Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

Narnia, Reepicheep, and the Culture War

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White
Image

GARDONE RIVIERA, Italy, July 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – When I was about nine, the thing I wanted more than anything else was to be swept away to a magical, heroic adventure in Narnia. My mother had given me C.S. Lewis’s books to read, and like so many other children, I became enamored of, almost obsessed, with the stories and the noble worldview they presented. If only I could live a life like that; of adventure and the pursuit of The Good, the fight against evil and oppression.

I know that scholars have examined the books and all their literary allusions, religious allegories, and historical implications, and in those papers, the character of Reepicheep – the fearless, gallant mouse, twirling his whiskers like a mustache, little paw resting on the hilt of his tiny rapier – has always been held up as Lewis’s icon of the ideal Christian knight.

Reepicheep, and his little band of miniscule followers, can present to a child someone with whom he can identify and whom he can emulate. Weak and small himself, Reepicheep defends the weak and small; aware of his flaws of pride, he befriends the flawed Eustace who repents of pride. Reepicheep’s strength is not in his arm but in the steadfastness of his faith. He never hesitates because he is, literally, fearless. His faith in Aslan has completely “cast out fear.”

Our managing director, Steve Jalsevac, likes to say that LifeSiteNews.com “has a punch well beyond our weight,”  that our influence far outreaches our size and limited resources. And this is true. I am told all the time that our articles are read, quoted and republished everywhere. But I have started to compare us not to a prizefighter, but to the valiant little mice of Reepicheep’s clan.

At Narnia’s darkest hour, the tiny mice, with little swords too small to do much damage, do not hesitate for an instant, don’t waste a moment considering the hopeless odds, or their relative size in the fight against Miraz’s Telmarines. They simply dive in to the fray, bringing down hardened soldiers ten times their size. By themselves, the mice could have done nothing to defeat the evil Miraz, but without them, their bravery and the sting of their needle-like swords, the Narnian army would have likely faced swift defeat. (Well, the trees helped too, I suppose).

This is how I have been thinking of LifeSite lately. With a staff of 15 or so, scattered around the world in 4 countries and two continents, mostly working from home, communicating by Skype and email, depending almost entirely on the individual donations of our readers, LifeSiteNews.com keeps stinging the toes of our giant opponents, throwing them off guard, keeping them hopping-mad, furious that we are too small to kill and too painful to ignore.

The rapier we carry is made of the truth, the needle-sharp facts behind the population control and abortion slogans that the mainstream media and the political class want to conceal.

Help us continue to carrier this rapier. Donate Today!
(Click Here to Donate)

We may not be able to defeat our opponents with truth alone, but we make it more possible for the whole pro-life community to win. Every time I hear our detractors – and we have a lot of them – try to diminish our work (calling us merely a ‘blog’  is one of the latest favorites) I think of Reepicheep, the hero of the Second Battle of Beruna, the friend of Aslan.

As a devotee of the books, there wasn’t much about the Prince Caspian movie I liked, but I thought this scene captured a bit of Reepicheep’s flair:

I have spent the last week or so in a small town in northern Italy attending a conference on the social teachings of the Catholic Church and their political, legal, and economic implications and I’ve occasionally felt a little out of my depth - just a wee bit intimidated. Founded by no less a person than Dietrich Von Hildebrand, the Roman Forum’s speakers are all people with multiple PhDs, ‘summa cum laude’  from Ivy League universities and places like Oxford.

The attendees come from eight countries, teach law and economics, speak several languages and have published books and papers, organized conferences and been in the thick of the fight to save the world, in some cases since before I was born.

In truth, while I have learned a great deal and will certainly come away with a broader and more complete understanding of the battles we fight, I have felt a bit outclassed. Among such intellectual heavy-weight fighters, my little sword seems as small and ineffective as Reepicheep’s rapier.

But one by one, each of the illustrious people I have talked to has told me how vital, how indispensable our work is at LifeSiteNews.com. Very few people can come to an international academic symposium. But the whole world needs to know what these people know and are saying and none of these Catholic intellectual heavy-weights are able to do that.

There are times when I simply cannot believe how fortunate I am to be doing this, and I am nearly floored by how much respect and admiration our work receives. Today, I think I had one of the nicest compliments so far. A man who has spent 20 years or more working in the mainstream media, who covered the attacks on the Trade Towers in 2001, who made documentaries for A&E and was director of programming for EWTN, told me that LifeSiteNews.com is one of the best news services out there, “absolutely without comparison.”

“No one else is doing what you do. Without you guys, there would be an un-fillable gap.”

This summer, will you help us continue to fill this vital gap?
Help us reach our goal.

(Click Here to Donate)

When you, our readers, contribute to the financial upkeep of LifeSiteNews.com, as I have said before, you are in your own way joining us in this fight. We work as your proxies and representatives. Few people are free to devote themselves completely to this particular work. Businesses must be run, classes taught, families raised. So when you donate to LifeSiteNews.com, we are, in a sense, working for you, and allowing you to become directly involved from where ever you are.

