By Judie Brown
Wikipedia tells us that no man’s land is “waste or unowned land or an uninhabited or desolate area that may be under dispute between parties who leave it unoccupied out of fear or uncertainty.” This sounds eerily similar to the advocates for compromise who consistently tell the nation that pro-life and pro-death forces need to find a middle ground. Webster defines this place as a position “between extreme or opposing positions, options, or objectives.”
But like the no man’s land, which is awash with desolation, the middle ground on questions like abortion, contraception, and euthanasia is a location where people may agree on compromise. While neither side of such lunacy would admit it, the position is fraught with error.
Let’s talk about euthanasia as an example to underscore my point. When writers commence explanations about what it means to understand the qualifying factors that might result in euthanasia, the culture yawns. It seems that heartstrings being pulled by sad stories about others can lead to an awakening regarding why aid in dying is sometimes needed.
All you need to do is change the words and voila, so-called compassion is acceptable, even when it really means causing the death of another.
This is so because death is a marketable product. It is viewed by society as a laudable goal because suffering is to be shunned at all costs. But not everyone is buying that. A recent article explained that when pain relief, known as palliative care, is provided by healthcare professionals who have genuine respect for the life of every person committed to their care, it can be a blessing for patients and their families.
Palliative care should never be used to cause or hasten death. But because it can be used for good or bad, one must be on guard. An author addressing the situation in Canada writes, “As euthanasia grows like a weed across the country, it’s obscuring the definition of palliative care, say experts watching the line between palliative care and euthanasia get increasingly blurred. It’s also aggravating already existing problems related to caring for the dying.”
Apparently, the line between kill and care is nearly obliterated, be it before birth or nearing the end of life.
Is it any wonder then that, when opinions regarding Catholic teaching are articulated by people who call themselves Catholic but who perhaps never practice their faith, honesty is becoming the ultimate victim? If a pollster wants to skew findings, he need only seek out the contrarians and market their opinions as mainstream thought.
Everywhere we look, there are warning signs, obstacles, and deceptions that must be either dealt with honestly or accepted as the price of living in a secular society. But this is where you and I come into the picture.
We recognize the machinations of the evil one and we know that the farther our fellow human beings move from Christ, the more disposed they are to accepting error. Years ago, a National Catholic Register writer addressed this, quoting Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. According to the article,
The anti-Christ will not be called by that name, “otherwise he would have no followers.” Same for the way he, the devil, is depicted such as in cartoons because he “will wear no red tights, nor vomit sulphur, nor carry a trident nor wave an arrow tail as the Mephistopheles in Faust.” Nowhere does Scripture give us this idea of his appearance, Sheen emphasized. But it twists into an unlikely instrument.
“This masquerade has helped the devil convince men that he does not exist,” Sheen revealed, setting the stage. The devil “knows that he is never so strong as when men believe that he does not exist. When no man recognizes, the more power he exercises. God has defined Himself as I am Who am and the devil as ‘I am who am not.’”
No man’s land is the playground of evil; truth is the first casualty.
