The Immorality Of Pranks

About 35 years ago, I was walking towards home with some friends, one of whom was an older lady with a heart condition.  I spied another friend hiding in the bushes up ahead.  Knowing her, I realized she was preparing to leap out of the bush to scare my older friend.  I realized it was intended to be a prank, but also realized that she was not aware of the older lady's heart problem.  Fearing that her heart might not withstand the momentary fright, I made a split-second decision to diffuse the prank by greeting my friend loudly in the bush.  I was not inclined to presume that the prank would have been harmless; any momentary "jollies" from the prank simply wasn't worth the risk.

Up until that moment I myself had been somewhat of a prankster, but afterwards never again pulled another prank.  That incident was a learning experience for me.  I pondered just what was entailed in the execution of a prank.  Usually it involves one or more people deciding that they will contrive a situation that provokes a desired emotional reaction in another person (or maybe several people are targeted).  Usually the desired emotional reaction is one of discomfort to the targeted person(s): humiliation, fright, frustration, disorientation, anger, etc.  The goal is invariably the amusement of those perpetrating the prank.  I've often heard it described as "one person toying with another person".  That actually says quite a lot about the prank - and its underlying immorality.

People are not toys.  They are human beings, created in the image and likeness of God and deserve to be treated with dignity at all times.  That means that they are never to be manipulated, let alone for mere amusement: not even for "just a few moments".  It is the epitome of arrogance to presume to tinker with someone's emotions, often not caring about them and what they may be enduring in their lives at the time pranksters target them.  And yes, I include myself in that accusation for things I did when I was younger and a lot more stupid.  I can only thank Our Lord that when I was pulling pranks, social media had not yet been invented for now pranks are memorialized for all to see whenever they want, motivating pranksters all the more.  Another downside to the internet medium is that anyone taking issue with the prank is met with all sorts of venom.

Here is a video of a father pulling a prank on his toddler daughter.  Needless to say she has no choice in the matter but she's young enough - now - not to realize what's happening.  I do direct your attention to the comments posted thereon.  A few of us voiced objection to the video.  Notice how we are pounced upon with a great deal of vituperation.  We are told we have "serious issues" and need "personality transplants" all because we didn't join all the chortling.  But they all "love" the puzzled expressions on the child's face; in other words, her disorientation was "cute" but those of us who sympathized with the child were scorned.  Perhaps it's because we spoke too much truth to consciences and/or we didn't go along with the prescribed "group-think".

Here's another.  Here we have the perpetrators impersonating police officers and actually getting into the cars of the victims.  What right did they have to pull the people over and interrupt their lives even if just for ten minutes?  Yes, they did show the folks who laughed at it; did they apologize to those who weren't charmed by the waste of their time?  As far as the police impersonation goes, that's bad enough (last time I checked it was a crime to impersonate a police officer).  I sincerely hope that those weren't real police officers engaged in that nonsense for that would be an unconscionable misappropriation of citizens' tax dollars.

Then there's this.  Actors impersonating elderly people are crossing the street with the deliberate intent of hindering cars and frustrating their drivers.  Obstruction of traffic is a crime for very good reason.  As I said (and my friends agreed) there is no justification for treating the drivers as so many toys to be prodded for their reactions.  Those conducting the prank obviously didn't consider that the drivers might need to be about their business, nor did they give a damn.  They just had to get their internet fame and yocks, no matter the impact on other people.

As I said in the first three paragraphs, I no longer believe that participation in pranks is morally acceptable. Those perpetrating the pranks are failing, even refusing, to treat their targets with the respect and charity that is due to them as human beings.  It doesn't matter that the prank may last only a few minutes.  No one has the right to toy with another person, especially for mere amusement.

I offer this as food for thought.

Pope Benedict XVI And True Charity

In Crisis magazine appears an article by Christopher Manion on some contributions that Pope Benedict XVI has made to the future of the Church during these past eight years.  Among them is the restatement of the true principles of Christian charity.

As we all know, the hierarchy of the US Church has been horribly compromised by the lure of federal money to finance its charitable outreaches.  Manion points out that the Land O' Lakes statement was a colossal sell-out on the part of Catholic institutions of higher learning to grab some federal grants.  Some (like me) would in fact argue that Father Hesburgh of Notre Dame deliberately intended to muffle the voice of Catholicism via Land O' Lakes; in many respects he succeeded.  This blog has recited countless times that Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services have made fools of themselves through the debacles in which they engaged.  The only reason why I didn't include the Catholic Campaign for Human Development with the other two is that I believe that the CCHD was created with the very intention of undermining the Magisterium.  And of course I need not rehash how many state Catholic Conferences have muzzled their own voices so that they could win various grants and endowments for their pet progressive causes.

Read Manion's article.  While it will take brave bishops and popes to clean up our charitable outreaches, it will also take the voices and activism of the Catholic laity (that's us!) to bring about these much-needed reforms.

Charity, Responsibility And Subsidiarity

I've posted a bit on the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.  From CatholicVote is this video depiction of it.  Click here if you can't see embedded video.

Protest of Patrick Kennedy Bill - I Protest The "Protest"!

Patrick Kennedy introduced a bill, HR5466 that, among other things, would ban faith-based groups from receiving federal funds if they use religion in their hiring practices.  Over 100 groups are allegedly protesting this legislation, claiming that their religious freedoms are being violated.  Naturally the USCCB is adding its voice to the clamor.

These so-called "faith-based" groups forget what charity is.  Charity must be voluntary on the part of the donor; else, it is nothing more than slavery with a genteel veneer.  Ladies and gentlemen, from where do these "federal funds" come?  Our tax dollars!  How many families see both parents working, and some working multiple jobs, to pay their various taxes?  Is this moral?  Is this "charity"?  Is this how are "faith-based" groups are to be funded?  It truly is a disgusting sight to behold, when otherwise Christian groups forget the commandment "thou shalt not steal" as they kick and claw for their "share of the pie", like greedy little piglets fighting for a federal teet.

Granted these groups need money.  Well, here are some solutions.

• Immediately order the Catholic Campaign for Human Development to fund those charities that are directly involved in the Works of Mercy.  CCHD should fund nothing else.
• Parish priests must remind the Catholic in the pew that it is his/her solemn organization to contribute time, talent and treasure towards these charities, as opposed to lobbying for more tax dollars to go towards them.  Of course such preaching must take place within the context of preaching the entirety of Catholic truth.
• If any governmental lobbying is to be done, lobby for greater tax deductability of charitable contributions.  For starters, allow contributions to be deducted before AGI is calculated, no matter the income level of the taxpayer (At present, contributions are deducted only if the taxpayer can itemize).

Regardless of Kennedy's motivations for this, I cannot see how faith-based groups have any legitimate grounds for complaint in this matter.

"Being Nice" - The Opposite Of True Virtue

I've touched on this before, but the word "nice" is not found in the Bible.  Listen to Michael Voris describe why the desire to be "nice" may actually facilitate the eternal damnation of souls. (Click here if you can't see embedded video).



Some of us have been accused of "not being nice" when we show the true nature of abortion.  Some of us have been accused of "not being nice" when we publicly rebuke those facilitating evil.   To be clear, we do not engage in ad hominem attacks nor do we suggest or similate violence on anyone.  We will, however, warn those who promote and facilitate baby murder that they jeopardize their immortal souls.  What close friend of an individual wouldn't sound the alarm if that person were engaged in destructive behavior?  We've no less duty to do so. (See the post a day ago regarding Father Rodriguez's example). 

So let's stop trying to be nice and practice real charity!

The Road to Hell Is Paved with Good Intentions

I often hear as I work at the abortuaries, from honorable people, that "we need to consider that the doctors and escorts probably have good intentions".  Why they feel the need to point that out, I don't know.  I don't even doubt what they're saying.  I'm not there to judge whether or not the slaves in the service of death (that is what they are) have good motives or not.  Why they do what they do is irrelevant.  Catholic moral theology states that before one considers the why of a given action, we must first examine what the action is.  If the action is inherently evil in and of itself, the motive of the action is of minor consideration.  For instance, do we really think that the unborn baby gives a rat's ass about the motive of the individual who is literally tearing his/her body to pieces, or the motives of the others who are assisting in his/her murder?

Such thinking stems, I believe, from a desire to be "nice" and "sweet".  As I look through the Bible and Sacred Tradition, "nice" and "sweet" are two words that are tellingly absent from the recognized lists of virtues.  I am often told that we must "win people over" as did Jesus.  Wrong!  Jesus never tried to "win people over".  Had He so attempted, He never would have been crucified.  He loved them.  He displayed true agape-charity towards them - a charity that is often diametrically opposed to being "nice" and "sweet".

As I see this on the sidewalk at times, we also see this within the inner workings of the Church.  In this segment of Real Catholic TV, Michael Voris tells how too many Catholics have given into the fault (dare I call it sin?) of extending too much "benefit of the doubt" to those who are clearly dissident towards the Magisterium.  Such wimpishness has contributed to much evil and perhaps to the damnation of many poor souls.  What we really need is clarity of vision, calcium in our spines and to expunge the cancerous elements from our places of influence - for their sakes as well as that of the entire Church.