Been a While

A few folks -- a tiny remnant of the irregular readers of this blog -- have asked me why I haven't posted very much recently. Actually, they're very kind, because I really haven't posted a thing since June. The reason? I've simply been busy. 

I spent a lot of time preparing for a course on Biblical Typology that I'm now in the middle of conducting. The preparation demanded more time and effort than I had expected. And in the midst of it all, Diane and I went north for a couple of weeks to visit our children, grandchildren, and some old friends. I've also been wrapped up in some of the administrative details related to a pilgrimage to Italy that Fr. Glen and I will lead in January. So, you see, I have plenty of good excuses.

But I'm also disheartened by our nation's political landscape, and how things seem to be moving. And for weeks I've been left without words, wondering whether I should address the issues publicly. I guess I will. Please understand, though, these are my personal views, and I do not presume to speak (or write) for the Church. 

I look at today's Democrat party and wonder how it moved so far to the political left and so quickly. I've always believed that Marxism (and, folks, socialism and communism are both founded on solid Marxist principles) is attractive to two kinds of people. 

First, there are the "useful idiots" as Lenin purportedly called them. They listen to the false promises of an ideology that will never deliver, and they actually believe what they hear...at least for a time: 

"We'll pay off your student loans; we'll make the downpayment on your home; we'll guarantee wonderful healthcare that will cost you nothing; we'll bring true democracy and equity and diversity and inclusion and anything else you cry for..."  

The second, much smaller, group are the Marxist elites, those that feed the masses with all those promises. Ironically, few of the elites actually believe in Marxist ideology, because they're not hoping for equality or democracy or the people's happiness. No, they seek only one thing: power. And, conveniently for them, the consolidation of power into the hands of a few happens to be a guaranteed byproduct of Marxism's full implementation.

Marxists also despise religion...well, not all religion because they offer the masses their own version of religious faith. Perhaps more accurately, they despise the faith and values of Jews and Christians, and will join forces with anyone else who mirrors their hatred. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend...for a while.

To the Marxist, religion is a serious competitor because it shifts the allegiance of the individual from the state to God and His Church. They can't have that, and so they attack the Church, at first through the media and laws and regulations. But once they have power, the attacks become viciously physical. Just look at Marxism's history in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc.

Remember when Joe Biden told the TV host, Charlamagne Tha God, “I tell you if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

Of course, it was just another of Joe's racist statements in which he assumes all blacks, really all minorities, must think alike, that they must hold identical political and moral beliefs.

So, let me one-up him, and tell the faithful: "If you vote for today's Democrats, you ain't Catholic." 

In this instance, though, I appeal to the deposit of faith, the Church's foundational beliefs, beliefs that are rejected by this political party. Not only do they support abortion and infanticide, but they also attack Church teaching on virtually every moral issue. And did you happen to hear how the Democrat vice presidential candidate, Governor Walz, called his opponent, Senator Vance, "Weird"? Why? Because Vance is an intelligent, religious, family-loving, pro-life, Catholic. Yep, all those traits really bother today's new Democrats.  

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no big fan of the Republican party either. But at least their platform and values seem more closely to mirror my own. Yes, some of them wander off into the bullrushes and support that which helps them personally, forgetting the needs and freedoms of those they represent. But most appear to toe the line that runs between life and freedom.

I suppose the problem with politics is that it's plagued by politicians; that is, men and women who think of politics as a career instead of an opportunity to spend some time helping others live better and more rewarding lives. Term limits have always seemed like a good idea to me: ten years in the House; two terms in the Senate. After that, go back and do some real work in the world, growing our economy rather than draining it. 

And maybe Christians who fill political offices should also be thinking about how they can help others on their journey to salvation. After all, the First Amendment of our Constitution is very specific:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

So, if, like me, you are a believing, practicing Christian, feel free to exercise your religious beliefs whenever and wherever the need arises. Of course, the Constitution protects you only from government interference; you may have to deal with others who are not so open to expressions of religious beliefs. In those instances, I find actions are often more effective than words. Practice your faith and show the world what you believe. Let them see how a Christian lives.

