Polls and Their Interpretation

Just a few thoughts about the midterm election polls and their misinterpretation not only by the media but also by both political parties. I’m particularly concerned with the question asked by almost all pollsters. The question might be phrased somewhat differently by each pollster, but essentially they all ask: “What’s the most important issue for you in the midterm elections?” The question might be followed by a list of several issues from recent headlines; for example: crime, border security, national defense, Communist China, immigration, education, inflation, abortion, democracy, the president, and many others.

The left has been enthused about what they believe to be a growing number of voters who name abortion as their key issue, assuming this will drive their voting decisions. And they may well be correct, but not perhaps in the way they think. Let me explain.

The other day I received a request via text message to take part in a poll. I usually ignore these requests, but for some reason I figured, what the heck! I’ll give it a try. It didn’t take long to realize this was no politically neutral poll. It was obviously created to support a particular Democrat candidate who is running for Florida Attorney General. The questions were worded in a way that denigrated conservative viewpoints and extolled the candidate’s leftist beliefs. As expected, one of the questions asked me to identify the issue most important to me as a voter. I selected “abortion” simply because it is my driving issue. I have never voted for a “pro-choice” candidate at any level and never will. In fact, when faced with two candidates who both support abortion, I have simply not voted for either. To me, anyone who supports abortion is in a state of severe moral confusion and cannot be trusted to respond correctly to any moral issue.

Anyway, my poll response got me thinking, so I sent an email to a bunch of folks whom I know are pro-life. I just asked them the same question I’d been asked and listed many of those hot issues. Of the 24 folks who responded, 21 selected “abortion.” My conclusion, then, is something the pro-abortion crowd doesn’t want to hear. Many of those who say their primary issue is abortion are probably pro-life, and not pro-choice. I suppose we’ll just have to wait until November 9th to find out.

The Pro-Abortion Voter

I keep encountering Catholics, truly an alarming number of them, who voted for President Biden last year, and have consistently voted for politicians at all levels who are unapologetically pro-abortion. 

When asked why they voted for President Biden, I received a variety of responses: "Because I despise Trump," or "Some things are worse than abortion," or "Republicans just support the wealthy and Wall Street," or "The death penalty is just as bad," or "Trump's a racist," and one of my favorites, "Joe Biden's a Catholic." None really addressed the moral theology of behind their voting decision, and I suppose that's to be expected. Most Americans vote based on habit -- "I always vote Democrat (or Republican)" -- on one or two issues that have the greatest or most direct effect on them personally, or even on their personal like or dislike of a candidate.  

I won’t dance around the issue, because it’s obvious: the vast majority of pro-abortion politicians are Democrats. That's not to say all Republicans are pro-life, because some certainly are not; but the "right" to an abortion is a solid plank in the Democrat Party's national platform. Indeed, for a Democrat politician to publicly oppose abortion -- an extremely rare event these days -- is to run the risk of censure by the party and the loss of any financial support from the party's coffers. 

Considering the Church's consistent teaching on abortion, I suppose, then, Catholic voters must answer the question: May I vote for a pro-abortion politician if I disagree with his opponent's stance on other issues? Let's see what the Church teaches on this as well.

Back in 1995, the Holy Father -- now Saint John Paul II -- wrote the following in his wonderful encyclical, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae, 73):

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.

From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. “They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live” (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: “the midwives feared God” (ibid.).

It is precisely from obedience to God -- to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty -- that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for “the endurance and faith of the saints” (Rev 13:10).

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it”

John Paul II went on to write:

"I repeat once more that a law which violates an innocent person's natural right to life is unjust and, as such, is not valid as a law. For this reason I urgently appeal once more to all political leaders not to pass laws which, by disregarding the dignity of the person, undermine the very fabric of society."

St. John Paul teaches us that laws permitting abortion or euthanasia are "intrinsically unjust" or, as the Church consistently teaches, "intrinsically evil." But what does this mean? Briefly, if an act is "intrinsically evil," evil is inherent to that act. In other words, the act is always evil. It is always sinful. It is never good and, therefore, never acceptable. There can be no situation, no place, and no time when it is not evil. There's no compromise here, no shading of good or evil based on the consequences of the act. Intrinsically evil acts may never be done. 

Sounds very absolute, doesn't it? And that's because it is. A lot of folks don't like to hear truths stated so absolutely. They'd much prefer to hear a softer, more malleable opinion; or even better, a bunch of opinions from which they can choose one that best corresponds to their own pliant thought. The world, of course, is more than ready to supply such opinions; but the Church is not. 

In June 2004 the future Pope Benedict XVI, who was then the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote a letter to all bishops on "The Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion." It's a brief letter, well worth reading, but of particular interest is the final paragraph, words misinterpreted by many:

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

Many people who vote for pro-abortion candidates use Pope Benedict's final sentence to justify their actions. The question then becomes: what exactly does it mean to be "permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons?" 

I can only assume Pope Benedict used the word, "proportionate" to mean what I've always taken it to mean: that any comparison must correspond in intensity, or amount, or size. Since abortion in our nation results in the deaths of approximately 1.5 million innocent unborn children every year, or about 6 million deaths during a presidential four-year term, "proportionate reasons" would necessarily involve something equally tragic. In truth, though, I can think of no issue germane to the 2020 presidential election that is "proportionate" to such a horrendous slaughter of innocents -- certainly no other intrinsically evil policy of such magnitude.

Interestingly, in an interview on EWTN not long before the 2020 election, Cardinal Gerhard Muller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was asked if a Catholic could vote for a candidate who supports the Democrat Party's strong opposition to Church teaching on family and religious freedom. "Can a Catholic support somebody like that, much less vote for them?"

In response, Cardinal Muller stated, "We are citizens in a pluralistic state with religious freedom. I don't support a candidate in Germany because he is Catholic but because he has the right understanding of life and the basics for human rights. And it's better to vote for a good Protestant than for a bad Catholic. We must judge according to what they are doing and not only according to their words. That is biblical criteria. Look to the fruits."

Amen.

Timely Thoughts

I've hesitated to post anything about the recent elections and their aftermath, but I suppose it's time to write at least a few things about it all. What follows are, of course, my personal views and I do not speak for the Catholic Church.

The Presidential Election. To say I am disappointed in the apparent results of the presidential election would be an understatement. I suppose the outcome is not yet confirmed, so things could change. After all, Al Gore made the nation dance to his tune for well over a month back in 2000. But from a Catholic and Christian perspective Joe Biden does not fill me with hope.

Like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden is one of those “devout, practicing Catholics” who actually rejects much of what the Catholic Church teaches. He seems to support the suppression of religious freedom for which the left wing of his political party is becoming increasingly famous. I suspect this will continue and likely intensify under a Biden administration unless the Supreme Court steps in to protect Americans’ first amendment rights. 

Big government likes the idea of controlling all aspects of peoples’ lives, including their religious teachings and practices. Even in a pandemic, when it comes to the celebration of the liturgy, the bishops make the relevant decisions, not government officials. The UK is also experiencing similar intrusions by government as officials ban the celebration of Mass by Catholics. Speaking in the House of Commons, former UK prime minister, Theresa May, put it well when she said, “Making it illegal to conduct an act of worship for the best of intentions sets a precedent that could be misused for a government in the future with the worst of intentions.” 

The American left has also become increasingly anti-Semitic. AOC and her “squad” of Marxist know-nothings openly despise Israel (and Jews) and have infected many in the Democrat Party with their ideology of hate. They also seem to have the ear of Joe Biden.

More disturbing, however, is Joe Biden’s support of the wholesale slaughter of unborn children up until the moment of birth. As I’ve said before, anyone who will support abortion, the horrific, dismembering killing of the most innocent human lives, will support anything. Mr Biden also tosses Church teaching into the trash by supporting homosexual “marriage” and so-called “transgender” rights. In truth, science (a gift from our God) shows that transgenderism does not exist. Just check the DNA. It’s not changed by either surgery or hormonal additives. A male remains a male, a female a female, just as God made them. 

The Washington Post and the New York Times, two newspapers with a direct line to Joe Biden, just announced that, as President, one of Biden’s first moves will be to scrap all of President Trump’s pro-life policies. When the Supreme Court supported Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor, protecting them from invasive governmental mandates regarding contraception, Joe Biden clearly stated what he would do as president: “As disappointing as the Supreme Court’s ruling is, there is a clear path to fixing it: electing a new President who will end Donald Trump’s ceaseless attempts to gut every aspect of the Affordable Care Act.” 

The growing leftist movement within the Democrat Party, in its evolving “woke” state, has become increasingly totalitarian. This, of course, is the ultimate goal of all political correctness. PC thought and practice have definite Marxist origins (see discussion here) and are a key element of the left’s political agenda. It’s an agenda of control, one which employs such tactics as “cancel culture” to suppress those who do not toe the leftist ideological line. That’s right, folks, you will be punished for expressing contrary — i.e., conservative, religious, or other unacceptable — views or, perish the thought, actually doing things of which the reigning powers disapprove. 

The left looks to those who have traditionally supported the Democrat Party, but their political grip on these folks is beginning to slip. The party demands that African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, women — basically anyone other than white males — must not think for themselves or do what is best for them and for their families. They must remain on their respective plantations and do what their “masters” tell them. How did Nancy Pelosi put it not long ago when actually challenged by a liberal media type who questioned her response to the homeless? “We feed them!” she shouted. Yes, indeed, she feeds them and cares for them and keeps them dependent, hoping they don’t succeed. Nancy and her friends on the left need the needy to reman always in need.

Governors, Mayors, and Other Elites. Did you happen to catch California Governor Gavin Newsom’s apology? Of course, it was issued only after he was caught dining with a crowd of friends at Napa County’s toney French Laundry Restaurant  (By the way, meals there reportedly start at $350 a head, before wine.) Newsom and his large group of friends, including the head of the California Medical Association, sat together indoors, without masks, and certainly not separated by any social distancing. This elitist and grossly incompetent governor threatens citizens with arrest for breaking his rules, but willfully violates them whenever he pleases. Below is a  photo of the governor and his friends flaunting what they demand of regular Californians. Oh, yes, if you think the governor used his own money to pay for his meal, guess again. I’m pretty sure it was paid for by either of two possible sources: the taxpayers or one of the lobbyists who was present that evening.

In the former Soviet Union, the Communist Party elites were called the nomenklatura and enjoyed extensive privileges unavailable to the average citizen. In other words, they lived like royalty while the people lived in a socialist hell. This is the kind of society the American left would love to see. It’s another good reason for voter-imposed term limits. Send them all packing before they discover how easy it is to feather their own nests. As one wag stated the other day, “If you want to live well during a pandemic, just get yourself elected to something.”

U. S. Bishops. The U.S. Bishops were quick to congratulate Joe Biden after the election. Following the lead of the mainstream media, Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated, “We recognize that Joseph R. Biden, Jr. has received enough votes to be elected the 46th President of the United States. We congratulate Mr. Biden and acknowledge that he joins the late President John F. Kennedy as the second United States president to profess the Catholic faith.” 

Of course, the USCCB said nothing about Mr. Biden’s rejection of Catholic teaching on a multitude of moral issues. But they did say a lot about “democracy.” This makes one wonder about their understanding of our almost 250-year-old political system which, as a constitutional republic, is in no way a democracy. Assuming Mr. Biden ultimately becomes president, it will be interesting to see how the bishops react when a President Biden implements his distorted moral vision through legislation, regulation, and executive order.

It seems the bishops of Italy responded very differently to the pandemic. The following observations were taken from an article by Sofia Abasolo published in late September in the Catholic Herald. (Click here to read the entire article.) I thought it worth including some of her comments here;

“One example of this occurred during the pandemic emergency. When the country went into lockdown, the bishops were slow to point out that religious worship was a constitutionally protected right, and as such could not be subject to state intervention. Mass was interrupted for several weeks, provoking much criticism from clergy and laypeople alike. And yet I couldn’t help but notice that at no point were churches shut. They remained open for solitary worship every day of lockdown, and worship was legally protected as an essential need, just like buying newspapers or groceries.

“There were two weeks when going out for a walk was prohibited, but going to kneel before the Eucharist was not. What’s more, the sacraments were always available – priests had to be approached to hear Confession and administer the Eucharist (complying with the new hygiene standards), but they were never legally prohibited from doing so, and they never rejected my requests when I asked.

“When it looked as if cinemas would open before Mass was reinstated, the bishops finally spoke up in resistance, and the government responded by amending their decree, announcing the return of Mass (with limits on numbers of attendees) as restaurants and cafes opened up their doors.”

“The bishops finally spoke up in resistance...” How many of our bishops have publicly resisted the government’s intrusion into the religious freedom protected by our Constitution?

Persecution of Christians. Pew Research Center, among the more reliable sources of information on what’s happening in the world from a religious perspective, has issued a study on religious persecution for 2018. This is the most recent year for which complete data is available. The results of their study are not encouraging. The persecution of Christians has increased worldwide to a level higher than any year since 2007, when Pew began these annual studies. The study claims that Christian persecution and harassment occurred in 145 of the world’s 198 countries. It also determined that 75% of all victims of religious persecution are Christians. Some other shocking findings: 

• 8 Christians are killed every day because of their faith;
• 23 Christians are raped or sexually harassed daily;
• 182 Christians churches or buildings are vandalized weekly
• 102 Christian homes or businesses are damaged or destroyed weekly

Every year these numbers have grown, something that should give us pause and prepare us for things to come. President Trump has aggressively pushed for greater emphasis on religious freedom at the United Nations. He has consistently called on the entire international community and business leaders to protect this most basic human freedom. He also established a new Conscience and Religious Freedom division within the Department of Health and Human Services. We can only hope that a Biden administration will continue this focus on religious freedom and not just resurrect the failed policies of the past. Some links to relevant Pew Research:

Increased Government Restrictions on Religion

Religious Restrictions Around the World

COVID-19 Deaths. Here’s an interesting fact you probably won’t encounter in the mainstream media because they seem to focus only on that which increases public fears. Do you know that 1% of U.S. counties account for 34% of U.S. deaths from COVID-19? Isn’t that interesting? Also, almost 15% of U.S. counties have experienced one or no COVID-19 deaths. 

I’ve included below a list of the 50 U.S. counties with the greatest number of COVID-19 deaths (as of November 14). I am fairly certain most, if not all, of these counties are run by Democrats. Mayor Bill de Blasio’s city is represented by 4 of the top 10 — Brooklyn (Kings Cty), Queens, Bronx, and Manhattan (New York Cty) — a fact he and Governor Cuomo inexplicably blame on President Trump. The rest of the “top 10” include Los Angeles, Chicago, Phoenix, Miami, Detroit, and Houston. 

50 Counties with the Most COVID-19 Deaths

RANK	COUNTY NAME	STATE	TOTAL DEATHS
1	Kings County	NY	7,450
2	Queens County	NY	7,321
3	Los Angeles County	CA	7,266
4	Cook County	IL	5,797
5	Bronx County	NY	5,019
6	Maricopa County	AZ	3,797
7	Miami-Dade County	FL	3,707
8	New York County	NY	3,204
9	Wayne County	MI	3,119
10	Harris County	TX	2,908
11	Middlesex County	MA	2,351
12	Nassau County	NY	2,229
13	Essex County	NJ	2,172
14	Bergen County	NJ	2,083
15	Suffolk County	NY	2,023
16	Philadelphia County	PA	1,934
17	Hidalgo County	TX	1,765
18	Palm Beach County	FL	1,622
19	Clark County	NV	1,617
20	Broward County	FL	1,585
21	Hudson County	NJ	1,542
22	Hartford County	CT	1,532
23	Orange County	CA	1,524
24	Westchester County	NY	1,486
25	Middlesex County	NJ	1,462
26	Fairfield County	CT	1,454
27	Bexar County	TX	1,449
28	Union County	NJ	1,391
29	Essex County	MA	1,390
30	Dallas County	TX	1,373
31	Riverside County	CA	1,367
32	Oakland County	MI	1,282
33	Passaic County	NJ	1,277
34	Worcester County	MA	1,212
35	Suffolk County	MA	1,205
36	Macomb County	MI	1,166
37	New Haven County	CT	1,157
38	Norfolk County	MA	1,147
39	Richmond County	NY	1,105
40	San Bernardino County	CA	1,097
41	Ocean County	NJ	1,087
42	Hennepin County	MN	1,044
43	Cameron County	TX	996
44	Providence County	RI	986
45	San Diego County	CA	926
46	Tarrant County	TX	924
47	Montgomery County	MD	905
48	Montgomery County	PA	904
49	St. Louis County	MO	901
50	Prince George's County	MD	883

It’s all very interesting. 

Elections and Advocacy

I recently received a memorandum from the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops warning pastors and parishes to avoid involvement with "outside organizations" that engage in direct political activity during what portends to be a "very divisive" 2020 election season. Several groups are mentioned in the memo, specifically: CatholicVote, Priests for Life, Catholics United, My Faith Votes, and the League of Women Voters. When it comes to these and other outside organizations, the Florida bishops' memo expressed a number of concerns (quoted here):

• Many of these groups tend to focus on a single or limited number of issues and do not cover the board concerns of the Church; others may stand in opposition to the bishops' position on an issue.

• These organizations may endorse (or oppose) candidates for elective office, as well as provide candidates with direct financial support, which does not conform to the nonpartisan nature of the Church and risks scrutiny of the Church's tax-exempt status.

• Distribution of materials by outside organizations and sharing of parishioner lists is contrary to the policies identified in the Election & Political Activities Guide (EPAG) (page 5). By going directly to pastors or parishioners, some may be seeking to circumvent the political activity guidelines of the FCCB.

The memorandum concluded with a boldfaced caution:

"Therefore, we urge you to caution diocesan staff, pastors and parishes from participation in outreach by these and other outside organizations."

In the above-mentioned document (EPAG) several paragraphs relate to my position as an ordained permanent deacon of the Catholic Church. I have quoted the first, entitled "Endorsements and Electioneering," (page 5) here:

Pastors and Church leaders must avoid endorsements, contributions, electioneering or other political activity when acting in their official capacity. Although personal endorsements are not prohibited, it may be difficult to separate personal activity from one's role as a representative of the Church. Officials and employees of the Church, acting in their individual capacities on political matters, must make clear that they are not acting as representatives of the Church or any Church organization.

Just so you know, in my blog header I have stated that the opinions expressed in this blog are my personal opinions, and by expressing them, I do not do so as a representative of the Church.

A second relevant paragraph, also on page 5, is entitled "Websites, Social Media and Electronic Communications" and is quoted here:

Many parishes maintain websites and utilize email to communicate with parishioners and the general public. The guidelines set forth here apply equally to websites, social media sites and all electronic communications. Diocesan or parish sites must not link to other online sites that support or oppose candidates or political parties. Consult with your diocesan attorney or the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops before posting any political content or links to political content on web or social media sites.

To ease your concerns -- assuming any reader of this blog might actually be concerned -- "Being is Good" is a personal blog. It is neither a diocesan nor a parish site. To my knowledge no parish or diocesan website links to this blog, something over which I would have no control. As a personal site, however, this blog can include links to other sites, even those representing organizations that might engage in political advocacy based on one or more issues. On occasion I might even indicate my support for a particular candidate, or perhaps more likely, my opposition to one or more candidates who espouse positions I believe no Catholic should support. Again, any political support or opposition expressed in this blog are my personal opinions, and nothing more. 

Of course, this is all very sad. And don't you just love the clause, "Consult with your diocesan attorney...", before getting "political"? It actually makes me cringe. This is what we have come to. We must consult lawyers before we can speak the truth, so we don't "risk scrutiny of the Church's tax-exampt status."

Personally (just my opinion), I think the day will come, and I believe it could come very soon, when our religious freedom, the first freedom enshrined by our Constitution, will become subservient to the whims of political leaders whom we were afraid to oppose. How did the great G. K. Chesterton put it?

"Courage is almost a contradiction in terms. It means a strong desire to live taking the form of a readiness to die."

During my many years wearing the uniform of my country, I often encountered the kind of courage extolled by Chesterton. I see little evidence such courage is so widespread today. 

When I was ordained I agreed to obey my bishop, and I will continue to do so. It would, however, be heartening to see a little more courage expressed by those God has chosen to lead His Church.

Pray for our Holy Father, Pope Francis, and pray for our  bishops, whose consecration calls them to follow the courageous lead of the Apostles.