Back to the June 2006 Newsletter Index

Pro-Life Training Program Series

SENSE OF PURPOSE TRUIMPS EXTERNAL FORCES

By Janet Baker

Brian Clowes continues his treatment of forces restraining anti-life movements.  The last three he mentions are hard work, fear of want, and world-encompassing historical events.

Of course, these forces are external to the human person; we cannot rely on their presence to restrain the anti-life movement.  

For instance, we cannot just whip out a “world-encompassing historical event” in our pro-life efforts.  Rather, we must recognize that these forces hearken to something deeper in the psyche of people, and it’s that “something deeper” that we need to help others develop.

Let’s take a look at “hard work.”  It’s no secret that when folks have to work hard to make a living, they don’t have resources to squander on hedonism or other foolish pursuits.  Folks are constrained to be sober and diligent about their affairs, or they will suffer in practical ways.

I think Clowes’ analysis relies too much on external circumstances.  Could it not be that hard work appeals to man’s desire for purpose in his life?  On the surface, such a purpose can entail making a decent living for oneself and family.  

But what if such necessity is relieved, or what if one’s family perishes?  Should the sense of purpose perish?  It will, if such purpose is not overtly directed to God.

Let’s look at one of the first Baltimore Catechism questions:  “Why did God make me?  God made me to know, love and serve Him in this world and to be happy ever after with Him in the next world.”  Unless every person embraces that and makes that his/her first priority, they will misdirect their energies should external constraints be removed.

Clowes says that “technology leads to an obsession with convenience.”  But the widespread obsession with convenience has existed long before many of today’s technologies have.  

I see too often in pro-lifers an inordinate reverie for “the simpler days of yesteryear.”  Convenience is not the problem; much less so is technology.  The problem is the selfishness embedded within each person due to Original Sin.  This plagues the most inconvenienced person as well as the convenienced.

The restraint known as “fear of want” is closely related to the first, since it is “fear of want” that often motivates “hard work.”  Clowes claims that affluence brings boredom, which leads to quests for “experiences.”

I think Clowes misses the deeper issue; affluence does not bring about boredom, at least not by itself.  It is the lack of meaning or purpose that can cause folks to seek after dangerous experiences (illicit sex, substance abuse, New Age, etc.)  Such real purpose can only be found in a life lived for Christ in His Catholic Church.

Let’s look at a recent phenomenon for example.  Right after the 9-11 attacks, the churches were packed to overflowing – at least, mine was.  There was a perfect opportunity to preach the truths of the Faith to those who had long been away from it.

By and large, our hierarchy blew it.  Our bishops should have seized the opportunity to have expanded Confession hours and some remedial catechism lessons.  Instead, all they gave to these returning folks was a bunch of warm-fuzzy fluffy-puff-stuff.

People perceived an exterior threat and flocked to church.  However, the interior questions of the orientation of their lives were not addressed.  Hence, a few weeks later, they resumed their neglect of God and their spiritual lives.

The 9-11 example leads right into the “world-encompassing historical events” restraint.  Clowes states that neo-liberalism is appealing to man due to his weak and fallen nature.  He says that liberalism was stalled in the 20th century by the Great Depression and two World Wars.

He then points out that the generation that lived through those times had relatively sturdy characters molded by their trials.  He says that this same decent generation vowed that their children would not endure the hardships they endured.  

They were of relatively decent morals and knew it.  How, then, did they engender the radicals of the 1960s?

I think it was because, in their desire to shield their children from adversity, they coddled their children.  Had they instilled in their children the fact that they were created for God’s purposes, the 1950s and 1960s might have taken a different course.

It is my opinion that we must instill a sense of purpose into the lives of those around us (and yes, that does mean Catholic catechesis) if we are to bring about the Culture of Life.

Moreover, we must be ever vigilant to guard and further our roots in the Church, lest after establishing a Culture of Life, we rest on our laurels and slip again into blindness, cycling back to death.