I was told, when I first arrived in Canada, that Canadians are not particularly decisive, that they would be reluctant to bet on which way the elevator was moving even if they had two choices.
It is a country, so I was informed, of "the bland leading the bland." And no less than media guru Marshall McLuhan declared that "the Canadian beaver is an apt symbol of our dammed-up creativity."
The recent row concerning whether or not Canadians should think about when life begins leads me to think that the biblical version of the aforementioned epigram is more pertinent: "the blind leading the blind."
There is merit, apparently, in not being able to see, for what one might see could be fearful and troubling.
Stephen Woodworth is a member of Parliament (MP) for Kitchener, Ontario. In spring 2012, he introduced a motion in the House of Commons to deliberate on the subject of when human life begins. The motion was soundly defeated 203 to 91. All members of the New Democratic Party (NDP, more truthfully described as "No Deliberations, Please") voted against it (not much evidence of "choice" here).
It would seem that such a resounding vote in favor of not thinking would have pleased non-thinkers. However, such was not the case.
The editor of one newspaper referred to the minority vote as "alarming to people who respect a woman’s right to full autonomy over her own body." Parenthetically, perhaps there should be a discussion on what constitutes "full autonomy." Does it include never aging, never getting sick and never dying? Is full autonomy available for men? And how might they acquire it? Or is "full autonomy" simply an ideological illusion? Better not think about that, either. Who wants to part with a cherished illusion?
A journalist found Woodworth’s motion incomprehensible and concluded that he must be "operating in a time warp." Apparently, the time for thinking has passed its expiration date. Another writer charged that MP Woodworth, a Catholic, was "forcing his moral beliefs on the Canadian public."
Presumably, the act of thinking is an idiosyncratically Catholic activity. It is at least theoretically possible for a non-Catholic to engage in thinking.
Rona Ambrose, the minister of Canada’s Status of Women, had the audacity to support the motion. Her justification for such an allegedly outlandish act was that she was concerned about the disproportionate number of females who are aborted precisely because they are females. Nonetheless, there was a flurry of demands for her resignation. The NDP accused her of betraying women. MP Libby Davies called Ambrose’s vote "shocking." Others called for the abolition of the Status of Women post.
It may seem odd that a woman who has a political responsibility to look after the welfare of women should lose her job because she is looking out after the welfare of women. What would be more "sexist" than aborting someone simply because she is female?
But in a world where thinking is suppressed, contradictions go unnoticed. Ambrose is not supposed to be concerned about real women, but ideological fantasies.
Thinking, of course, is the archenemy of ignorance. And if ignorance is bliss, then thinking is also an enemy of bliss. A woman has a "right" to abortion. But does she have a right to think? Does "bliss" rest on a secure foundation if thinking is prohibited?
Thinking is such a natural human activity that it would seem impossible to suppress it for any significant length of time so that people could maintain a blissful life while attending to their daily functions. Sooner or later, one may perchance open a book and discover that "Thou Shall Not Think" is not a commandment, but "Thou Shall Not Kill" is. What happens then?
The ancient Pythagoreans tried to prevent irrational numbers from coming out of "concealment." They even put death curses on those who revealed the irrationality of the square root of 2. Their efforts, naturally, were futile. They were not able to stop the advance of mathematics.
Abortion has many enemies: the unwanted baby, the pro-life movement, the Catholic Church, science — and thinking. Its only chance of continuing unabated is for its advocates to insist on an illusion ("total autonomy") and prohibit all thinking (since thinking does have a way of shattering illusions).
Is the continuation of abortion inevitable?
Let us return to that exceptional Canadian who was most fond of thinking, Marshall McLuhan, who was also staunchly pro-life: "There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to contemplate what is happening." MP Woodworth wants people to contemplate what is happening so that abortion becomes less inevitable. But thinking is too clear-eyed a witness to the crime.
After Macbeth slaughtered King Duncan, he returned to his wife, who advised that "these deeds must not be thought/After these ways; so, it will make us mad" (Act II, Scene 2).
Indeed, if one thinks too much about killing, then one might truly go mad. Thus, thinking must also be killed.
No civilization was ever built on an illusion. Thinking distinguishes reality from illusion. And though, as T.S. Eliot has warned, "Humankind can bear very little reality," authentic thinking is indispensable if we are to prevent the collapse of civilization from becoming inevitable.
There is no more important question that any political regime can put forward than "When does human life begin?" The primary function of government is not to protect illusions, but to protect human beings — all of them.
Donald DeMarco, Ph.D., is a senior fellow of HLI America, an initiative of Human Life International.
He is professor emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario,
and an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut.
Comments
Post a Comment
Incredible. Thank you for posting.
I have never heard or read of it so intelligently and simply stated. Thank you dear sir.
