The Busy Servants of Moloch – UPDATED

When the “learning opportunity” of the Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood debacle was taking place, I wrote:

[the past day's high drama had given] me a mental image of Moloch, enraged and stomping and roaring because there was a threat of less meat coming to his fire.

Today, Moloch is appeased; the media’s heartbeat and respiration are returning to normal. They and their pals in DC can take a nice, deep cleansing breath and sit back and smile, understanding what they have just demonstrated to themselves, their enemies and the world: you don’t have to fall in love; just fall in line, or you will fall, altogether.

Recall the Komen story was breaking just as people were beginning to react to the Obama administration’s announcement on the HHS Mandate (before his later “accommodation”) and the media non-coverage of the annual March for Life on Washington DC. Quickly on the heels of those stories, the Democrats and the press began to pretend that Republicans, Christians and Catholics were conspiring to ban contraception, which (according to this 2009 CDC report (pdf)) 99% of American women can easily and affordably access.

Since then, it has seemed to me that the servants of Moloch have been very, very busy assuring their god that his feedings will continue unabated. In congress and elsewhere, we have performance art suggesting that life is a tragic and burdensome thing that must be relentlessly beaten back via sterilization, abortifacients and difficult-to-obtain contraception.

As our president likes to say, “let’s be clear”: Life is formed on the breath of intention — a breath that always utters “yes” because nothing is created from “no.” When a new life comes into the world, with it is delivered a renewal of old love, and the creation of wholly new love, shared, developed and grown between parent and child, child and grandparents, and so on. It is, at its most fundamental, the continual re-emergence and action of God — who is love — into the world.

To hate life, especially new life, is to hate God. To distrust it or dissuade it is to distrust and try to dissuade God. To destroy it is an attempt to destroy God. To obsess on preventing the possibility of life to-a-manic-extreme is to try desperately to hold God at bay, to contain him, to make God obedient to oneself, or to order him away. To slaughter his loved-into-being new life is to nourish emptiness and death on its blood; it is to worship an illusory freedom one thinks comes from saying “no.”

One can be confused or ignorant and not realize that when one rejects life one rejects love, and thus rejects God. Invincible ignorance counts. But true evil understands what it does, and how it moves and who it uses. And not everyone it uses minds being used.

Interestingly, 2012 appears to be shaping as the year in which life-hating, love-hating, God-hating evil has come very much to the fore, seeking out a head-on collision with the God who is love. Perhaps it believes it is winning something. Perhaps it is feeling encouraged by recent demonstrations that government bodies harbor a profound misunderstanding of the concept of human moral conscience, which as become a narrowly-defined, expendable thing:

. . .two senior midwives from Glasgow who have a conscientious objection to abortion. The midwives have been told that they must accept the decision of their hospital management that they must oversee other midwives performing abortions on the labour ward.

The messages being spelled out both in Britain and in the United States is, “you God-botherers will either put aside your consciences, or you will be put aside, all-together; your choices are capitulation or complete social and economic marginalization.”

Or, of course, it goes without saying: battle.

Message received. Battle it is.

A few weeks ago, during a debate New Gingrich brought up a 2002 piece of Illinois State legislation meant to provide medical service to babies born alive during a botched abortion. Senator Obama, a faithful defender of abortion in any and all circumstances, argued against it (pages 32-33 [pdf]) thusly:

. . .[the] fetus or child – however you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think it’s non-viable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved . . . my impression is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.

Yes, if the killing has failed, “if they’re not just coming out limp and dead”, then the job must be finished; Moloch must be served, because there is nothing we might learn, nothing love might heal, if it is not.

Since that issue was resurrected, we’re suddenly hearing from death-apologists who suggest not only that a baby born of a botched abortion is killable, but that any infant can ethically be slain. Why, after all, should the baby live?:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

There it is. The inevitable and deviant cheapening of life that Pope Paul VI predicted in his encyclical Humanae Vitae. And things are only just starting to heat up.

I for one, am glad to see these servants of Moloch reveal themselves so completely. You have to declare yourself and display your standards in battle. Here’s ours:

Or, perhaps, even better yet, this one:

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey, What if the Bishops aren’t bluffing?

In California: a move to allow nurse practitioners, midwives and others to perform abortions
Moloch must be served.

Dr. Gerard Nadal wonders if Darwin was the architect of the Culture of Death, but no, I don’t think so. Its author and architect preceded him by many, many years.

He is as old as Eden. And a slitherer, still.

[As an aside, I have come to believe that Humanae Vitae is going to eventually be seen as a powerfully unifying document between Evangelicals and Catholics, but that's for another post - es]

On Ethical Infanticide:
Professor Tim Muldoon
Wesley J. Smith
Jonah Goldberg

Obama’s faith council fades quietly away

and some snark

Lenten Reflection for the post-abortive
Our Daughters Dreams Arise from this Glad Slaughter

Anchoress is CPAC “Blogger of the Year?” Get OUT!
Acts of the Apostasy and Jane the Actuary Come to Patheos!
Grousing at God, Barking at Saints, and a Constant Renewal
ISIS-supporter confirms my point: West too hip to deal
About Elizabeth Scalia
  • John

    Well, now that you describe it this way I can understand why the pop culture makes such a hasty and mocking dismissal of anyone who points out that evil is active in the world. Perhaps their faith in relativism is not as strong as they want it to be; perhaps they fear there really is a difference between light and dark and matters which side you’re on.

