A Few Questions

Have you noticed how the media usually describe Catholic politicians who reject their Church's teaching as "devout Catholics" or, if they are a bit too far from Church teaching, as "practicing Catholics"? They are, of course, neither. A devout, practicing Catholic will accept the Church's magisterial teaching, especially that teaching which the Church declares to be based on divine law. The Church cannot change, and has never changed, divine law, and neither can the political authorities, the media, or any worldly entity. When the Church, for example, declares abortion to be an "intrinsic evil", it will remain so, regardless of the opinions of self-described "devout" or "practicing" Catholic politicians.

I believe it's important to realize that someone who supports abortion will likely support anything. After all, abortion is nothing less than the willful, dismembering slaughter of a living, unborn child, the most innocent of God's children. Every Sunday at Mass, we come together and pray the Nicene Creed in which we praise the Holy Spirit as "the Lord, the giver of life." To destroy a life given by the Holy Spirit, and to support the wholesale destruction of those lives, are serious sins indeed.

My next question: For whom should we vote in November, and what should be our deciding criteria? I found it interesting that a few days ago Joseph Cardinal Tobin, Archbishop of Newark, New Jersey, stated publicly that “a person in good conscience could vote for Mr. Biden.” I suppose that’s true, at least literally: yes, a person in good conscience can vote for Joe Biden, but the important question is, as a faithful Catholic, should he or she? But I really don’t believe Cardinal Tobin was thinking or speaking semantically. No indeed, he was providing Catholic Biden voters, like himself, with a convenient excuse.

The Cardinal's feelings toward President Trump become apparent when he continued by saying, “I, frankly, in my own way of thinking, have a more difficult time with the other option.” Wow! Your Eminence, in your “own way of thinking,” you really find it more difficult to vote for President Trump than to vote for a man who has supported abortion since it was “legalized” by the Supreme Count in 1973? You do realize that Mr. Biden has supported the slaughter of more than 60,000,000 unborn American infants -- that's 60 million for the numerically challenged. I’m sure you’re familiar with unborn infants — like Jesus on that day of Annunciation, or John who leaped in his mother's womb when the pregnant Mary and the unborn Son of God came to visit -- you know, like those unborn infants.

I suppose Cardinal Tobin is simply following the morally confusing recommendations found in the U. S. Bishops' document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship." Here the Bishops state:

"A Catholic cannot vote for a political candidate because he or she supports an issue considered an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, or assisted suicide."

Does this mean I can indeed vote for such a person only if my reason has nothing to do with those intrinsically evil acts he might support? And did you note the use of the word, "considered"? Intrinsically evil acts aren't simply "considered" evil; they are evil. But then, as if afraid of picking sides, the Bishops add:

"At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity."

I can picture the Catholic voter asking, "Okay, Bishops, what's it going to be?" Are the Bishops saying we cannot vote for Joe Biden who has consistently supported, and continues to support, intrinsically evil acts? Or are they telling us we can overlook this if we don't like what his opponent says about the dignity of a murderer on death row? Would I be wrong to suspect that these statements were written not by moral theologians but by lawyers?

I support the Church's teaching on capital punishment, which is clearly described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2266 & 2267). Unlike abortion, though, capital punishment is not intrinsically evil. Morally, the two are very different acts.

I find it particularly interesting that Cardinal Tobin, the day after he seemed to support one presidential candidate over the other, defended his comments by saying: "I neither endorsed nor opposed anyone running for office. I simply reminded Catholics of our responsibility to take part in the elective process."

Okay, then, I guess I can say the same thing.

It's All About Abortion

“Right is right, even if nobody does it. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong about it.” - G. K. Chesterton

For years, no for decades, I've maintained that the ideological left can be identified by one overriding issue: abortion. Earlier this week Senator Chuck "Live-Shot" Schumer (D-NY) offered evidence of this when he publicly threatened two Supreme Court justices if they dared to decide cases on the pro-life side. His words:

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."

Later, after a whirlwind of criticism, and oblivious to what he actually said, the senator stated that he was addressing congressional Republicans, not the justices. Yeah, right! Read your own words, Senator.

Schumer Ranting at the Supreme Court

Schumer, of course, is right in line with his party, which permits no deviation when it comes to abortion. Just look at the lineup of Democrat presidential candidates; that is, the earlier lineup of twenty-plus wannabes. Except when they attacked President Trump because he doesn't support so-called "women's reproductive rights," the entire gaggle of candidates rarely mentioned abortion during their debates, and for good reason. It is one issue on which they all agreed, so why stir the pot? They realized, too, that public support for abortion is dropping. There's no need to remind the voters that every single one of them supports the wholesale slaughter of innocents. 

And did you notice that sign raised high right beside Schumer? "Protecting Abortion Access is a Catholic Value"

It's truly a remarkable statement since Catholic magisterial teaching on abortion has never varied. The Church has consistently labeled abortion an "intrinsic evil." In other words, it is always evil. But the Church's teaching has little effect on the mainstream media "theologians." As one talking head stated, "Many Catholics don't accept the Church's teaching on abortion, so that teaching certainly isn't unanimous." Uh, sorry, but as Pope Benedict XVI reminded us, "The truth is not determined by majority vote." Yes, indeed, the truth is the truth, and the truth is what the Church's magisterium teaches.

