The Catholic midwives case – a victory for freedom of conscience

The ruling in Glasgow will effect the NHS south of the border, too

By Francis Phillips on Friday, 26 April 2013

A midwife and expectant mother.

 

 

It was good to learn from Catholic World News on Wednesday that the Appeals Court in Edinburgh has now ruled that in the case of two Catholic midwives, they have the right to refuse indirect involvement in abortions. This ruling made it on to the 6 o’clock news on Radio 4 that same day, so it is seen as of some significance. Last year, healthcare officials in Glasgow had ruled that the two midwives, Mary Doogan aged 58 and Concepta Wood aged 52, who worked as labour ward coordinators the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow, should be required to schedule and coordinate abortion coverage, on the grounds that this would not violate their conscience as they would not be directly participating in the abortions themselves.
An earlier appeal by the midwives had failed when Lady Smith stated at the time that “Nothing they have to do as part of their duties terminates a woman’s pregnancy. They are sufficiently removed from direct involvement as it seems to me, to afford appropriate respect for, and accommodation of their beliefs.”
The two midwives disagreed with her, understandably. To be involved at any stage in the whole deadly process of abortion, whether assisting directly or, in this case, coordinating nurses’ schedules so that others would do it instead, is to be complicit in the killing of unborn life. I once knew a hospital orderly who refused to clean the operating room where an abortion was due to take place; he was relieved of his duties. And what of secretaries who make the appointments, chemists who hand out the abortifacient pills or the taxi drivers who might carry out the transport? Being involved at any level might carry its own sense of unease, reluctance and wrong-doing.
In this case, as reported in the Guardian, the Edinburgh court ruled that the “conscience clause” of the 1967 Abortion Act protected health care personnel against any compulsory involvement in the process. The wording goes, “The right of conscientious objection extends not only to the actual medical or surgical termination but to the whole process of treatment given for that purpose. The right is given because it is recognised that the process of abortion is felt by many people to be morally repugnant.” Archbishop Philip Tartaglia of Glasgow called the ruling a “victory for freedom of conscience and for common sense.” And so it is.
It is also likely to have ramifications for the NHS this side of the border. Dr David Jones, director of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre, pointed out that this ruling contradicts the General Medical Council’s latest guidance for Britain’s doctors, which came into force only on Monday and which stated that “rights to conscientious objection were limited to refusal to participate in the procedure itself”. All pro-life personnel in this country will have watched this case very carefully. There will be repercussions.
At the same time as this court case in Edinburgh, I have been trying not to follow the case of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphian abortionist from the “house of horrors” as it has been described. I am cowardly; the thought of what went on in his clinic is almost unbearable to think about. A sober and sensible article on Life Site News by Judie Brown, entitled “The worst thing about the Gosnell trial: the public’s total apathy”, states the case better than I could: “We hear about a man who stored the tiny feet of his victims in glass jars but…we are not driven to act or to protect the innocent or to oppose abortion. Abortion has been around for 40 years now, and face it, every once in a while an abortionist makes a mistake, gets caught and sometimes goes on trial. But life goes on. Well, not really! Life does not go on and has not for more than 50 million human beings in America.” Brown concludes, “Gosnell’s story is a horror; he is in many ways the poster boy for murder and mayhem in our nation. He has terrorised and killed babies, maimed women, and only God knows what else with impunity since 1972…The Gosnell trial is about apathy, that dismisses humanity for the sake of convenience.”
Is there so much difference between what went on in that hellish Philadelphian abortuary, as described in court by the nurses who worked there, and what goes on behind closed doors in more sanitised and better regulated surroundings over here?

                       

Gosnell the baby-killer and the liberals who shielded him

By Damian Thompson      

     

