including the right to abortion—or no money. How this does not disturb any Canadian is beyond me.

Indeed, the disconcerting vision of Justin Trudeau has been, and continues to be, to make whatever feelings Canadians have become “law.” Under Trudeau, we can redefine human nature. Under Trudeau, death is a solution to all our problems, whether it’s the inconvenience of an unexpected pregnancy, depression, sickness, or old age. But when men such as him are opposed with barely a whimper, is it surprising that Canada is mere steps away from formal totalitarianism? When the courts and “human rights tribunals” are ready to punish your thoughts, believe me, we’re just about there.

Yes, I would have preferred to have heard Scheer say, “I am personally pro-life and I have no intention to open the abortion debate—unless Canadians want to. I will not prevent Members of Parliament from introducing legislation to debate any issue. We totally reject the intolerance of the present government that not only rejects debate of issues important to Canadians but actually excludes them from the democratic process and even government funds if they do not hold ‘liberal values’. That kind of dictatorial line has no place in this country. Canada is “the true north strong and free” and as Prime Minister, I intend to make it that way again.”

But what am I thinking? We live in the most politically correct nation in the world. Canadians are so “compassionate” and “tolerant” that we would apologize for stepping on the devil’s toes. In actuality, there is nothing compassionate about tearing a child from its mother’s womb when science tells us that the fetus has pain receptors as early as 11 weeks gestation. There is nothing compassionate about telling a frightened or unprepared mother that she’s removing a mere “blob of cells” when her very own instincts (and yes, science) tell her that it is a growing child within. There is nothing noble in tolerating the genocide of a country that, were it not for immigration, is shrinking because it has contracepted and aborted its future.

According to Scheer’s own words, he intends to “ensure that we do not re-open this debate.” This is said at the same time that abortion clinics south of the border are closing as more and more Americans become aware of the gruesome practice. This is said at the same time that organizations like Planned Parenthood have engaged in live-birth harvesting of baby’s organs. This is said at the same time that medical technology is producing 3D images of unborn babies while streams of Canadian couples stand in long lines hoping to adopt an unwanted child.

No, the debate is not closed. Killing the vulnerable is never a closed debate. The gaping wound this produces in both men and women who have taken the life of their child is not closed. The demographic winter this has caused all over the world is not over. The impact this has had on our economy is not finished. The cultural deficit this has created by the slaughter of future scientists, educators, innovators, musicians, and saints is incalculable.

Sure, there are other issues in this country that are important. No one said they weren’t. But if moral absolutes such as the fundamental right to life are not protected, every other issue is now subject to the whims of those in power. Now, “truth” becomes whatever the “majority” says it is until another majority changes that. Indeed, assisted suicide in Canada is now equated with “health care” just as abortion is now considered a “woman’s right.” This is nothing short of…

…a dictatorship of relativism that recognizes nothing as definite, and which leaves as the ultimate measure only one’s ego and desires. Having a clear faith, according to the credo of the Church, is often labeled as fundamentalism. Yet, relativism, that is, letting oneself be tossed and ‘swept along by every wind of teaching’, appears the sole attitude acceptable to today’s standards. —Cardinal Ratzinger (POPE BENEDICT XVI) pre-conclave Homily, April 18th, 2005

For our part as Catholic Christians (and I state it as such because being “Catholic” does not necessarily follow with the second), we must prepare ourselves for a martyrdom of sorts, be it “white” or even some day “red.” There is no human sign on the horizon that the state of things are about to change. One can no longer sit on the fence. You are going to be knocked off one way or another.

Those who challenge this new paganism are faced with a difficult option. Either they conform to this philosophy or they are faced with the prospect of martyrdom. —Servant of God Fr. John Hardon (1914-2000), How to Be a Loyal Catholic Today? By Being Loyal to the Bishop of Rome; www.therealpresence.org

The Church… intends to continue to raise her voice in defense of mankind, even when policies of States and the majority of public opinion moves in the opposite direction. Truth, indeed, draws strength from itself and not from the amount of consent it arouses. —POPE BENEDICT XVI, Vatican, March 20, 2006

In the last century, the entire world was scandalized by what the Nazis did to ensure the purity of the race. Today we do the same, but with white gloves. —POPE FRANCIS, General Audience, June 16th, 2018; iol.co.za

As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord. (Joshua 24:15)

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30