God's peace...and don't forget to vote.

Welcome to the End of Western Civilization

Yep, I’m convinced, Western Civilization is in its death throes. When will the end come and what form will it take? I can only guess, but that’s all it would be, a guess. I’m no prophet, just an observer who’s old enough not to fret about his own future in the face of this dystopian offing. Please do not assume I’m a pessimist, because that would be far from the truth. My understanding of Creation is long-range, an eschatological view that accepts the Church’s Biblical teaching on the end times. The end will be preceded by conflict, persecution, and unspeakable evil before our God brings all of His Creation to its fulfillment. So, if you believe I’m a pessimist, realize that any pessimism is strictly short-term. My long-term understanding of the world is unquestionably optimistic. The Judge of the world, our Lord Jesus Christ, will prevail so that “all things work for good for those who love God.”

I think I’m observant enough to see and read the signs, especially when they’re big and bright and flashing like a neon Broadway of the 1950s. Again, what I have to say are just my personal guesses, so let me share a few of them. 

I’ve recently celebrated (quietly) my 79th birthday, but believe I’ll still be around for this societal collapse, at least for its beginnings. I’m pretty sure it’ll happen quickly because these days everything happens quickly. Why should the utter destruction of a civilization be an exception. Neither will the end come quietly. Why should it? Our society, indeed, our world, has become increasingly violent and violence is rarely quiet. There’s no reason Western Civilization should just fade away like MacArthur’s old soldiers. No, it will probably be surrounded from without and penetrated from within and then slaughtered, all done rather quickly, much like the catastrophes experienced by the Russians in 1917 and the Chinese in 1949.

Let me tell a story…a true story. In November 1976 our ship, USS Okinawa, arrived in Sydney Australia. After a long stint at sea, four or five of us, all 30-something naval aviators, were in a crowded hotel elevator heading, predictably, to the rooftop bar when a local woman, knowing we were Americans, suddenly began to complain about American voting habits. Jimmy Carter had just been elected, although only 53% of eligible voters bothered to go to the polls. This, she said, was horrible. She then informed us that Australians who didn’t vote in elections were fined. (I don’t know if this was true then or still is, but she certainly said it.) Having made her point, she waited for an answer. As a true red, white, and blue American, I simply replied, "For Americans, to vote so we can select those who represent us is a right. Because it is a right, we can choose to vote or not to vote. To force citizens to vote is just a first step toward totalitarianism. Enjoy your future.” With that the elevator door opened and we all rushed to the bar where we enjoyed a couple of overpriced beers.

When the "free world" begins to reject freedom, you know we're in serious trouble.

Another sign of rapid and massive decay is the educational system in the West, especially in the US. The vast majority of students in our so-called institutions of higher learning graduate completely uneducated. Some few have received adequate training to enter and perhaps even succeed in specific professions — e.g., engineering and technical fields — and yet they too remain uneducated. Yes, even these have been indoctrinated into the left’s hatred of all things good. Just look at what’s happening on college campuses this week as a result of the violence in Israel. The hatred is visceral, animalistic, and screamed out in profanity laced irrational language. Totally unconcerned with the truth, the useful idiots on campus unthinkingly spew the slogans and lies they have been taught. They are historically, economically, politically, and morally ignorant because they and their parents were willing to pay huge amounts of money to ensure their indoctrinators are paid well. Yesterday, on the “global day of jihad”, we saw this clearly manifested in our streets and on the campuses of American colleges. I was, however, pleased to see that at least one college, Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, California, instead or supporting terrorists, organized an all-night Eucharistic adoration to pray for peace in Israel. (Our eldest graduated from TAC.) Here’s a link: Thomas Aquinas College

As a nation — indeed, as a civilization — we have neglected the “permanent things” (read T. S. Eliot and Russell Kirk) that give our lives real meaning. When a civilization or society turns away from these, it ceases being human and becomes bestial. Sadly, too many believe we will be saved by politics or economics, but these are not the source of our problems. In fact, they become mere tools that will be used against us. In truth, our troubles are both cultural and spiritual, but to address these has become “politically incorrect.” We have forgotten or neglected the wisdom of our ancestors and the eternal truths that guided their words and deeds. In other words, we have become suicidal, a disease that has infected both liberals and conservatives, thanks to the intelligentsia who have taken control of large and influential segments of bureaucracy, media, academia, and even our military. 