The conservative Media Research Center reacts to the case

From Saturday's Daily Telegraph

One of the most disgusting serial killers in American history is standing trial in Philadelphia at the moment – and, since it’s happening in the US, where reporting restrictions are light, the media are free to discuss his case.
Only they haven’t – at least, not until recently, and even when the crimes are reported, they haven’t merited many headlines. Which is horrifying, when you consider what the killer is accused of. I’m going to leave out the nastiest details – but, seriously, if you don’t want to feel sick to your stomach, look away now.
Dr Kermit Gosnell, 72, “regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns”. That quote is taken from the grand jury report on the case. It describes Gosnell’s practice, called the Women’s Medical Society, as “a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread disease with infected instruments… and on at least two occasions, caused their deaths”.
According to one witness, when women were given medicine to speed up their deliveries “it would rain foetuses”. A former employee described the noise made by a baby delivered live during an abortion: “It sounded like a little alien.”
This month, to their credit, Kirsten Powers of USA Today and Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic ran articles asking why this wasn’t front-page news. The answer? Gosnell was a registered abortion provider. His killings blurred the line between late-term abortions and infanticide in a way that embarrassed pro-choice journalists.
Gosnell killed babies of the same age both inside and outside the womb. How can one be a legal termination and the other murder? Pro-choice writers and activists didn’t want to focus on that question. Indeed, reports of Gosnell’s foul clinic – which had a policy of treating white women more carefully than penniless black women – were routinely ignored by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, local hospitals, the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood, a lobby group supported by Barack Obama.
The president – as a senator, the most hardline pro-abortion politician in Congress – was due to address a Planned Parenthood gala on Thursday. But then he suddenly curtailed his visit, in order to spend more time in Texas… and just possibly because we now know that the lobby group were warned about Gosnell but didn’t pass their concerns to the police.
In short: pro-choicers averted their eyes to the crimes of a racist “doctor” whose worst acts are beyond imagining. They did so because making a fuss would give ammunition to the pro-life movement.
Only in America, you might say. But I’ve been gauging the response of British social media to the Gosnell case; many tweets reek of the same culture of evasion, to put it politely. Earlier this week I raised the question on Twitter with the Rev Richard Coles, a Left-wing pop-musician-turned-vicar who presents Radio 4’s Saturday Live and does a nice line in clerical whimsy. He said his views were “not entirely formed yet”. And in a second tweet: “Too much brouhaha at the moment.”
That says it all, I reckon. Gosnell was protected not just by pro-choice extremists such as Barack Obama, but also by run-of-the-mill liberals who, despite their distaste for late-term abortions, didn’t want to provide ammunition for the Sarah Palins of this world. So, for years, they took steps to avoid a “brouhaha”. The results are available for anyone to see online in the form of a heart-rending photograph of a baby killed by Gosnell. Unlike Mr Coles’s views on the subject, it is “entirely formed”.

Attacking the Roots of Abortion

April 23, 2013 By Don Murray

 

What is really required … is to address the thought processes and motivations that prompt people to seek abortion as a solution to a personal problem that should not have occurred in the first place.

