DICTATORSHIP IN AMERICA?

SEPTEMBER 29, 2007

Joseph Stalin defined dictatorship as “unlimited power, resting on violence and not on law”.

Dictatorships have issued from violent revolutions or well planned conspiracies. In each case, the goal was to attain power unaccountable to any law or higher authority. Dictators never acquire the reins of power by the people’s free consent; they must rely on force or deceit.

If people today were asked, “Do you believe this nation could be taken over and controlled by a dictatorship?”, their answer would be a resounding “No!”.

But what if a dictator were clever enough to present himself as the best advocate and defender of people’s freedom? Would a dictator not be a genius if he could brainwash the people so effectively that they viewed their subjugation as freedom?

That, I believe, is in many ways the condition of our time. If we would look at what has happened to our nation within the last half century, I believe we could begin to see the ghostly outline of a dictator in our midst.

Who is this genius who has seized power without protest, resistance, or awareness on our part? His name is Relativism.

Just before he was elected pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in a Mass with the cardinals, stated in his homily that, “relativism, that is, letting oneself be tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine, seems to be the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.”

Cardinal Ratzinger was drawing attention to the strong tendency among us to put oneself above all law, and to manipulate the truth for the goal of justifying every passion, impulse, and appetite, while silencing all voices in opposition.

A prime example of relativism today has to do with the value attached to human life. In one instance, if a pregnant mother is harmed or killed, along with her unborn child, the guilty party can be – and has been – charged with responsibility for two injuries or deaths. Yet, if a pregnant woman chooses to end the life of her unborn child through abortion, she is not charged with any crime. This kind of inconsistency shows that we as a nation have decided that a human life has no more value or importance than what someone else chooses to attach to it. Life is precious when someone else feels it is, and is not when someone else feels otherwise.

This dictatorship is evident in our language. We call for tolerance regarding differing viewpoints of others, but when someone claims that there is an objective truth or absolute moral law that binds us all, such a person is often be verbally assaulted as being intolerant, closed-minded, and arrogant.

We have introduced an assortment of euphemisms into our language to avoid speaking the truth, as if clever words could change reality. One example is “late term abortion”. This refers to what should more accurately be termed partial-birth abortion, or simply killing an infant at the moment of birth. Euphemisms are also evident in speech about human beings at their embryonic stage of development. We speak of unused frozen embryos as “left-overs”. It is argued that they should be used (meaning destroyed) for research, because otherwise they would be discarded anyway. Human beings who are left-overs to be discarded!

The term “pro-choice” is used without reference to what choice is being made, namely the choice to kill or let live an unborn child. No one speaks of being pro-choice, however, when it comes to, say, killing an adult, or abusing or neglecting children after they are brought into the world. This is another example of inconsistency that is the work of the dictator, relativism. A child is worth only what the dictator says he’s worth from one moment to the next. A similar euphemism is “reproductive rights”, which masks the claim of a right to abort an innocent, helpless human being. No one has the right to do what is in itself morally wrong.

Whenever the moral law becomes an obstacle to self-gratification, the dictator relativism rises up to say, “No problem! We’ll just find a way of camouflaging the truth with a new euphemism.” Relativism, by striking down the moral law and distorting the truth by the manipulation of language, results sooner or later in totalitarianism, a most oppressive state under which all human freedom is lost.

To save ourselves from a total loss of freedom, dignity, and reality, we must do two things. First, we must recognize the crucial link between freedom and truth, and begin once again to exercise honesty and truthfulness in our speech. This duty binds all of us in our daily lives, pertains in a special way to the media, to policy makers, and to all who hold public office. Second, we must acknowledge that all our laws must be shaped in light of the moral law, which is written into our very nature and which is knowable by reason.

Nothing is made right or natural by our desiring it, since we know that we can desire many things that are wrong. We can want to get out of trouble, but we know it is wrong to tell lies in order to do so. We can want a free lunch, but we know it is wrong to steal from others. We can feel attracted to someone, but know it is wrong to commit adultery. We can desire to be free of the burdens of caring for another person, even our own child, but know it is wrong to kill.

We can protect ourselves and our freedom from the dictatorship of relativism byspeaking the truth always and adhering to the moral law “written not in ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets that are hearts of flesh” (2 Cor 3:3).

+Bishop Raymundo J. Peña

last updated 05-Jun-2008 9:48 sitemap