My opinion on all this? Abortion is Satan's doing, and those who support it are joining him in this work, some knowingly, most unknowingly. Like the communists, Satan too needs and attracts useful idiots.

If I were Senator Schumer, I'd be worried about a different whirlwind, like the one prophesied by Isaiah:

"For see, the Lord will come in fire, his chariots like the whirlwind; to wreak his anger in burning rage and his rebuke in fiery flames" [Is 66:14]

...another good reason to be pro-life.

Pope Francis Surprises

While I certainly didn't expect Cardinal Bergoglio to be elected Pope, I did, however, expect to be surprised. And for me, at least, his election was definitely a surprise, although a most pleasant one.

Pope Francis Smiling

There are some, however, who are not at all pleased with his election, and many media outlets were only too happy to parade the disaffected through their studios almost as soon as the Holy Father's name was announced. With the DVR recording EWTN, I channel surfed the other networks to see what the self-appointed experts had to say. One network, obviously displeased that the new Pope was not a Unitarian, introduced an ex-priest and a (former?) nun who also happened to be a practicing lesbian. As you might expect they were very unhappy that the College of Cardinals had elected a man who strongly supported the Church's consistent teaching on moral issues. On another network, one interviewee, while admitting that Pope Francis appeared to support the poor, went on to question the depth of that support because he had long ago rejected liberation theology. I was amazed the network had been able to find someone who still equated Marxism with helping the poor. And then there was our new Pope's fellow Jesuit who added with some suspicion: "I've never seen him smile."

I encountered much more of the same that first evening of Pope Francis' papacy. I suppose all this was to be expected since most of the secular media are hostile to the Catholic Church and its teachings. Their usual tactic is to shine the spotlight on Catholics who share this hostility. This, they believe, will allow them to brush aside any charges of anti-Catholic bias. Their selection of commentators, however, only confirms the bias they try to disguise.

What interests me most about the secular media is their belief that the Catholic Church will somehow toss aside 2,000 years of magisterial teaching simply to appease them and those who share their ideology. They believe this because they've been able to find some nominal Catholics who agree with them. I say "nominal" because a Catholic who openly rejects the magisterial teaching of the Church is really rejecting the Church as well. Indeed, once a person rejects one set of teachings, what's to keep him from rejecting all the rest whenever it becomes convenient to do so? Moreover, one who believes the Church can change its teaching on such issues as abortion or homosexual marriage simply does not understand the Church. It's not that the Church stubbornly refuses to change its teachings in the face of the prevailing zeitgeist; rather, the Church cannot change because these teachings are founded on divine law, not human law.

I expect this truth will eventually and grudgingly be accepted, and result in either schism or a massive apostasy. In this I tend to agree with Pope Benedict XVI who foresees a future Church that will be smaller, holier and persecuted.

Over the past few days, as I've thought about Pope Francis and what he will mean for the Church, I've come to believe that he will probably surprise us all again and again throughout his papacy. He is fully Catholic, fully the Apostle, the one sent by God to serve His people. He is a man of orthodox belief, who, like his predecessors, will be unwavering in his teaching. And by choosing the name "Francis" he has shown us that he is a man of the poor, a man who understands better than most what Catholic social teaching really means.

Peter and John at the Temple Gate

When I first saw Pope Francis standing on that balcony, I thought immediately of St. Peter on the day of the first Pentecost when he and St. John encountered the crippled man begging at the "Beautiful Gate" of the Temple:

When he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked for alms. But Peter looked intently at him, as did John, and said, “Look at us.” He paid attention to them, expecting to receive something from them. Peter said, “I have neither silver nor gold, but what I do have I give you: in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean, rise and walk.” Then Peter took him by the right hand and raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles grew strong. He leaped up, stood, and walked around, and went into the temple with them, walking and jumping and praising God. [Acts 3:3-8]

This was the image that came to mind when I first saw Pope Francis. He, too, was standing at a "Beautiful Gate," but today's temple gate looks out over St. Peter's Square and from there to the entire world; and the world was certainly watching. "Look at us," Peter said. And Pope Francis asked us to look at him and pray for him. This humble man bowed low to the people, to the Church he will serve, asking, begging for our prayers. Then he spoke to all of us, and blessed us all, knowing that like the crippled beggar outside the gate we, too, are broken and in need of healing, knowing that we are poor in both body and spirit. In his humility he reached out to us with the hand of the shepherd asking us to take hold so that, together, we can raise each other up, we can, through God's grace and in the name of Jesus Christ Crucified, make each other strong. Yes, together, we can enter the temple "walking and jumping and praising God."

This was what the Spirit showed me when I first saw Pope Francis. And on the next day the Pope reinforced this image in the first homily of his papacy as he spoke to the Cardinals who elected him, asking them "to walk, to build, to profess Jesus Christ Crucified."

Keep Pope Francis in your prayers, for he will need both strength and humility as he leads the Church. He will surprise the world, and the world will respond. Some will cheer him on and join in his work of walking and building and professing; too many will attack him; others will wonder what he's about; and perhaps the largest number will be forced to examine their own faith and how they live it.

Pax et bonum...