Catholics, and our counterparts in other religions, are making headway in the struggle against abortion.  Women coming to clinics seeking abortion have often been convinced to turn around and plan to give birth to the baby.  Legislatures in many states have thrown up roadblocks by introducing requirements such as time delays, requiring parental consent, or requiring a woman to view a sonogram of the developing baby before going ahead with a planned abortion.  Court action has often been taken in cases of underage girls being coached on how to falsify their story and in cases where girls have been transported across state lines to locations where abortion was legal.  A few states have even denied funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.  And, through C-FAM, we have been fighting the abortion agenda in the halls of the United Nations.
The publicity front in the abortion war has also been moving ahead, with a concentration on young women and on ethnic groups that have statistically higher rates of abortion.  Pro-life inserts are placed in college newspapers, presentations of photos showing the true nature of abortion are given on college campuses, a film has been produced referring to abortion as black genocide, and a campaign is under way to introduce pro-life literature into barber shops in minority neighborhoods.
The success of the overall effort can be realized from the fact that the numbers of abortion clinics and abortion providers have been sharply reduced, especially in rural areas.
But the effort thus far has been aimed at preventing the act of abortion itself or reducing the numbers of abortions performed.  What is really required, however, is to address the thought processes and motivations that prompt people to seek abortion as a solution to a personal problem that should not have occurred in the first place.
The first of these attitudes and motivations is the widespread acceptance, and widespread practice, of contraception, even among Catholics.  When the Obama administration targeted Catholics and used a mandate to force many Catholic institutions to fund contraception for all their employees, the Catholic bishops responded on the freedom of religion aspect of the issue, but contraception is itself a major moral problem to which the Church has not been giving proper attention for several decades.
People develop a mistaken idea that contraception prevents pregnancy 100 percent of the time, and when an unforeseen pregnancy does occur, they are tempted to resort to abortion.  The Guttmacher Institute reported in 2009 that 54 percent of abortions were performed on women who had used contraceptives in the month before they became pregnant.  The United States Supreme Court in 1992 (Casey v. Planned Parenthood), based a judgment against allowing obstacles to abortion on the very fact that people rely on abortion when contraception fails.
There is an abundance of evidence as to why contraception is morally wrong, beginning with God’s striking Onan dead for using it (Gen 38:9-10), continuing through the earliest Church tradition (the Didache), and the writings of numerous Church Fathers and Popes, right up to Vatican Council II (Gaudium et Spes 48, 50).
In addition to the moral arguments are the harmful natural effects – the increase in adultery due to the lessening of the fear of pregnancy; the resulting increase in divorce, leading to an increase in the number of women forced to be single mothers living in poverty; and, associated problems of their children receiving poorer education, making them vulnerable to incentives toward delinquency and crime; the decline in men’s respect for women; and the tendency of governments to institute population control measures, including forced abortions.  Besides these sociological effects, there are still others – the fact that contraceptives do not prevent the transmission of venereal disease, the damage to reproductive systems from water supplies that contain runoff from the urine of women using the pill, and the damage to Social Security and Medicare because fewer young people are entering the work force, resulting in the fact that contributions are insufficient to match the outlays to retirees.
But the objective of the Catholic Church goes beyond preventing a host of worldly problems.  The reason for the Church’s existence is to help people to gain heaven, but contraception prevents children from even existing. Couples who seek the pleasure of sex, without its natural consequences, are acting in a way that’s directly opposed to their achieving salvation.
The most direct result of using contraception is the fact that it violates the very purpose of sexuality.  When one wants to find the purpose of anything, it is necessary to consider what it does that nothing else does.  In the case of sexuality, it’s procreation.  Nothing else in nature accomplishes that.  Using this God-given faculty in a way that deliberately frustrates its God-intended result is a direct offense against the Creator, who wishes the couple to accept this new human being, and to raise this child in a way that will lead all three of them to life with God.  So, life-long monogamous marriage is the proper and necessary environment for the exercise of sexuality.
Natural Family Planning (NFP) is not the universal solution. In the very encyclical in which he proclaimed that contraception is immoral, Pope Paul VI also declared that NFP is allowable only under certain conditions – medical, psychological or financial – that make it permissible for a married couple to restrict their marital acts to times when procreation is not likely to occur (Humanae Vitae 16 and 10).  While today’s financial environment could mean that more couples qualify now than forty years ago, Pope Paul made it very clear that NFP is not a universal solution for everyone.
But while procreation is the very purpose of sexuality, then the concept of recreational sex, so widely accepted today, is a fundamental component of the attitudes and beliefs that lead to abortion.  When a person is open to the idea that sex is primarily recreational, they seek to explore it, at first vicariously, by means of pornography, and then with actual, contracepting partners, either in one-night stands, or in an ongoing arrangement of cohabitation.  Very often, it leads to abortion.
Contraception, with its underlying concept of recreational sex, has also led to the movement on the part of homosexual people to have their lifestyle, and their relationships accepted, and even considered to be marriage. After all, if heterosexual people can enjoy the pleasure of sex while preventing the birth of children, then it’s difficult to justify the belief that people who cannot have children should be forbidden to have sex.  But our willingness to accept people with same-sex attraction as human beings, and as God’s children, does not mean that one should condone actions that God himself punished with fire and brimstone at Sodom and Gomorrah.
So, we see that abortion, horrible as it is, is just the tip of the iceberg that consists of a series of evils, threatening the salvation of everyone in today’s world.  The notion of recreational sex is a major part of the problem.  So, how must we conduct this part of the fight?
Obviously, we have to publicize arguments regarding the purpose of sexuality, plus the nature and the purpose of marriage.  We must add to this the reasons why contraception is wrong, both the harmful natural effects that apply to everyone, including secularists, and also the evidence from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that applies to Catholics and to other Christians.  Parishes need to insure that these are dealt with properly in pre-Cana meetings, in adult education, in training for parents of children and of teen-agers, and in RCIA classes. Instructors in Catholic schools, and in CCD classes, must be properly trained. Catholic high schools and colleges must also ensure proper proclamation of the message.