I find it consoling that in many Catholic parishes in the United States — including my parish here in Florida — parishioners are once again praying Pope Leo XIII’s prayer to St. Michael the Archangel after each daily Mass. Many Catholics, then, realize the nature of the threats faced by both Church and society. Pope Leo composed the prayer as a result of a vision he experienced at Mass on October 13, 1884, exactly 33 years before the great miracle of the sun at Fatima. Add this prayer to your daily devotions, for Michael will be the one called to do God’s work during these trying times.

Saint Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into Hell, Satan and all the other evil spirits, who prowl throughout the world, seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Human history offers a record of civilizational decline, so we have no guarantee that Western Civilization will somehow survive the fate that befell all others. Pray for our nation, for our civilization, and for the world.

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.

Voting and Viruses

Presidential Primary Voting. Yesterday I voted in the Florida Presidential Primary. I usually take advantage of early voting, but this year I had a nasty cold (fear not -- no fever or other coronavirus symptoms) and really don't like voting by mail. Fortunately, I felt much better yesterday, so I decided to go to my local polling site fairly early, at 8 a.m. It's at a nearby recreation center, only a couple of blocks from my house, but I was surprised by the nearly empty parking lot. As I entered the lobby I noticed the door opened automatically so I wouldn't have to touch door handles. I was greeted by a gentleman who directed me down the hall to one of the large meeting rooms. All the poll workers, probably about ten people, were wearing latex gloves. But most surprisingly, I was the only voter. After two people checked my photo ID against the voter registration list, another took me to a voting booth and handed me a ballot. I voted -- prolife, of course -- and took my completed ballot to another worker who showed me how to feed it into the machine that turns my little mark into a vote. I was then given one of those "I Voted" stickers and sent on my way. The whole process took about three or four minutes, and I never saw another voter.

I admit, being the only voter in sight was empowering. For a moment, a very brief moment, I felt almost dictatorial, as if my vote were the only vote that truly counted, as if I alone were deciding the future of our country, as if all those poll workers were there to protect my one, all-important vote. Of course this fantasy didn't last very long. Indeed, this morning's newspaper informed us that largely rural Sumter County, in which a majority of The Villages' population resides, had the highest voter turnout in the state: 40%. That's really quite high for a presidential primary in a largely Republican county when the incumbent is up for reelection and opposed by only a few unknown wannabes. (Okay, all of us from Massachuestts know Bill Weld, but that's why we'd never vote for him.) I suppose most folks voted early, some Republicans decided it was not a meaningful election, and others were concerned about possible coronavirus exposure. Anyway, to my knowledge I've never missed an election, so I've kept my record intact. 

Viral Weirdness. Believe me when I say that, despite my occasional comments about panic and pessimisn, I accept the severity of the coronavirus. Yes, it's becoming a global health threat and must be addressed, perhaps through rather draconian means. And yet, so much of our nation seems to be driven solely by fear, and to me, that represents a major change in how Americans have historically faced a common foe. 

I can honestly say that I have no fear whatsoever of the COVID-19 bug. First of all I'm a Christian and fear no evil. Anyway, how can I fear something with a name like that? To the layman this name -- like the N1H1 Virus that hit us in 2009 -- means absolutely nothing. If the CDC wanted to get our juices flowing from the start, maybe they should have given it a better name, something like "Wuhan Killer #1." It's far more mysterious since few of us know exactly where or what Wuhan is; it focuses the mind on the worst possible outcome;  and it tells everyone it's seriously prime time -- all in all, a much better, pay-attention name.