It is simply a truth that without the support of readers, our work would come to a sudden screeching halt. I have been writing for LSN for nearly 8 years and the forces lined up against us grow more ferocious every year. The Narnia stories instilled in me the desire for noble and romantic battles, to enter in some small way into the titanic struggle of good against evil.

And here I am doing just that, as the Rome Correspondent for LifeSiteNews.


Hilary White
Rome Correspondant
LifeSiteNews.com

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, , , ,

The first pro-abortion Republican enters the 2016 presidential race

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

EXETER, NH, May 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The large and expanding field of would-be Republican presidential candidates grew by one today, as George Pataki became the first GOP presidential hopeful this election season to openly support abortion-on-demand.

The 69-year-old long-shot candidate also has a history of supporting homosexual legislative causes.

In the weeks leading up to his formal announcement, George Pataki took out TV ads asking Republicans to refrain from talking about abortion and gay “marriage,” branding them “distractions.”

“In 12 years [as governor], I don’t think I talked about that issue twice,” he once said of abortion.

On same-sex “marriage,” he says, “I think, leave it to the states. I don’t think it’s a role in Washington.”

However, Pataki has a long history of enacting the homosexual political agenda as governor of New York from 1994-2006. He signed a “hate crimes” law that added the words “gay” and “lesbian” to New York state law for the first time.

He signed the Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination Act (SONDA), which prohibits business owners from “discriminating” against homosexuals in housing or hiring, with an exemption only for religious institutions.

He also added sexual orientation to state civil rights laws, alongside such immutable characteristics as race and sex, in an apparent quid pro quo for a gay activist group's endorsement in his last run for governor. The New York Times reported that, under pressure from Pataki, then then-Senate Majority Leader “shifted his position on the bill as part of what is tacitly acknowledged, even by Senator [Joseph] Bruno's senior aides, to have been a deal to win an endorsement for Governor Pataki from the state's largest gay rights group, the Empire State Pride Agenda.”

After the LGBT activist group endorsed Pataki in 2002, citing a long list of his service to the homosexual political cause, Pataki personally lobbied senators for the bill's passage, then signed it into law that December.

Coupled with his stance on gun control, environmentalism, and other issues, he stands well to the left of the Republican mainstream.

The three-term governor of New York, who belongs to the Roman Catholic Church, took his own advice by largely avoiding social issues today. The closest he came was his vow, “I'd repeal oppressive laws like ObamaCare and end Common Core.”

He added that he would “fire every current IRS employee abusing government power to discriminate on the basis of politics or religion. That is not America!”

Otherwise, Pataki's announcement speech hewed to stand pat Republican issues like reducing taxes, shrinking the number of federal employees, increasing military spending, and supporting entrepreneurship.

He began by thanking his supporters, in English and Spanish.

Smiling, his head pivoting between twin teleprompters, he said, “Let me tell you some of the things I'd do right away to get oppressive government off the backs of Americans.”

He would institute a lifetime ban on congressmen acting as lobbyists after they leave office. “If you ever served one day in Congress, you will never be a lobbyist,” he said. He favors forcing Congress to live under the laws it passes, so there will be “no special rules for the powerful.”

He cited his history of cutting taxes, reducing welfare rolls, and leaving his state with billions of dollars in surplus. “That's what our policies can do,” he said. “I know we can do the same thing for the United States.”

In recent weeks, he has called for a more interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East. Today, he reminded his audience that he was governor of New York in 9/11. “I will not fear the lesson of September 11,” he said. “To protect us, first we must protect the border,” he said – an unexpected phrase, as Pataki supports amnesty for the at least 11 million illegal immigrants already in the United States.

“We will stand with our ally, Israel, a democracy on the front lines of terror and barbarism,” he said.

Like former Sen. Rick Santorum, who announced he is running for president yesterday, Pataki agreed that “if necessary, American forces will be used to actually defeat and destroy ISIS on the ground – although he promised not to become “the world's policeman.”

Some of his campaign promises drew skepticism, such as seeking to develop self-driving cars and to cure Alzheimer's disease and cancer within the next decade.

The speech's venue was chosen deliberately by Pataki, who considered entering the presidential race in 2000, 2008, and 2012. The town of Exeter, New Hampshire, claims to be the founding place of the Republican Party. (Ripon, Wisconsin, makes a similar claim.)

More importantly, the first-in-the-nation primary skews more libertarian on social issues than evangelical-dominated Iowa and South Carolina, so Pataki has essentially staked his candidacy on doing well in New Hampshire. Fellow pro-abortion Republican Rudy Giuliani made a similar bet in 2008, banking on a good showing among transplanted New Yorkers in the Florida primary. He left the race after finishing a distant third.

Short of a stunning upset in the Granite State, Pataki has little chance of breaking through the pack this year. A Fox News poll ranks him dead last among 16 announced and potential candidates. Holly Bailey of Yahoo! News said, “George Pataki would never say this, but you do have to wonder if he's sort of, maybe, gaming for vice president.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Pataki is not the first “pro-choice” Republican to run for president.  Giuliani (who supported partial birth abortion) and Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore (another potential 2016 candidate, who supports abortion during the first trimester) ran in 2008. Twelve years earlier, both California Gov. Pete Wilson and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter supported abortion-on-demand. Arlen Specter later left the party and became a Democrat.