These must be accompanied by strong opposition to pornography, insisting on proper enforcement of laws that are in effect, plus seeking more restrictions on the distribution of prurient material through the Internet, on television, in magazines, and other media outlets.
But dissemination of the message is the easy part.  It will be more difficult to gain acceptance of the message, given that people have become accustomed to a lifestyle built around the concept of recreational sex. The Church has been silent too long regarding the expression of that lifestyle through contraception.
Just as there were a series of issues underlying abortion, there is another series of issues involved in convincing people what they need to do, for their own salvation, and to overcome the evils throughout society.
The first obstacle that needs to be addressed is the loss of respect for the authority of the Church.  Catholics need to be reminded that Christ’s words to Peter included:  “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19).  This authority given to Peter and his successors involves morality as well as doctrine.
Many baptized Catholics intellectually accept the Church’s right to promulgate the moral law but do not act according to what they have been taught.  They rationalize it, finding ways to justify acting as they want, rather than as they ought.  Rationalization involves a misuse of conscience. These people must, therefore, be led to a proper understanding of conscience as a matter of discerning through the intellect, and not a matter of deciding for themselves through the will, influenced by feelings.
But for other baptized Catholics, who do not accept Church authority, the obstacle is a failure of faith, as people question the right of God himself to direct their activity, having been led by a secular world to think of themselves as subject to no one, with an unlimited right to do as they want.  They need to be brought to realize their own limitations, that they did not bring themselves into this world, and that their existence and their well-being depend on others.  They need also to recognize Christ as divine, possessing the nature and authority of God, who came into our world to redeem it, and to point out for us the way to eternal life with him by leading an earthy life based on his teachings.
Apologetics, giving the reasons for the truths the Church teaches, is a necessary first step. It is necessary for presenting the evidence for Christ’s divinity, and it is necessary also for showing that the Catholic Church is the instrument for proclaiming his message, thus showing people the reasonableness of faith.  From there, one can go on to show that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ; that the moral law is essentially the road map to salvation; and how to make the proper use of conscience.  All Catholics, but especially parents and teachers, should be trained in the essentials of apologetics.  But apologetics, necessary as it is, must be accompanied by prayer, and a spirit of sacrifice, on the part of those who already believe, all for the sake of conversion of others, that they may be led to realize these truths.
It’s a campaign that needs to be waged on many fronts simultaneously.  The essential theme that needs to permeate the entire effort is love that includes forgiveness.  Christ came into our world out of love for us, precisely to redeem every member of the human race by means of the sacrificial offering of himself on Calvary.  His action there included a prayer that his persecutors might be forgiven, and his promise of Paradise for the repentant thief.  Then, at his first meeting with the eleven remaining apostles, he even gave them the authority to forgive sins against him.
Besides making our salvation possible by his suffering and death, Christ also told us how to achieve salvation, telling us that we must live out the Ten Commandments internally, as well as externally. He gave us the Beatitudes, and the instruction of more than a score of parables.  Christ went even further, by giving us the means of gaining salvation, through the sacraments.  Three of these are especially relevant in combating abortion.
The Sacrament of Reconciliation re-unites the repentant sinner with Christ and his Church.  For one who is truly sorry for offending God, resolved to avoid further sinful acts, thoughts and words, and willing to make restitution for damage done to others, the sincere and complete confession of the sins can bring total forgiveness for multiple abortions, for decades of contraceptive acts, and indulgence in pornography, as well as for other sins they have committed.  A loving Christ is, thus, applying to an individual the fruits of his sacrifice on Calvary.
But sexual abuses, especially pornography and contraception, frequently become addictions, difficult to overcome, so a person needs special help to fight their way back to a moral way of life.  The Sacrament of Holy Eucharist provides that help.  A loving Christ comes personally to the individual, and he himself is the special food that builds up spiritual strength for the struggle against the temptations that inevitably will return.  Frequent reception of Holy Eucharist, even daily if possible, together with quick returns to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, if lapses should occur, can help the person to overcome eventually their long-standing inclinations and weakness.
But there is yet another sacrament that is especially relevant to the struggle against abortion, and that is the Sacrament of Matrimony.  One of the promises the couple makes at the marriage ceremony is to accept all the children God may send them.  A person normally receives this sacrament only once, in contrast to Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist which should be received frequently. But the effects of marriage are constantly renewed throughout life in order to assist the couple in the day-to-day effort to live out their vocation to love each other, and to love the children God sends them, in a way that will bring all of them to be with him.  Given the realities of human nature, and the fact that we frequently offend others, the act of forgiveness—which we often need to request, as well as to extend—is a necessary feature of a healthy married life.
We began this discussion by trying to find the means to attack abortion at its roots, and what we have arrived at is a Catholic way of life, and the day-by-day effort of married persons to live that life.  And that’s exactly the point.  When one is truly convinced that sex is not for pleasure, but for children; and that marriage is a vocation for bringing up children, one is much better able to resist the lures of pornography and of contraception. Those who do not practice contraception, are far less likely to seek abortion.  Even if chemical abortions are increasing to fill the gap left by the decline in surgical abortions, the same arguments apply.
The Catholic concept of marriage—involving the commitment of one’s very life to serve God in the small community of husband and wife, pledging their mutual love exclusively until death, and sharing their love with the children their love brings about—is an ideal way of life that others do not possess, but which they would really want to have if they can be brought to recognize its value.  It must be presented to them in a way that leads them to that recognition.  This way of life is based on faith in God and his Son, Jesus Christ. It is recognizing the love he has shown to us. It is appreciating the Church he has given us. It is thankful obedience to the rules pointed out by his Church. And, it is the willingness to direct one’s life according to his will for us, so that we may eventually experience the eternal happiness he holds out for us.
It is a matter of carrying out the fundamentals of Catholic life in a humble, prayerful way, driven by a lively faith that expresses itself in love, and then evangelizing others from that point of view.