But despite the virus' name, I certainly believe in taking prudent precautions when it comes to dealing with it. To ignore this virus at my age would put my life in danger, but more importantly would threaten the lives of others with whom I come into frequent and close contact. As a member of the community I have an obligation to protect that community from a threat, especially if that threat could come from me.

But, again, as a faithful Christian, how can I fear? God's command -- Be not afraid -- fills Sacred Scripture, in both the Old and New Testaments. God knows that fear is the great faith-destroyer, and the destroyer of community. Fear is the work of Satan, the scatterer. The Greek word for the devil in the New Testament (diabolos) is translated as "the slanderer." But the word's two roots literally mean "to tear or throw apart" or "to scatter." This is what Satan does. He scatters, or tries to, while Jesus Christ unites. As Christians, then, we must strive always to unite, to do Christ's saving work, and never to divide or scatter.

I suppose it all boils down to our willingness to believe and live that which we constantly profess:

"We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to His purpose" [Rom 8:28]

"All things" covers the waterfront, doesn't it? It includes viruses and other evils that might plague us as individuals and as a people. The key, then, is to "love God" and to strive to do His will in our lives, to answer His call "according to His purpose." 

I'm often asked, "Why does a loving God allow such things?" We must, however, remember that evils like this virus, whether we call it COVID-19 or Wuhan Killer #1, will always be with us because of our fallen natures. Indeed, if God removed all evil from the world, we would lack that which makes us human. We would lack the ability to make a moral choice, because we'd be faced with no choice at all, and unable to choose the good. 

Let God strengthen your faith as He makes all work for good in your life today. You need only open the door and allow Him to enter. Let Him tell you how He is calling you to fulfill His purpose in the community.

Compare the Platforms

Too many citizens vote for one political party or another almost out of habit. Or as one parishioner said to me: "My family have been Democrats for generations, so I'm a Democrat." I suspect many Republican voters would say something similar. 

Such thinking (or lack of it), however, doesn't take into account the changes both parties have undergone in recent decades. These changes are perhaps most obvious when one examines the party platforms and learns exactly what each party believes and what policies it will advance once it has the political power to do so.

Father Frank Pavone, the longtime director of Priests for Life has prepared an excellent document that every citizen should read before voting in November's election. It examines and compares the official platforms of the Republican and Democrat parties. Available as a PDF file, the document is entitled:

A Comparison of the 2016 Republican and Democratic Platforms. A non-partisan guide on issues of concern to the electorate.

Click on the above title to download the document.

And then, with your well-formed conscience, perform your civic duty next month and vote.

Elections and Choices

I would never presume to tell others for whom they should vote. I won't even tell Dear Diane, although whenever we head off to the local polling place, I make sure she knows who will get my vote. After all I have an obligation to share my wisdom with my wife of almost 48 years, even if she chooses in her deeper wisdom to ignore it. Actually, we are almost always of one mind when it comes to things political, largely because we share a common worldview which appropriately drives our voting decisions. 

Today we voted in our state's (Florida) primary election by taking advantage of so-called "early voting". The meteorologists are predicting the arrival of a tropical storm on election day (Tuesday) so we thought it best to vote today. I realize I'm being grossly hypocritical because I'm actually against this now almost universal practice of allowing people to vote for a week or more prior to the official election day. Indeed, this really makes the election day almost meaningless. 

By designating only one day on which elections are held we emphasize the importance of voting for those who will represent us in our republic, and encourage citizens to make a sacrifice or two so they can cast their ballot. Sacrifice is never an option today, so I'm certain this early voting has become a permanent feature. The easier we make things, the less important they become.

This year, at least when it comes to the upcoming presidential election, many think we have been handed an odd choice. I believe I can say without fear of reasonable contradiction that there is real concern across much of the political spectrum. I also believe we can readily assume that no minor party candidate -- e.g., the Libertarian or Green candidates -- will be elected. Admittedly one or more of them could possibly act as a spoiler that siphons off enough votes to influence the outcome. This has certainly occurred in the recent past with George Wallace and Ross Perot the most obvious examples. But it takes no genius to predict that our next president will be either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. As I said above, to many it seems an odd choice.