  • SKay

    Fantastic post Anchoress.

    “Message received. Battle it is.”

  • Sherry

    Bring it.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Excellent article, Anchoress!

  • Kris, in New England

    As a recent Catholic convert, I feel – for the first time in my life – that I am armed and ready for battle.

    Bring it.

  • Pingback: WH to Dolan: We’re listening to others, you should too! « The Anchoress()

  • CV

    St. Michael the Archangel, call your office.

  • Ken

    If you doubt the existence of Satan, read the cold, calculating defense of “after birth” abortion in the link to the Journal of Medical Ethics. The article may have been produced by human hands, but I know whose voice I heard when I read it. St. Michael the Archangel defend us in battle…

  • pst314

    How long until doctors are required to perform euthanasia?

  • Deacon Rick

    Matthew, Chapter 5:
    10 Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    11 Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me.
    12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

  • kevin

    Humanae Vitae also strikes me as a resounding affirmation of infallibility as recognized by Vatican I. When it came out, there were howls of protest not just from the secular world but also from the Catholic elites who advised Paul VI to change or “update” the Church’s teaching forbidding artificial contraception. Montini was no doubt under enormous pressure to change it, and he was not exactly a Lion in the papacy a la Pius XII, but he did not. And he is being vindicated every day now. I have little doubt that Jesus was very close to him when he promulgated that encyclical.

  • doc

    The Busy Servants of Moloch (D)

    There, I fixed it.

  • NBW

    Pst314: “How long until doctors are required to perform euthanasia?”

    Euthanasia is probably right around the corner if it hasn’t started already; especially in the nursing homes.

  • SKay

    “Euthanasia is probably right around the corner if it hasn’t started already; especially in the nursing homes.”
    Obamacare is taking care of that little matter.

  • Dave

    I can’t imagine a more effective image to influence someone about the evil that is abortion than the one above! (“Saturn Devouring His Son” by Peter Paul Rubens)

    I think it can be very persuasive, if used judiciously.

    It’s absolutely horrifying, without being overtly graphic.

    What do you think?

  • Manny

    Excellent Anchoress. This paragragh should be enshrined:

    “To hate life, especially new life, is to hate God. To distrust it or dissuade it is to distrust and try to dissuade God. To destroy it is an attempt to destroy God. To obsess on preventing the possibility of life to-a-manic-extreme is to try desperately to hold God at bay, to contain him, to make God obedient to oneself, or to order him away. To slaughter his loved-into-being new life is to nourish emptiness and death on its blood; it is to worship an illusory freedom one thinks comes from saying “no.” ‘

    That is probably the most profound answer to why we are pro-life that I have ever seen. That was truly both inspired and inspirational. If they ever include you in Bartlestt’s quotations, that’s should be in there.

    Oh and when the current occupant of the white house says, “let’s be clear,” you know exactly he’s trying to muddy the waters.

  • Jeanne Barber

    Isn’t the logical conclusion to this that government has defined pregnancy as a health risk so that they will need to control birth rate to reduce health care cost . In the name of reproductive freedom we will have lost it all .

  • dnb

    “Onward Christian Soldiers”

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Bring it.

  • K Gray

    It’s not just the press repeating talking points.

    I had a long talk with a member of my denomination’s ethics group. He was almost completely unable to see either (1) a morality problem or (2) a religious liberty problem with the HHS mandate. Instead, he defended that mandate as a correction of some perceived discrimination against women, and as making sure that religious institutions weren’t forcing their faith-and-practice on employees who don’t share them.

    We talked for almost an hour. At the end of the hour he finally said “I never thought of it that way.” Sigh.

  • Claire


  • L A H

    Dear Anchoress;

    Please also warn everyone you know about today’s Gospel Reading! You see, in Baptism, I made a pact with the devil not to sin despite all of the temptations he sends my way. If I break this pact (by sinning) I am not in accord with my adversary nor am I being benevolent to him, and therefore since, Jesus told me that if anyone has anything against me, to leave my gifts at the altar and to go and make peace with him, lest he have me thrown into prison. Apparently dear soul the Devil is also justly punished for all of my sins that he tempts me to commit [therefore when I sin; even voluntarily, his fury is further incited; justly, against me personally for all of eternity.( author’s note)] See: St Jerome, Commentary on Matt 5:25-26.


  • conservativemama

    In a high school World History class we teach the students that in Ancient Sparta newborn infants were left to die if they appeared to be sickly, not strong enough to be Spartans.

    The students are horrified when they hear this. But are we any more enlightened today? If infants, who’ve been born, can be killed, if this action can be justified, well then we’re no better than the ancients are we?