Love and the Inhumanity of Same-Sex Marriage

Love and the Inhumanity of Same-Sex Marriage

More and more commentators are saying that we have passed the tipping point on same-sex marriage in the United States. Almost daily another politician or public figure stands before a microphone to declare his or her support. It feels like the dam has burst; the paradigm shifted.


Whether or not same sex marriage is a political fait accompli, I don't know. What concerns me in the present hour is the temptation among Christians to go with the flow. The assumption is that the nation no longer shares our morality, and that we must not impose our views on others and blur the line between church and state. Besides, we don't want to let any political cantankerousness get in the way of sharing the gospel, right? So we might as well throw in our lot. So the thinking goes.

How hard Christians should actively fight against same-sex marriage is a matter for wisdom. But that we must not support it, I would like to persuade you, is a matter of biblical principle. To vote for it, to legislate it, to rule in favor of it, to tell your friends at the office that you think it's just fine—all this is sin. To support it publicly or privately is to "give approval to those who practice" the very things that God promises to judge—exactly what we're told not to do in Romans 1:32.
Further, same-sex marriage embraces a definition of humanity that is less than human and a definition of love that is less than love. And it is not freedom from religion that the advocates of same-sex marriage want; they want to repress one religion in favor of another.
Christians must not go with the flow. They must instead love the advocates of same-sex marriage better than they love themselves precisely by refusing to endorse it.
I am saying this for the sake of you who are Christians, who affirm the authority of Scripture, who believe that homosexual activity is wrong, and who believe in the final judgment. I don't mean here to persuade anyone who does not share these convictions.
My goal in all of this is to encourage the church to be the church. What good is salt that loses it saltiness? Or what use is light under a bowl? Rather, blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Deeper Understanding of Humanity

I believe Voddie Baucham is exactly right to say that "gay is not the new black," and that we should not formally equate sexual orientation to ethnicity or sex as an essential component of personal identity. It is amazing to me that recent legal battles simply take this equation for granted without holding it up to the light and looking at it.
There are several assumptions behind the idea that a person with same-sex attraction might say "I am a homosexual" in the same way someone might say "I am a male" or "I am black." First, one assumes that homosexual desires are rooted in biology and therefore a natural part of being human. Second, one assumes that our natural desires are basically good, so long as they don't hurt others. Third, one assumes that fulfilling such basic and good desires are part of being fully human.
All the talk about "equality" depends upon these foundational assumptions about what it means to be human.
Marriage then becomes an important prize to be won for people with same-sex attraction because, as the oldest and most human of institutions, marriage publicly affirms these deep desires. Everybody who participates in a wedding—from the father who walks a bride down an aisle, to the company of friends, to the pastor leading the ceremony, to the state who licenses the certificate—participates in a positive and formal affirmation of a couple's union. It is hard to think of a better way to affirm same-sex desire as good and part of being fully human than to leverage the celebratory power of a wedding ceremony and a marriage.
Make no mistake: The fundamental issue at stake in the same-sex marriage debate is not visitation rights, adoption rights, inheritance laws, or all the stuff of "civil unions." Those are derivative. It is fundamentally about being publicly recognized as fully human.
Biblically minded Christians, of course, have no problem recognizing people with same-sex attraction as fully human. There are members of my church who experience same-sex attraction. We worship with them, vacation with them, love them. What Christianity does not do, however, is grant that fulfilling every natural desire is what makes us human.
Christianity in fact offers a more mature and deeper concept of humanity, more mature and deep than the person engaged in a homosexual lifestyle has of him or herself.
It is more mature because Christianity begins with the frank admission that fallen human beings are corrupted all the way down, all the way in. A child assumes that all of his or her desires are legitimate. Adults, hopefully, know better. And a mature understanding of fallen humanity recognizes that our fallenness affects everything from our biology and body chemistry to our ambitions and life loves. Same-sex attraction is but one manifestation. This is why Christ commands us to go and die, and why we must be born again. We must become new creations, a process that begins at conversion and will be completed with his coming.
Also, the fact that Jesus is Lord means his authoritative claim on our lives reaches all the way down, all the way in. We have no right to stand before him and insist upon our definitions of masculinity, femininity, marriage, love, and sexuality. He gets to write the definitions, even when they go against our deepest desires and sense of self.
Rooted in biology or not, there is a difference between gender, ethnicity, and "orientation." Orientation consists primarily of—is lived out through—desire. And the fact that it involves desire means it is subject to moral evaluation in a way that "being male" or "being Asian" are not.

Here is what's often missed: neither the fact of the desire, nor its possible biological basis, gives it moral legitimacy. Don't mistake is for ought. We understand this quite well, for instance, when it comes to the behaviors associated with some forms of substance addiction or bipolar disorder. The biological component of these maladies certainly calls for compassion and reams of patience, but it does not make their attendant behaviors morally legitimate. To assume they do means treating human beings as just one more animal. No one morally condemns a leopard for acting instinctually. Yet shouldn't our moral calculations for human beings involve something more than assent to the biochemistry of desire? We are more than animals. We are souls and bodies. We are created in God's image. To legitimize homosexual desire simply because it's natural or biological, ironically, is to treat a person as less than human.
All of this is to say, Christianity not only offers a more mature concept of humanity, it offers a deeper concept. It says we are more than a composite of our desires, some of which are fallen, some of which are not.

Remarkably, Jesus says that our humanity goes deeper even than marriage and sex, and certainly deeper than fallen versions of them. He says that, in the resurrection, there will be no marriage or giving in marriage. Marriage and sex, it appears, are two-dimensional shadows that point to the three-dimensional realities to come. A person's humanity and identity in no way finally depends on the shadows of marriage. Dare we deny the full humanity of Christ because he neither consummated a marriage nor fathered natural children? Indeed, wasn't the full humanity of this second Adam demonstrated through begetting a new humanity?
There is something inhumane about the homosexual lobby's version of the human being. It is inhumane to morally evaluate people as if they are animals whose instincts define them.
And there is something inhumane about the homosexual lobby's quest for same-sex marriage. It is inhumane to call bad good, or wrong desires right. It is inhumane to equate a person with the fallen version of that person, as if God created us to be the fallen versions of ourselves. But this is exactly what same-sex marriage asks us to do. It asks us to publicly affirm the bad as good—to institutionalize the wrong as right.
Christianity says that we are not finally determined by ethnicity, sex, marriage, or even sinful desire. We are God-imagers and vice-rulers, tasked with showing the cosmos what God's triune justice, righteousness, and love are like. The Christian message to the person engaged in a homosexual lifestyle is that we believe they are even more human than they believe.

Deeper Love

Christianity offers a more mature and deeper concept of love, too. Love is not fundamentally about a narrative of self-expression and self-realization. It is not about finding someone who "completes me," in which I assume that who "I am" is a given, and that you love "me" authentically only if you respect me exactly as I am, as if "I" is somehow sacred.
Christian love is not so naïve. It's much more mature (see 1 Cor. 13:11). It recognizes how broken people are, and it loves them in their very brokenness. It is given contrary to what people deserve. We feed and clothe and befriend them, even when they attack us. But then Christian love maturely invites people toward holiness. Through prayer and disciple-making, Christian love calls people to change—to repent. Christian love recognizes that our loved ones will know true joy only as they increasingly conform to the image of God, because God is love. This is why Jesus tells us that, if we love him, we will obey his commands, just like he loves the Father and so obeys the Father's commands.
Christian love is also deeper than love in our culture. It knows that true love was demonstrated best when Christ laid down his life for the church to make her holy, an act which the apostle Paul analogizes to the love of a husband and wife and the husband's call to wash his wife with the word (Rom. 5:8; Eph. 5:22-32). The Bible's central picture of gospel love is lost in same-sex marriage, just like it's lost when a husband cheats on his wife.
The progressive position might call the orthodox Christian position on gay marriage intolerant. But Christians must recognize that the progressive position is unloving and inhumane. And so we must love them more truly than they love themselves.

Public Square and Idolatrous Religion

What then shall we say about the public square? Shouldn't our understanding of the separation between church and state and religious freedom keep us from "imposing" our ideas upon others? Why would the church being the church affect our stance in the public square among the non-church?
What people can miss is the distinction between laws that criminalize an activity and laws that promote or incentivize an activity. The laws surrounding marriage belong to the latter category. The government gets involved in the marriage business—to the chagrin of libertarians—because it thinks it has some interest in protecting and promoting marriage. It sees that marriage contributes to the order, peace, and good of society at large. Therefore, it offers financial incentives for marriage, such as tax breaks or inheritance rights.
In other words, institutionalizing same-sex marriage does not merely make government neutral toward unrighteousness; it means the government is promoting and incentivizing unrighteousness. The 2003 Supreme Court decision to overturn laws that criminalized homosexual behavior, by contrast, need not be construed as a promotion or affirmation of homosexual behavior. The irony of the progressive position on same-sex marriage is that it cloaks its cause in the language of political neutrality, when really it is just the opposite. It is a positive affirmation of a brand of morality and the whole set of theological assumptions behind that morality.
To put this in biblical terms, institutionalizing same-sex marriage is nothing other than to "give approval to those who practice" the things that God's word condemns (Rom. 1:32). And behind this moral affirmation, Paul tells us, is the religious "exchanging of the immortal God for images" (Rom. 1:23). To establish same-sex marriage, in other words, is an utterly religious act, by virtue of being idolatrous.
For the Christian, therefore, the argument is pretty simple: God will judge all unrighteousness and idolatry. Therefore Christians should not publicly or privately endorse, incentivize, or promote unrighteousness and idolatry, which same-sex marriage does. God will judge such idolatry—even among those who don't believe in him.

God Will Judge the Nations

Let me explain further. Both the Old Testament and the New promise that God will judge the nations and their governments for departing from his own standard of righteousness and justice. The presidents and parliaments, voters and judges of the world are comprehensively accountable to him. There is no area of life somehow quarantined off from his evaluation.
Hence, he judged the people of Noah's day, Sodom and Gomorrah, Pharaoh in Egypt, Sennacherib in Assyria, Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, and the list goes on. Just read of his judgments against the nations in passages like Isaiah 13-19 or Jeremiah 46-52.
It's not surprising, therefore, that Psalm 96 and many other passages make the transnational, omni-partisan nature of God's judgment clear: "Say among the nations, 'The LORD reigns.' . . . he will judge the peoples with equity" (Ps. 96:10; also Ps. 2; Jer. 10:6-10).
Does the same principle apply in the New Testament era? Yes. The governors of the world derive their authority from God and will be judged by God for how they use their authority: Caesar no less than Nebuchadnezzar; presidents no less than Pharaoh:

• Jesus tells Pilate that Pilate's authority comes from God (John 19).
• Paul describes the government as "God's servant" and an "agent" to bring God's justice (Rom. 13).
• Jesus is described as the "ruler of the kings of the earth" (Rev. 1:5).
• Kings, princes, and generals fear the wrath of the Lamb and hide from it (Rev. 6:15).
• The kings of the earth are indicted for committing adultery with Babylon the Great (Rev. 18:3).
• Christ will come with a sword "to strike down the nations" (Rev. 19:13), leaving the birds "to eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty" (v. 18).

God will judge all nations and governors. They are politically accountable to his standard of justice and righteousness, not to their own standards. To depart from God's righteousness and justice—for every government in the world, Old Testament and New—is to incur God's wrath. 
The fact that we live in a pluralistic nation in which many do not acknowledge the God of the Bible makes no difference to God. "Who is the Lord that I should obey him?" Pharaoh asked. The Lord demonstrated in short order precisely who he is. The fact that Americans believe a government governs "by the will of the people" makes no difference either. A Christian knows that true authority comes from God, and so he or she must never promote and incentivize unrighteousness, even if 99 percent of the electorate asks for it.
This does not mean that Christians should enact God's judgment against all forms of unrighteousness now, but it does mean that we Christians should not publicly or privately put our hands to anything God will judge on the last day. Yes, politics often involves compromise, and there are times when Christian voters or politicians will be forced to decide between a lesser of two evils. And for such occasions we trust God is merciful and understanding. Still, so far as we can help it, we must not vote for, rule for, or tell our friends at the office that we support unrighteousness.
Does this mean we can impose our faith upon non-Christians? No, but endorsing same-sex marriage is another kind of thing. To endorse it is to involve yourself in unrighteousness and false religion, and an unrighteousness that God promises to judge.
In fact, same-sex marriage itself is the act of wrongful governmental imposition. Martin Luther wrote, "For when any man does that for which he has not the previous authority or sanction of the Word of God, such conduct is not acceptable to God, and may be considered as either vain or useless." And God has never given human governments the authority to define marriage. He defined it in Genesis 2 and has not authorized anyone to redefine it. Any government that does is guilty of usurpation.
Since same-sex marriage is effectively grounded in idolatrous religion (see Rom. 1:23, 32), its institutionalization represents nothing more or less than the progressive position's imposition of idolatrous religion upon the rest of us.
I am not telling Christians how many resources they should expend in fighting false gods in the public square, but I am saying that you must not join together with those gods. There is no neutral ground here.

Embrace and Stand Fast

Churches should embrace their brothers and sisters who struggle with same-sex attraction, just like they should embrace all repentant sinners.
And churches should stand fast on deeper, more biblical conceptions of love by loving the advocates of same-sex marriage more truly than they love themselves. We do this by insisting on the sweet and life-giving nature of God's truth and holiness.
In our present cultural context, Christian love will prove costly to Christians and churches. Even if you recognize the Bible calls homosexuality sin, but you (wrongly) support same-sex marriage, your stance on homosexuality will offend. A people's strongest desires—the desires they refuse to let go of—reveals their worship. To condemn sexual freedom in America today is to condemn one of the nation's favorite altars of worship. And will they not fight for their gods? Will they not excommunicate all heretics?
But even while Scripture promises short-term persecution for the church, it also, strangely and simultaneously, points to long-term praise: "Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation" (1 Peter 2:12). I'm not sure how to explain that, but I trust it.

Crippled woman healed in Medjugorje

Crippled woman healed in Medjugorje

By Jakob Marschner on Apr 23, 2013

After 18 years on crutches, Linda Christy from Canada arrived in Medjugorje in a wheelchair. Doctors are unable to explain why she could leave it and walk on Apparition Hill. Because her spine is still deformed, and her other medical tests also look the same as before she was cured.

Linda Christy

Medical science cannot explain how Linda Christy from Canada left her wheelchair in June 2010 in Medjugorje, after 18 years with a crippling spine injury.

“I experienced a miracle. I arrived in a wheelchair, and now I walk, as you can see. The Blessed Virgin Mary healed me on Apparition Hill” Linda Christy tells Radio Medjugorje.

Last year, on the second anniversary of her healing, she handed over her medical documents to Medjugorje’s parish office. They testify to a double miracle: Not only did Linda Christy start walking but also her physical-medical condition remains the same as before.

“I brought all the medical findings that confirmed my condition, and there is no scientific explanation as to why I am walking. My spine is in such a bad shape that there are places where it is not even coherent at all, a lung has moved six centimeters, and I still have all the spine diseases and deformities” she says.

“After the miracle happened to my spine, it is still in the same poor condition it was, and therefore there is no medical explanation as to why I can stand on my own and walk after I walked on crutches for 18 years, and spent a year in a wheelchair.”