On the one hand we have a woman whose relationship with the truth has been somewhat distant. Ideologically she is a leftist, although I suspect it's more by choice than belief. Hillary Clinton clings to the left because it offers her power. This seems to be her prime motivator. The left, of course, must lie because the left in all its Marxist forms is a failed ideology. It simply doesn't work. In reality it has little do to with helping the working class or proletariat; it's all about power. This, of course, makes it very attractive to the elites, who above all else crave power. They already have wealth and fame, so what on earth is left? Politically, however, one can't openly crave power; hence the lies.

And then there's Donald Trump, the New York businessman and reality TV star who has publicly rejected the political establishment, including that of his own party. During the primaries he embarrassed many of his far more politically connected opponents by beating them soundly, and he did so by changing the rules of political campaigning. Ignoring the grammar of political correctness, he speaks his mind to the delight of his followers, who view his off-the-cuff style as a refreshing change from the usual canned stump speeches of most candidates. But far too many of his comments have also been excruciatingly embarrassing. He has effectively communicated many populist goals, but has been less effective describing how he will achieve them. Faced with such a candidate, the mainstream media, always the useful pawns of the political left, smell blood in the water and are engaged in a savage anti-Trump feeding frenzy.

But with the election just weeks away, Donald Trump seems to have altered his brash, unpredictable style to good effect. And Hillary Clinton, plagued by an expanding battery of scandals, doesn't appear very presidential. Who will actually become our next president is anyone's guess, for the pollsters certainly don't know.

It's easy to place labels on candidates, as I have already done, calling them liberals or populists or conservatives or libertarians, but such labels have little meaning these days. Sadly, the lines of belief between political parties have also become increasingly blurred. 

What separates us one from another today is something far deeper than party or mere politics. As Eric Voegelin made clear, on one side we have those who accept the existence of a transcendent moral order, who believe in the "permanent things" of T. S. Eliot, "the inherited principles, mores, customs, and traditions that sustain humane thinking and preserve civilized existence for future generations" [See Allen Mendenhall, "To Educate in the Permanent Things"].

"But the Church cannot be, in any political sense, either conservative, or liberal, or revolutionary. Conservatism is too often conservation of the wrong things; liberalism a relaxation of discipline; revolution a denial of the permanent things." [T. S. Eliot]

Opposed to these are those who reject these permanent things, who believe that this earthly existence is all there is. These are the ideologues: the utilitarians who admit no authority except that which achieves a desired end; the Marxists whose materialist view of the world excludes all transcendence; and even the true libertarians who accept no limits on human freedom. 

As we go to the polls in November we must decide, then, where each candidate falls. Does he or she believe and act based on the reality of a transcendent moral order, or is the candidate just another ideologue.

Personally, I take a rather gloomy short-term view. I believe our nation has just about run its course. We have come to the point where a near majority of our citizens realize they can demand whatever they like from government, and that the working minority will pay for it. This, of course, cannot continue for long and will necessarily lead to the dissolution of our constitutional republic. We have already seen the start of this as long-cherished constitutional limitations and freedoms have been cast aside by both our courts and our executive branch. Eventually the limited government designed by our nation's founders will either be threatened by a second civil war or evolve into some form of authoritarian or totalitarian state. Civil wars rarely end well and totalitarian states always collapse due to moral decay, corruption, and financial failure.

But over the long term we have nothing to fear because God is in charge. He is the Lord of History and he has raised up men and women to do His work in the world whenever the world turns against His eternal plan. Evil will never triumph.

Catholic Vote: Prayer for America

On Tuesday our nation is faced with a choice. Choose religious freedom. Choose life. Vote as an informed and faithful Catholic. And pray for our nation. Visit CatholicVote.org.

Election Thoughts

The Good News of the Gospel encounters a lot of competition these days. Open the morning paper, browse the headlines on the web, watch the evening news. More often than not, the reports you encounter are less than comforting: wars, terrorist attacks, riots, vicious crimes, unemployment, deficits, religious persecution, drought and famine, natural disasters...Subjected to this constant stream of bad news, it's easy to become overwhelmed and overlook the good news, especially the Good News of Jesus Christ. Indeed, one cannot help but notice the dour expressions on the faces of many Christians, people who instead should be filled with joy regardless of the state of the world.

Too many Christians resemble the seed sown on rocky ground [Mk 4:16]. They hear the Good News preached on Sunday and "immediately receive it with joy", but because their faith lacks roots, "when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the Word, immediately they fall away." This same lack of roots undermines not only their faith but also their understanding of the moral life. As they "fall away" from God's Word, they turn increasingly to the word of the world. This is perhaps most evident in their approach to politics and the upcoming election.

I have, on many occasions, been accused of being a "one-issue voter." I suppose there's an element of truth in this accusation, but where I and my accusers differ is on the nature of that one issue. Because I am strongly pro-life, they assume abortion is the one issue that directs my voting. They're wrong. For example, I would not vote for a candidate who declared his opposition to abortion, but at the same time supported same-sex marriage or the funding of embryonic stem cell research or physician assisted suicide. These are all intrinsically evil acts and this is the one issue that motivates my voting. I will vote for no candidate who supports anything that is intrinsically evil.

An intrinsically evil act is never moral. It is evil to the core, evil by its very nature. Abortion is one of these intrinsic evils. The willful destruction of innocent human life -- And what can be more innocent than an unborn infant? -- is always wrong. This, by the way, is the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church.

The problem today is that many politicians and the voters that elect them assume a kind of moral equivalence among such issues as abortion, unemployment insurance, food stamps, same-sex marriage, taxation, national defense, medicare, immigration policy, along with dozens of other issues facing our legislators. Our vice president typified this attitude in the recent debate. Most of these issues are open to a multitude of approaches. We can safely and morally disagree on the efficacy of the food stamp program or the income tax. But this is not so when it comes to something that is intrinsically evil. Archbishop Lori of Baltimore said it well when he addressed the Knights of Columbus annual convention in August:

“The question to ask is this: Are any of the candidates of either party, or independents, standing for something that is intrinsically evil, evil no matter what the circumstances? If that’s the case, a Catholic, regardless of his party affiliation, shouldn’t be voting for such a person.”

In 2004, before his election to the papacy, Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In this capacity he wrote the following in a Letter to Cardinal McCarrick:

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

Today, then, approaching an election with a properly formed conscience might well force the Christian voter to question his usual party affiliation. Having lived many years in Massachusetts where candidates from both major parties often held similar and morally unacceptable positions on such issues as abortion or same-sex marriage, on several occasions I could not in good conscience vote for either candidate. In every instance I wrote-in a candidate, voted for an acceptable third party candidate, or left that line of the ballot blank.

In that same letter to Cardinal McCarrick, Cardinal Ratzinger added as a postscript:

[N.B. 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.] 

I, however, could never come up with what I believed to be "proportionate reasons." Even when two acquaintances, both moral theologians, suggested that I could morally vote for the "lesser of two evils," I could not bring myself to do so. The faces of millions of slaughtered innocents were far more persuasive than the words of the theologians. A "lesser evil" is still, after all, evil.

This isn't just a Catholic issue. It crosses religious and denominational boundaries. And it doesn't relate only to one political party. Timothy George, writing in the Baptist Press, agreed that Archbishop Lori's concerns apply to all Christians and went on to say:

"There is a difference between Christian discernment and partisan politics. The Kingdom of Christ cannot be equated with any political party. Our current president, a Democrat, is the most pro-choice president in American history, and yet Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans gave us Roe v. Wade."