Love the reference to Macbeth. Very apt!
This is why pro-abortionists are so infuriated when protesters hold photos of aborted fetuses or when laws mandate an ultrasound before an abortion. These things take the debate out of the realm of rhetoric and euphemism and confront us with a reality so clear that it can’t be explained away.
Very good article Mr. DeMarco. Stated with ease, rich in reference, and deep in thought.
Thank you for a well-written well thought-out article. I have often pondered the phrase, ignorance is bliss, and discovered, historically, that ignorance is deadly. In regards to “autonomy” over one’s body, if such a case were to be seriously made, then we no longer have either the right or duty to potty train children, we should merely supply bigger diapers for them until the person chooses the discipline of continence as regards bladder control. Employers might even find such a person more employable as they would not require bathroom breaks during work time and might push an entire work-force towards such “bladder control”.
The promotion of promiscuity, pornography, pills, condoms as “sexual freedom” and “birth control” has left the world in an unresolvable situation in regards to the gift of sex. Grievous wrongs are now fought for as “rights” and any public or individual demand for respect that one may raise their own child or conduct their own business to respect and esteem sexual continence has become the final frontier of oppression which all governments must equally condemn or be condemned.
In terms of diapers being hailed as “bladder control” and “bathroom freedom” one might foresee the possible end that “bathroom freedom” leaves one so disposed to relieve themselves freely in public, in the due course of business on the floor, or even in one’s own home. Protesting such a behavior, as opposed to being a right of order, could be met with lawsuits, fines and the branding of the individual as a “hater” in need of diversity training.
Thank you, Professor DeMarco, for such a clear, well-reasoned statement. I had not thought previously about the political correctness in our country as evidence of an unwillingness to think. You have exposed the Canadian version of “the emperor has no clothes.”
An excellent article. Never mind about thinking. In general, Canadians don’t want to see the truth of even when it is in front of their very eyes. However, this applies not only to abortion and pro life issues but to all other issues as well.
Contrary to what is implied in this article, Canadian Catholics are no different. The majority of Canadian Catholics both lay and religious also suffer from this dangerous selective denial syndrome.
They do not want to see the truth, speak the truth or defend the truth, if and when the truth places them in an uncomfortable or awkward position. This is why the majority of Canadians don’t want to think and act justly and objectively. They like to be neutral in all matters, except in financial and material matters that directly affect themselves personally.
This also applies to a majority of Americans including American Catholics. So please, don’t just point at Canadians.
What an article!!! Thank you!
Celinedesilva hit the nail on the head, with her comments above. To what she wrote, I’d add that it’s also a lack of leadership in churches that remain conservative in nature, Roman Catholic and those in union with Rome among them, that TEACH and PREACH truth, & in its fullness, meaning: the New Testament letters, all of them, each meant to build a God-honoring society.
Yet, until said church leaders PROVE they are trustworthy, and so far, they have not, what the few bishops say will continue to be irrelevant, and all societies will continue to break-down. Church leaders in Europe (Italy? Spain?) are already responsible for the erosion of morals in those countries. Spain has legal same-sex unions. Where’s the church leadership? Cats have their collective tongues. The rest are afraid of flack.
Wonderful. Fits so well with my course on Catholic political thought. We are blessed to have the Church to produce fruit like this article.
Posted by Celinedesilva on Saturday, Jan 12, 2013 3:01 PM (EDT):
This also applies to a majority of Americans including American Catholics. So please, don’t just point at Canadians.
————-
Excellent comments. I think it applies to the Europeans also.
Celine, do you come from Guyana?
Posted by Thomist on Sunday, Jan 13, 2013 1:55 AM (EDT):
NO THOMIST. I AM NOT FROM GUYANA. I AM CANADIAN
The problem is not so much the thing being proposed: a discussion about when human life begins, but the question itself. The answer is already well known. Any discussion can only shed more light on the truth. Better to suppress the light, “for what one might see could be fearful and troubling.”
Personally, as a French-Canadian, I found this article offensive.
Posted by Marthe Lépine on Sunday, Jan 13, 2013 5:57 PM (EDT):
“…I found this article offensive”
This is our Canadian secular and Catholic sickness: We are smitten with religion of political correctness; a misplaced and misguided sense of a false charity founded on illusions and falsehood and an aversion to the truth.
We are easily offended by the truth. Truth hurts…
As a Canadian, I hope that this article will even in a small way open our eyes, our minds and our hearts to search for truth, to see truth, to speak the truth and to uphold the truth in everything we do. The world will certainly be a better place for it.
Excellent and thoughtful, thought-provoking article! Americans suffer from the same deliberate deficit of thinking. God have mercy on us and our cultures!!
Selfism explains much of the chaos in cultures worldwide.
