Priorities

If you've ever stopped to help a homeless or needy person—and I mean truly help them by providing food, clothing, or shelter—you may have found yourself in the awkward and paradoxical position of being rejected by someone desperately in need of your help. While this has never happened to me, I have heard more than enough anecdotal evidence that this type of thing can happen. I don't mean to condemn all homeless people, or urge against offering charity to those in need, but merely to illustrate that sometimes, people will act contrary to their best interests, and attack those with their best interests in mind.

The drunk who curses at the helpful soul who offers food or a job instead of a handout is, of course, addicted to his vice. He cannot, through strength of will, alone, overcome his temptation and has become so dependent on it that he refuses the basic help he needs. Another way of stating this is that his appetites are not subject to his reason, and he cannot freely choose what is good for him, but is instead enslaved to the dictates of his passions.

With me so far?

Now, to shift gears and approach my thesis from another direction: an argument made by the Other Side during the whole Komen/Planned Parenthood debacle, was that sure, Planned Parenthood might have its flaws, but can't we put that aside for the sake of helping women with cancer? One of the slogans I saw along these lines was, "Instead of having my cancer detected by an organization under government investigation, now my cancer won't be detected at all!" It, of course, ignores the reason that Komen halted some funding for Planned Parenthood, namely, that Planned Parenthood wasn't very good at detecting cancer in the first place, but at least it's a step in the right direction. Rather than screaming ad hominem arguments or beating down straw men, it is an actual attempt to engage in rational debate. Credit where it's due.

So I can understand that argument. Put petty squabbles (where "petty" involves the extermination of 300,000 human beings a year) aside in the interest of some greater cause.

But that argument should apply both ways, shouldn't it?

Let's take a look at some recent events.

• In 2010, the Catholic Charities of Washington DC were forced to close their adoption services after the district passed a same-sex marriage law requiring them to provide foster care and adoption services to homosexual couples, in order to be eligible for funding. Without the necessary funds, the Catholic Charities were simply unable to carry on their service to the community. (Source)
• "The State Department’s U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is increasingly requiring contractors, such as Catholic Relief Services (CRS), to provide comprehensive HIV prevention activities (including condom distribution), as well as full integration of its programs with reproductive health activities (including provision of artificial contraception) in a range of international relief and development programs. Under this new requirement, of course, some of the most effective providers helping to prevent and treat AIDS in Africa and other developing nations will be excluded." (Source)
• "...[T]he Department of Health and Human Services [decided] in late September to end funding to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to help victims of human trafficking, or modern-day slavery. The church group had overseen nationwide services to victims since 2006 but was denied a new grant in favor of three other groups. The bishops organization, in line with the church’s teachings, had refused to refer trafficking victims for contraceptives or abortion. The American Civil Liberties Union sued, and HHS officials said they made a policy decision to award the grants to agencies that would refer women for those services. [...S]enior political appointees at HHS awarded the new grants to the bishops’ competitors despite a recommendation from career staffers that the bishops be funded based on scores by an independent review board, according to federal officials and internal HHS documents." (Source)
• One of Obama's first actions in office was to rescind President Bush's executive order limiting funding of embryonic stem cell research only to existing lines of stem cells. In its place, the God-King issued a new order, removing all funding to non-embryonic SCR. This despite the fact that adult SCR has produced many treatments and cures, while ESCR has only succeeded in producing cancers and tumors, even in countries that never had any funding restrictions. (Source: Michael Flynn)
• And lastly is the most recent decision by the HHS to require any Catholic institution which does not employ or serve Catholics primary to provide contraceptive, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs—free of charge—to their employees. Any organization that doesn't will be penalized with massive fines, which could potentially impact their ability to operate, or even force some to close.

Now, shouldn't the logic of putting up with Planned Parenthood to help fight cancer apply here? Unfortunately, it does not seem so.

Let's review.

• It is more important that all institutions, including the Catholic Church, recognize same-sex marriage than that children be adopted or placed in foster homes.
• It is more important that AIDS victims be given contraceptives than that they be treated at all.
• It is more important that sex slaves be given access to abortion than that they be freed.
• It is more important that embryos be destroyed for research than that actual cures be produced.
• It is more important that employees of Catholic institutions have access to contraceptives with zero out-of-pocket expenses than that the sick are treated in hospitals, the young are educated, or that the poor and needy be fed, clothed, and given shelter.

We all know the corporal works of mercy: to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, and shelter to the homeless; to visit the sick, ransom the captive, and bury the dead. But to our government and, it seems, our society, it is more important that abortions be available on demand and contraceptives be distributed freely.

Like the homeless man who utters curses at those who want to help him, but won't indulge his addiction, our country was waged open war on those who tend to her least fortunate members. Our society would rather get her sexual "fix", her moment of consequence-free pleasure, than see her wounds healed. 

Our society, quite simply, is addicted to sex. 

I have argued before that we, as a society, are addicted to sex. I don't think I could ask for better evidence than recent events to support that thesis.