In 1988, General Alexander Haig opposed a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So did Texas Gov. John Connally in 1980.

George H.W. Bush supported abortion and voted for Planned Parenthood funding early in his career but changed his position by the time he ran for president the second time, in 1988.

President Gerald Ford was the last Republican nominee to proclaim himself “pro-choice.” 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Steve Jalsevac / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

, , , ,

Ireland ‘defied God’ by voting for gay ‘marriage’: Cardinal Burke

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

OXFORD, May 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Cardinal Raymond Burke lamented how formerly Catholic Ireland has gone further than the pagans in the pre-Christian days of old and “defied God” by calling homosexual behavior “marriage” in the referendum last week.

“I mean, this is a defiance of God. It’s just incredible. Pagans may have tolerated homosexual behaviours, they never dared to say this was marriage,” he told the Newman Society, Oxford University’s Catholic organization, in an address Wednesday about the intellectual heritage of Pope Benedict XVI. The Tablet, Britain’s liberal Catholic newspaper, reported his remarks.

On Friday, 1.2 million Irish people voted to amend the country’s constitution to say: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.” A little over 734,000 people voted against the proposal. 

Burke said that he could not understand “any nation redefining marriage.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

The cardinal also emphasized the important role that parents play in protecting their children in a culture increasingly hostile to God’s laws. “The culture is thoroughly corrupted, if I may say so, and the children are being exposed to this, especially through the internet,” he said. One practical piece of advice that he offered families was to put computers in public areas to prevent children from “imbib[ing] this poison that’s out there.”

During the same Oxford visit, but during a homily at a Mass the day before, Burke called marriage between a man and woman a “fundamental truth” that has been “ignored, defied, and violated.”

Burke warned during the homily of the dangers of “various ideological currents” and of “human deception and trickery which strives to lead us into error.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
John Stonestreet

,

Why young Christians can’t grasp our arguments against gay ‘marriage’

John Stonestreet
By John Stonestreet

May 28, 2015 (BreakPoint.org) -- For five years, Dr. Abigail Rine has been teaching a course on gender theory at George Fox University, an evangelical school in the Quaker tradition.

At the beginning of the semester, she tells her students that “they are guaranteed to read something they will find disagreeable, probably even offensive.”

Writing at FirstThings.com recently, she related how five years ago it was easy to find readings that challenged and even offended the evangelical college students “considering the secular bent of contemporary gender studies.”

But today, things are different. “Students now,” she says, “arrive in my class thoroughly versed in the language and categories of identity politics; they are reticent to disagree with anything for fear of seeming intolerant—except, of course, what they perceive to be intolerant.”

And what do they find “intolerant”? Well, in her class, an essay entitled “What is Marriage?” by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan Anderson, which was the beginning of the book “What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense.”

In their article, Girgis, George, and Anderson defend what they call the conjugal view of marriage. “Marriage,” they write, “is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other … that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together.” They defend this view against what they call the “revisionist view” of marriage, which redefines marriage to include, among other things, same-sex couples.

“My students hate it,” Dr. Rine wrote. They “lambast the article.” “They also,” she adds, “seem unable to fully understand the argument.” And again, these are evangelical students at an evangelical school.

The only argument for conjugal marriage they’ve ever encountered has been the wooden proof-texting from the Bible. And besides, wrote Rine, “What the article names as a ‘revisionist’ idea of marriage—marriage as an emotional, romantic, sexual bond between two people—does not seem ‘new’ to my students at all, because this is the view of marriage they were raised with, albeit with a scriptural, heterosexual gloss.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

As Rine points out “the redefinition of marriage began decades ago” when “the link between sexuality and procreation was severed in our cultural imagination.”

And if marriage “has only an arbitrary relationship to reproduction,” then it seems mean-spirited to Rine’s students to argue that marriage by its very nature excludes same-sex couples.

And where do students get the idea that marriage “has only an arbitrary relationship to reproduction”? Well, everywhere—television, church, school, their homes, in youth groups.

Rine writes, “As I consider my own upbringing and the various ‘sex talks’ I encountered in evangelical church settings over the past twenty years, I realize that the view of marital sex presented there was primarily revisionist.”

In other words, once you say, “I do,” you get “the gift” of sex which is presented as “a ‘gift’ largely due to its [erotic], unitive properties, rather than its intrinsic capacity to create life.” Even in the Church, children have become an optional add-on to married life rather than its primary purpose.

What can we do to win back our children, our churches, and the culture? In our recent book “Same Sex Marriage,” Sean McDowell and I lay out a game plan. We offer strategies for the short-term and the long-term, with the ultimate goal: re-shaping the cultural imagination towards what God intended marriage to be, starting with the church. Come to BreakPoint.org to pick up your copy.

As Chuck Colson once said in a BreakPoint commentary about marriage, “We Christians are very good at saying ‘No.’ But we’ve got to get better at saying ‘Yes’: showing how God’s plan for humanity is a blessing. That His ways, including faithful, life-giving marriage between one man and one woman, lead to human flourishing physically, emotionally, and spiritually.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Reprinted with permission from Break Point.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook