Between Two Thieves  by John Pacheco

_________________________

The night before my Conservative Party Constituency Policy meeting, my wife and I attended a meeting hosted by a local Catholic layperson. This fine gentleman - a true visionary in fact - was trying to solicit support for a private

Catholic school he had been trying to launch for over a year. A year

previously, he had presented his vision to over 75 families in a church

basement across town. He had all of the presentation gadgets and a very

comprehensive plan for the startup of this exciting venture which included not

only a school but a comprehensive, faith based lay-formation program for the

parents. When all was said and done at the end of the night, however, his plan

did not fly with his audience. Last night, he presented his plan again to a

half-dozen families at my parish. About half of the families present were also

at last year’s presentation; the other half were new.

This time around his presentation was much more modest, focusing more on what God had placed in his heart for the school and less on the details of its

organization. One of the essential points that he did stress, however, was that

he needed 20 “core” families to help organize the school and serve as the

building blocks for the school startup. Essentially, these men and women would

be involved in the whole process of launching the school - everything from

finding a building to setting the curriculum to selecting teachers.

The prior year’s meeting was laced with an unhealthy amount of complacency. In

stark contrast, this meeting was generally very well received and focused on

one simple observation: “If you have to ask why we need an independent Catholic school, then do you really belong in this group?”

Bingo.

Some times decisions are difficult to make because the right question is not

asked. As my wife and I drove home from the meeting, that question began to

weigh on us and our decision was becoming simpler and simpler. After the events of the next day, the decision to join as one of the “core” families was made crystal clear to us.

The next morning, with a sense of inevitable failure, I attended the PCPC’s

policy meeting for our local constituency. Incidentally, the “PCPC” stands for,

what I now affectionately term, the “Pseudo Conservative Party of Canada.” When I arrived, I counted approximately 80 people, seated around 10 tables. Each table was responsible for discussing one major policy issue and for proposing amendments to the prepared text. Once all of the policies were discussed and amendments were made, the collection of amendments were then forwarded to the whole group for a final vote. (At that time, a member could also propose an amendment to a policy issue which was not covered at his particular table.)

As my concern was for social issues (and the marriage and family issues in

particular), I took a seat at the “Health and Social Program” table. As we

waded through the various policies of health and social programs, my

expectations began to rise as about 4 of the 10 people started to identify

themselves as Christians, and even those who were not Christian appeared to

side with more socially conservative principles. This was particularly apparent

when the table discussed (and left unaltered) the Party’s socially conservative

position on embryonic stem cell research. Much to my surprise, however, when

the discussion turned to the issue of the family, my “Christian” friends didn’t

check in. Instead, they opted to follow Pierre Trudeau’s version of the faith

and allow someone else to define their positions on the central questions of

human existence.

Here is how the prepared policy text on the family read:

“56. i) The Conservative Party of Canada believes that the family unit is

essential to the well-being of individuals in society, because that is where

children learn values and a sense of responsibility. Therefore government

legislation and programs should support and respect the role of the Canadian

family.”

As stated, the statement was actually quite good, but because it left a “family

unit” largely undefined, a “family unit” could be interpreted in so many ways

in the current culture war that it would leave the policy empty of meaning.

(The subsequent two paragraphs went on to discuss the rights and responsibility

of parents and how the Conservative Party believes that Parliament and not the

courts should determine the definition of marriage.)

In hopes of supporting the traditional family as the best model of a “family

unit”, I proposed the following amendment to be added to the text:

“The Conservative Party of Canada believes that the best expression of the

family unit is a strong, traditional family which has historically provided the

necessary stability for a prosperous Canada.”

My amendment did not say anything about other family units - only that the

traditional one (i.e. a mother and father and children), the one that has

served our country very well since its inception - was the best model our

society should promote. The language was not inflammatory and it did not seek

to exclude other family units from Canadian culture. It merely reflected a

biological and psychological truth regarding family life and the historical

affirmation of the traditional family within western civilization.

The reaction to my amendment was pointedly muted and then my “Christian friends” summarily objected - politely mind you - that we really should not exclude other arrangements. After I pointed out that my amendment did not exclude other arrangements but only sought to affirm the traditional model, I went on to

passionately argue my point through economics, biology, natural law, and the

necessity to preserve our cultural institutions and freedoms. Many people

agreed with what I was saying, but incredibly did not support the amendment. It

was like I was speaking to a bunch of pseudo “Catholic” politicians. I was in

some kind of political twilight zone with virtually the whole table agreeing

with the facts as I was presenting them (and even adding some of their own!),

yet they seemed unwilling to bend their undefined fear and conform it to the

necessity to promote natural marriages. It was astonishing.

I pressed on and decided to present the amendment on my own to the group as a whole. Since I made the effort to come out, I thought to myself, I might as

well stick it out to the end and go it alone. And “going it alone” would become

more of an accurate description than I would have ever imagined it.

After lunch, we convened to vote on the amendments which each table had

prepared. The first item up for discussion was the Party’s “Founding

Principles”. After one amendment was presented and passed, I proposed to amend the very first founding principle listed. It reads as follows:

“A balance between fiscal accountability, progressive social policy, and

individual rights and responsibilities.”

I argued that because our party had a large faction which was socially

conservative in its vision, it would not be appropriate for the word

“progressive” to precede “social policy”. As a compromise, because I knew that

this particular group was unlikely to accept “conservative social policy”, I

suggested the phrase “sound social policy”. After some brief discussion among

the members gathered there, one lady began to twaddle on about Peter MacKay and the agreement of merger where the word “progressive” would be kept in regards to describing the Party’s vision for social policy. I countered that the Party could not be described as progressive, especially in light of the Party’s

neutral stand on marriage and its firmly conservative stand on embryonic stem

cell research - the only other “moral issue” in the policy document. After some

brief comments by the moderator, the amendment was voted down with approximately 2/3rds opposing the motion.

After two hours of accepting and rejecting policy amendments on important issues like “Alternative Energy and Transitional Fuels” and “Aquatic Invasive Species”, we finally came to the section dealing with the family. The moderator proceeded to place my amendment (which I had expanded) on the overhead projector. This is was my proposal:

“The Conservative Party of Canada believes that the best expression of the

family unit is a strong, traditional family which has historically provided the

necessary stability for a prosperous Canada. We recognize Canada‘s dangerously low birth rate which threatens Canada‘s economic and cultural stability. In order to ensure a prosperous and democratic nation, the Conservative Party of Canada supports social and fiscal policies which help foster larger families.”

After an uncomfortable silence, I made my pitch to the group again, arguing from

a cultural and economic point of view only. I maintained that in order to ensure

our nation’s economic prosperity, our population must be able to sustain itself

in the long run. I told those gathered that Canada, like the rest of the western world, was quite literally dying. I pointed out that, apart from the moral considerations involved, to refuse to deal with this issue would be to

consign Canada to serious financial problems for future generations. An

imbalanced and older population could have acute problems controlling health

care costs, pension costs, and skyrocketing labour costs because of labour

shortages which are now only beginning to appear. And these problems would only be the tip of the proverbial iceberg which could quite conceivably cripple the

nation.

One lady suggested that immigration could help alleviate most of these problems. I countered by reminding the group that recourse to immigration would not be a viable recourse in the near future. First of all, because new immigrants are not only considering Canada but all western democracies who need them to

sustain their own dying populations the supply is not at all guaranteed, and

secondly, because accepting immigrants whose cultural and democratic values are sometimes completely opposite from ours is a recipe for disaster to our cultural institutions and freedoms. It could also lead to societal unrest, not unlike

what has recently happened in that beacon of tolerance itself - The

Netherlands. Here I was referring to the slaying of Dutch filmmaker Theo van

Gogh by an Islamic extremist.

After some more discussion, one of my “Christian” buddies from my original

discussion group moved to reject the motion. Some more discussion ensued then one pregnant woman volunteered her exasperation by suggesting that she was not prepared to take on the responsibility of populating the country. I quickly

replied, “Madam, this is not about forcing you to have children. This is about

our nation’s survival and the Party’s endorsement and encouragement in

providing those who are indeed open to having more children the means to do

so.”

The moderator then called for the vote, “All those in favour?” I put up my hand.

Without turning my head but within my periphery of vision, I saw no other hand

go up. I was not expecting to win the amendment, but I was not prepared for no

one else (at least in my vision) to support the motion.

“Amendment denied”. Going it alone took on a whole new reality. It was not

merely a figure of speech anymore for me. It was the real deal.

I sat down dejected, stunned that I had no support. As I thought about what had

just happened, it was rather ironic that the two greatest opponents to my

motion were a soon-to-be mother on my left and a self-professing Christian on

my right. My God, now I knew what it was like to be crucified between two

thieves. At least for Jesus, one of them repented. In my case, I was not even

afforded that consolation.

As I sat there listening aimlessly to the other policy amendments, an older

gentleman came up behind me and said “Well done, young man, it had to be said.”  Perhaps, then, there was some consolation. Too little, but not too late. As it turned out in one of those strange coincidences, today’s Gospel reading from

the Sunday liturgy was about Jesus and the two thieves!

I stuck around for the next half hour, but I couldn’t stomach talking about

Agriculture so I left. If you are trying to argue with the social engineers

that a nut and a bolt work better than two bolts, then you know that this

machine is not going to be running for much longer and it’s time to stop

wasting your breath.

As I drove home, I asked God to come clean with me and tell me what the point of this whole day was. In fact, I wanted to know just exactly the point to any kind

of political or social activism when, time after time, our side just keeps

losing. “C’mon God, what the hell is this? Some sick joke? Why do you keep

putting zeal in my heart only to kill it every time I stand up for you?” What

followed was a conversation that well could prove to be the turning point in my

life as well as those of countless generations in the future. Here is the gist

of what God was saying:

“John, I brought you here today to show you that your hope is not with this

faithless generation. You have failed in your efforts, not because you have

been doing something wrong, but because you needed to come to the realization

that your hope is in your children. Your hope is not in persuading the current

culture which is committed to its path of self-destruction. They are

spiritually blinded to the world and they are far, far removed from me. They

have chosen to deny their own humanity and their own bodies so I have given

them over to their shameful lusts and passions. I have laid out a clear path

for all to follow ‘choose life that you and your descendants may live‘. They

have free will. Let them choose.

You, on the other hand, are to separate yourself from them. “Come out of her“,

my Apostle once wrote. You must begin to create a civilization of life and love

once again. This must start with your children and the children of my other

servants. From this, generations will multiply and begin to re-evangelize this

world like they did in the early years of my Church. I created humanity with

one man and one woman from nothing. We can do so again. All that I need is a

few faithful servants to begin, and we can begin to renew the face of the earth

once more. I called Abraham out of his country and made a covenant with him to

make a great nation out of him : ‘I will surely bless you and make your

descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the

seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies,

and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you

have obeyed me.’”

And so this is what my Lord and Saviour spoke to me in the hours following my

return from the meeting.

Many years ago, I had the opportunity to visit the Greenside’s farm in Marmora,

Ontario for a spiritual retreat. While I was there, I met an extraordinary

young girl who had a holiness and piety about her that exuded Christ’s love.

She told me things about my life and my experiences that she could never know.

At one point in our conversation, she told me that I was to become a “Father of

Many”. Perplexed I wondered what that could mean. Was God calling me to become a priest? Or to have many children once I was married? In the ensuing years, I have sometimes wondered what this very peculiar declaration could mean. Many times I wondered whether this young girl had simply made a mistake. I was now married and the father of three children. I was likely to have more, but could this be what the girl meant by this phrase “father of many”? I thought something was missing, but I could not think of any other explanation. As the years went by, I thought less and less about this quaint little prediction -

until my fateful conversation with God described above. When I heard Him

mention “Abraham“, I knew that the little prophesy which was directed at me -

“the Father of Many” - was about to be fulfilled. The name “Abraham“, you see,

means “father of a multitude” or, if you prefer, for dramatic effect, “father

of many”.

The Holy Father has repeatedly spoken of the new spring time for the Church and for the culture. As he well knows, as the Church goes, so goes the culture.

Unfortunately, many of us wrongly believe that this spring time is going to

miraculously fall from heaven. But the honest truth is that unless we can begin

planting the seeds for this new Springtime IN THE THINGS WE CAN HAVE A DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON, there won’t be any Springtime, just more of the same dark Winter. The seed that I must plant is to join with my Catholic brothers and sisters and launch this school. That‘s the seed which I must plant. And, with God‘s grace, we’ll help others plant more across Canada too. The fruit of this work might not be realized in my lifetime, but I will, God willing, see its positive cultural fruits looking down from above one day.

The time for talk and debate in our church, in our politics, and in our culture

is over. It’s time for action within the scope of our immediate influence

which, for the great majority of us, is within our families. Everyone has a

part to play in this drama. The key is listening closely to God’s call and then

actually doing it.

In the name of Our Sovereign King and Saviour,

John Pacheco

In the year of Our Lord 2004, November 21

Feast of Christ the King