By Judie Brown
The expression stated in our title today is used to describe a situation in which people are afraid to criticize someone because the perceived wisdom is that the person is good or important, or in some cases both.
We thought about this when reading about Pastor Jeremiah Johnston, who has somersaulted his way into supporting in vitro fertilization—a practice that is contrary to Christian principles.
But the truth is,
Christian critics oppose IVF not because it lacks “the mystery of natural conception” but because ethicists and theologians, in both Catholic and Protestant circles, understand that God intends for sex, marriage, and babies to be an indissoluble triad. When man tears asunder any one from the other two, children are always the victims. That is certainly the case with IVF—which separates babies from sex—as is evident by the 1.5 million embryos in perpetual frozen storage, the undisclosed number of little lives donated to research, and the small humans discarded because they were not genetically “fit” or the wrong sex. It’s not a “mystery” problem. It’s a child victimization problem.
By withholding the full truth when advocating this practice, the proponents become emperors with no clothes. Or to put it another way, when junk science is your game, truth is the loser.
We next turn our attention to a man that some pro-life people believe is the best choice for president, arguing that his positions on pro-life subjects represent the “lesser of two evils.” While some may tell us that this argument is valid, even for Catholics with a well-formed conscience, we know this is not so.
Brother Andre Marie addressed this theory as it applies to casting a vote for someone who is viewed to be less desirable but still superior to the other choice. He wrote what he would do if neither candidate were solid on moral questions such as abortion:
I would write in someone who is a good candidate. To some, that may constitute “throwing away” my vote, but such a pragmatic conception of politics as merely “the art of the possible” I reject utterly as being unethical. It represents the kind of moral cowardice that safeguards the status quo: the near complete marginalization of Catholic moral principles in the governing of our nation. In short, it leaves us prey to such intellectual perversity as “it’s OK to choose the lesser of two evils.”
Once again, those who support the lesser of two evils are parading around under false pretenses, mimicking the naked emperor.
And finally, examine apologists for euthanizing people who are sick or near the end of life. In the island nation of Malta, a recent headline in Malta Today reads, “Why Is the Law Leaving Me to Suffer Endlessly?” The article goes on to say, “As it stands in Malta, the law withholds the right to assisted dying from those who would freely choose it, rather than endure an existence with no meaning or value.”
In other words, the ailing human being, miserable and alone, deserves death rather than affirmation of his life in his hour of depression. There is no hint of compassion in an era of convenient killing.
The nude emperor lacks the cloak of Christ which, if he were to wear it, would behoove him to nurture rather than murder.
We are living in a deadly era and are thus called to be ever more fearless in our defense of God’s law and His children, striving always to soften the hearts of self-appointed emperors who lack the gift of wisdom.
This is a time to recall the words of Saint Augustine who said, “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.”