    The most horrifying aspect of this whole discussion is that some people actually believe, and are comfortable with, killing children, even after they’ve been born. How did we come to this point in history? Are we devolving as a people? We’re clearly, some of us, losing our humanity. Our focus on the physical, youth, plastic surgery, pleasure at every moment, is depleting our humanity. The physical is crowding out the spiritual and emotional. It’s 2012 and we have educated people arguing for the murder of infants. We’re beyond Orwellian.

    It feels so sad.

  • Jacob Morgan

    There is another issue that liberals, secularists, progressives, useful-idiot democrats, acadamia, and 99 percent of journalists want to rail road America on, but not only can they not, they’ve actually lost ground. That is gun “control” (gun banning really). And there is only one reason why politicians won’t go anywhere near there since 1994: house and senate races are lost when the 4 million members of the NRA are enraged.

    They suffer all the media bias and such that we do, but they win anyway. It is time to have a single-issue group like the NRA but for life issues. If 4 million people can give politicians a spanking and make the media impotent, then time to do the same. One organization, across church lines, dedicated to stopping abortion and euthanasia, it wouldn’t be possible to come up with 4 million people? And if there such organizations already they need to reorganize after the NRA model and lobby like them, fund raise like them, educate members like them.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Anchoress, I think you’ve got what we call a “Moby” here, with “Foot Solder”, “Ol’ Sarge;” he’s left an incredible post advocating violence, which others can look at, and say “Ooooh, the Anchoress is going violent! she advocates hitting opponents with baseball bats, thorwing acid in their faces and attacking the police! All those Catholics want to take over America, and rob us of our freedom!” Either he’s doing this to make it look as if your site advocates violence—which would make him a Moby—or he has, well—issues, which would make him someone in need of counseling.

    Either way, you should address this pretty quickly.

    (“Solder”, there were no televisions, baseball bats, radio stations, newspapers or battery acid during any of the Crusades. And our struggle here is against “Powers and principalities”, not the cops. And I think you’re a Moby—thar she blows!)

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Happy to see the above-mentioned problem has been addressed!

    “The 10th Crusade”, by the way, is a derogatory term for the Iraq war, created by leftwing columnist Alexander Cockburn.

  • Sherry

    I do not need weapons nor do I intend to use them when I say “Bring it.” I mean to speak. I mean to witness. I mean to not allow these policies to go unchallenged and I would venture to say everyone other than Ol’ Sarge means the same. We’re committed to Christ, ergo, we will follow His way, the world may only understand violence, but we’re not called to be of this world. We’re called to “put away the sword” secure in the knowledge that this battle is already won in the end, it is only which side we must pick to allign our hearts, our lives, our words and our acts with. Will we side with the world (violence, hate, chaos and rage) or Christ (peace, charity, mercy and forgiveness, all forged with truth). No heart was ever converted by threat of blade, but millions have come to Christ via the witness of Saints and Martyrs, servants of God and those faithful ones not known by name in this world.

  • You Go Anchoress

    Terrific article, as usual. And I think you’re onto something big with your comment about Humanae Vitae creating a link between Catholics and Evangelicals. At the end of this time of trial, I believe we will discover a wonderful unity among all Christian (and maybe non Christian) faiths. Changes will be painful, but eventually our church will be truly Catholic in every sense of the word. There is great reason for hope!

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Sherry, I believe that’s what all of here believe, when we say “Bring it.”

    “Solder” was a moby, I think.

  • Manny

    What’s a moby? (I am most humbly computer illiterate.)

  • Tapestry

    The good thing about this entire bit of horror is that people of all faiths
    ae starting to unify, the evangelicals, the catholics, the anglicans, the lutherans, the moslems, the jews and even atheists who don’t believe in the killing of the innocent children.
    This unification of the Children of God against the Children of Moloch.
    We know Jesus Christ has overcome sin and death, this period of our lives might be as tough as the early Christian era, but we are going to be stronger for it. Maybe with the Holy Spirit we will even find men and women in this country that think like minded enough to enter the political realm become our new Congress and Executive branches and change all these stupid laws and the face of the world. Amen!

  • Pingback: The Busy Servants of Moloch... - Christian Forums()

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    A Moby is a poster who swims around beneath the surface of a blog, posting deliberately inflammatory statements, which other bloggers can that point to and say, “Oh, my! This site published a racist comment! This means they must support racism!” (For instance.)

    The poster I was talking about (whose post the Anchoress seems to have deleted, good for her!) was advocating violence. If his post had remained unnoticed, and/or unchallenged by anyone, people would have been pointing at it, and saying “Ooooh, the Anchoress is endorsing violence!”

    Mobys try to make blogges they don’t approve of look bad.

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius

    Viva Cristo Rey!

    The Felix Legions are ready, my Lady.

  • MT

    I take it that the juxtaposition of the Obama quote and Moloch tearing into the flesh of the child is no accident. Well done. Yes, the fight that many of us have been sensing for several years now seems to be imminent. Armies on both sides, good and evil, are being amassed. Choose wisely, and keep your rosaries close.