Pope Francis, in his own words, on the issues

Pope Francis, in his own words, on the issues By MICHAEL WARREN

AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia World Video Multimedia Pope Benedict XVI Celebrates Mass in New York Pope Benedict XVI makes first trip to the U.S. Documents Maps of the pope's route in Washington, D.C. Latest News Vatican official: Romero saint effort 'unblocked' Pope Francis, in his own words, on the issues Ex-bishop's widow wants optional priestly celibacy Jesuit's sister criticizes Pope Francis in court Frugal pope nixes bonus for Vatican employees Buy AP Photo Reprints Multimedia Mass. Catholics hold vigil in endangered churches Convent shuts after helping generations 'overcome' Inside a Voodoo Gede ceremony Religion News Vatican official: Romero saint effort 'unblocked' Pope Francis' successor in Argentina assumes post US philanthropist savors opening of Jewish museum Frugal pope nixes bonus for Vatican employees Track beefs up security for the Kentucky Derby Egyptian Jewish leader buried in rundown cemetery Catholic religious order abuse files may go public Correction: Church Abuse-Religious Order story Pope Francis supports crackdown on US nuns Pope's soccer habit a perfect fit for papal gifts BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) -- Before he became pope, Francis spoke his mind about many of the most sensitive topics the Roman Catholic church faces today. Here is a sampling from "On Heaven and Earth," published in 2012, and his authorized biography "The Jesuit," published in 2010 and republished last month as "Pope Francis. Conversations with Jorge Mario Bergoglio." PRIESTLY CELIBACY: Roman Catholic priests take vows of celibacy. Some Catholics say they should be allowed to marry, like Eastern Rite Catholic priests. "For the moment I'm in favor of maintaining celibacy, with its pros and cons, because there have been 10 centuries of good experiences rather than failures. It's a question of discipline, not of faith. It could change." CLERGY ABUSE: Francis says punishing the priest is more important than protecting the church's image. "We must never turn a blind eye. ... I do not believe in taking positions that uphold a certain corporate spirit to avoid damaging the image of the institution. That solution was proposed once in the United States: they proposed switching the priests to a different parish. It is a stupid idea; that way, the priest just takes the problem with him wherever he goes." ABORTION: Francis is against it, from the moment of conception. "The pregnant woman doesn't carry a toothbrush in her womb, nor a tumor. Science teaches that from the moment of conception, the new being has all the genetic code. It's impressive. It's not, therefore, a religious question but clearly a moral one, based on science." SEX EDUCATION: Francis is for it, if done holistically, with love and not just sex in mind. "I think it should be done throughout the growth of children, adapted to each phase. ... What happens now is many of those who raise the banner of sex education understand it as separate from the person's humanity. So, instead of counting on a sexual education law for the entire person, for love, it's reduced to a law for sex." CONTRACEPTION: Francis thinks many Catholics are too obsessed about it. "I see in certain illustrious elite Christians a degradation of what's religious. ... they prefer to talk of sexual morality, of everything that has anything to do with sex. That in this case you can do it, that in the other you can't. ... We've left aside an incredibly rich catechism, the mysteries of faith and belief, and end up centering on whether or not to march against a proposed condom law." DIVORCE: Francis agrees that divorcees who remarry cannot take communion, but wants them attending church. "It's a very strong value in Catholicism, marriage until separated by death. Still, today in Catholic doctrine the faithful who get divorced and remarry are reminded that they are not excommunicated. While they live in a situation on the margin of the sacrament of marriage, they are asked to integrate in the life of the parish." HOMOSEXUALITY: The Vatican condemns gay acts, tolerates gay tendencies. Francis goes a bit farther. Gay marriage is "an anthropological step backward. If there's a private union, then third parties and society aren't affected. But if they're granted marriage rights and can adopt, there could be children affected. Every person needs a masculine father and a feminine mother to help them settle their identity." ORDINATION OF WOMEN: Francis is against it, but says women have a maternal role vital to society. "If they're not part of it, a religious community doesn't only transform itself into a macho society, but also an austere one, hard and poorly respected. The fact that a woman can't be a priest doesn't mean they are lesser than the male. It's more - in our conception, the Virgin Mary is above the apostles." FEMINISM: Francis has issues with it. "A philosophy of constant feminism doesn't give the woman the dignity she deserves. ... It runs the risk of becoming machismo in skirts." EUTHANASIA: Francis challenges the approach of many modern health care systems. Medicine should not "focus so much on whether someone lives three days more or two months more, but on assuring that the organism suffers as little as possible. One is not obligated to preserve life through extraordinary measures. This can go against the dignity of the person. Active euthanasia is something else - that's killing." DEATH PENALTY: Catholicism was once thought to tolerate it. Francis says it's never OK. "Life is something so sacred that not even a terrible crime justifies the death penalty." FUNDAMENTALISM: Francis says it warps and weakens the faithful. "The teacher who is so arrogant as to make decisions for the disciple is not a good priest, he's a good dictator, an eraser of the religious personalities of others ... this kind of religiosity, so rigid, wraps itself in doctrines that pretend to provide justifications, but in reality they deny liberty and don't allow people to grow."