Convert Dr Paul Vitz describes this flattering of the ego, self-worship, as selfism. [“Psychology as Religion –The Cult of Self-Worship”, Eerdmans, 1994, p xi]. As Dr Vitz shows the major barrier to immersing one’s self in the love and service of God is “the presence of the self’s will to power. It is precisely for this reason that the New Testament is so thoroughly characterized by motives and metaphors that are directly antithetical to the psychology of the independent, rebellious, autonomous, self-created self.
“Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like little children, you will never enter the Kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is greater in the Kingdom of heaven. (Mt 18:3-4).
“The same concern is expressed over and over – for example, when Christians are called the servants of God, and when the Lord is called our shepherd.” [Op. cit. p 160-161].
Tellingly, a pope is known as the servant of the servants of God.
Despite personal failings, starting with St Peter’s denial of Christ, the charisma of infallibility is untouched in proclaiming dogma and doctrine on faith and morals, as Supreme Vicar, to the whole of Christ’s Church. Catholics need to be reevangelelised.
Selfism explains much of the chaos in cultures worldwide.
Convert Dr Paul Vitz describes this flattering of the ego, self-worship, as selfism. [Psychology as Religion –The Cult of Self-Worship, Eerdmans, 1994, p xi]. As Dr Vitz shows the major barrier to immersing one’s self in the love and service of God is “the presence of the self’s will to power. It is precisely for this reason that the New Testament is so thoroughly characterized by motives and metaphors that are directly antithetical to the psychology of the independent, rebellious, autonomous, self-created self.
“Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like little children, you will never enter the Kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is greater in the Kingdom of heaven. (Mt 18:3-4).
“The same concern is expressed over and over – for example, when Christians are called the servants of God, and when the Lord is called our shepherd.” [Op. cit. p 160-161].
In what way can a woman lay claim to dominion over self? Does she exist in and of herself, or is she a created being hence dependent arising. Women as well as men have no such right or claim to dominion over body. Our body’s are on lone from the divine. For the created can never have dominion over or control over the primary agent. HE inherently exists. We do not.
Posted by john platten on Sunday, “HE inherently exists. We do not.”
Out of nothingness, once created by God the human being exists. We are created in the image and likeness of God and comprised of a mortal body and an immortal soul.
Our mortal bodies will rise again as glorified bodies on the last day and be united to our immortal souls to eternally enjoy or suffer the consequences of our actions: doing God’s will or rejecting God’s will. St. Paul tells us, “If Christ did not rise again, then our faith is vain…”
[51] Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed. [52] In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise again incorruptible: and we shall be changed. [53] For this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality. [54] And when this mortal hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory. [55] O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?
@Marthe
What offends you as a French-Canadian?
-The truth of what Dr. DeMarco speaks and your country is steeped in moral relativism?
-Or the mere fact that Dr. DeMarco has made all of us aware of it?
Regardless of your offense, my prayers for your beautiful country and all of its people will increase.
has no one ever told Mr. DeMarco that you can get more flies with honey rather than vinegar! The article itself was very thought provoking but the first two paragraphs were very insulting to all Canadians…..Does he not know that you can not paint everyone with the same brush? If that is what one is to do then we Canadians would have to paint Americans with the same brush of “insanity” as they just elected a president and a government who is very much of the “culture of death”
Posted by L. Cross on Tuesday, “has no one ever told Mr. DeMarco that you can get more flies with honey rather than vinegar! “
Human beings are NOT FLIES. The lethal, thick, gooey honey of falsehood will only make the flies drown as a consequence of not being able to pull out of the honey pot.
As a Canadian, I find Mr. DeMarco’s article a refreshing and much needed reminder not only for us Canadians who are easily offended and who go with the flow, but also for our American brothers and sisters. TRUTH HURTS.
Celinedesilva: Way to go!! I agree with you completely.
We don’t coddle disease or illness. We aggressively identify each, in order to correct it. Sometimes, the process of identifying it hurts.
We all need to THINK: self-educate, show interest, & then ACT: encourage our leaders & create a God-honoring society/world. If more people thought God-honoring thoughts, and acted upon it, our society would change for the better, from the sheer numbers alone.
God-honoring people would make up the majority, presuming they were interpreting God’s word, in context and in its fullness, and hearing it preached and taught on Sundays, by MEN with integrity and authority, respected by their flocks. Save the honey for breakfast after Mass.
Excellent! Very well said!
I agree, Canadians are generally too docile, even apathetic. Part of it is a laudable desire not to offend anybody but, on the whole, they just don’t want to rock the boat (unless it is about hockey, of course). That’s why I don’t consider myself a Canadian even though I’ve been living in Canada for more than 30 years and I hold the Canadian citizenship. What other country would suffer having three major political parties which are different in name only?
Marthe Lépine,
I am offended that you are offended.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.