And just last month, during his apostolic journey to Lebanon, Pope Benedict told a gathering of government and religious leaders that "The failure of upright men and women to act must not permit evil to triumph. It is worse still to do nothing."

We should, therefore, carry out our civic duty and vote responsibly and morally. We must not abdicate this duty, but neither should we profane it by supporting that which is evil.

A Special Day

Somehow it seems especially fitting that today is not only Election Day but also All Souls Day, the memorial on which we commemorate those who have gone before us, including those little ones who had God's gift of life snatched from them while they were still in the womb. And so, for those of you who have not yet gone to the polls, I have only one message...

Today is also our 42nd anniversary. Happy day, dear Diane! I'm so glad we've been able to share all 15,340 days that have made up this odd and wonderful journey of ours...but who's counting?

God's peace...

Mother Teresa on Abortion

As the nation prepares to vote in Tuesday's elections, it's important to keep in mind the key issue, the issue around which all else revolves. Abortion, the back-room killer of 50 million Americans is the silent sub-text in almost every race. Pro-life candidates have been attacked personally and with such obvious hatred that I'm surprised they have the courage to continue. God bless them.

The following video contrasts comments made by Mother Teresa with those made by Adolf Hitler. Hitler saw abortion as a tool, as a means to solve what he perceived as the problem of all those "undesirables" who he believed were a threat to the so-called racial purity he envisioned -- an attitude not unlike that of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who was all wrapped up in the eugenics movement of her time. (See this site for more information.)



Many people seem to think that our nation's problems stem from economic and fiscal failures, or from illegal immigration, or any number of other causes. But the real failure is the failure to love, the failure to see and acknowledge the image of God in each other, the failure to respect every individual life that God has created. This failure, this widespread lack of respect for human life itself, can do nothing but bring a nation to ruin. If you really want to save our nation, then choose life...vote for life.

Disenfranchising the Military Voter

Bureaucratic bungling and political corruption and voter fraud have for decades pretty much defined the machinery of government in Cook County, Illinois. We've all heard the stories of high voter turnout among the residents of Cook County cemeteries. But now some officials in a number of Illinois counties have presumably taken an even lower path. It seems they are trying to ensure that in a time of war our fighting men and women will not be able to cast their votes in the upcoming election. Whether their actions are intentional or not is really irrelevant to those servicemen and women who are being disenfranchised. 

As a veteran and retired naval officer I am completely disgusted. In complete violation of federal law, upwards of 35 Illinois counties have apparently failed to send ballots to military voters in time for the November 2nd election. In Cook County alone some 2,600 military ballots may be affected. Not surprisingly this county's same election officials have hand-delivered ballots to the inmates of Cook County Jail, and the inmates didn't even have to apply for them. The officials simply took both applications and ballots to the jail. In an ironic twist, some 2,600 inmates actually voted. And so it seems the Cook County political machine would rather ensure the votes of convicted felons than those of the men and women who daily place their lives on the line for our nation.

It is a national disgrace. To read more, click here: Military Voters Ignored.

Elections, Politics and Faith

I think I can safely say that among many religious people there's a tendency to step away, sometimes far away, from the political process. But their hesitancy to get involved, or even to vote, seems to have less to do with the process itself than with the politicians who manipulate it. Given the continued degradation of political discourse in our nation, an increasing number of folks seem to be saying, "A pox on both your houses." 

I can certainly understand such attitudes since similar words have occasionally slipped off my tongue while watching the evening news. And with the mid-term elections only a few weeks away, political advertising has ramped up to an almost frenzied pace. Sadly, although the frequency of these ads has risen, their tone and content have sunk to an almost unprecedented level. When it comes to political ad production, the rule of thumb seems to be, "If your take on the issues is unpopular, distract the voters by launching personal attacks on your opponent. And don't worry about the truth; if you repeat the big lie often enough, people will come to believe it." More often than not, the object of such ads believes he or she has no choice but to respond in kind and we poor citizens are subjected to an ever-escalating cacophony of public name-calling that really has little to do with the issues confronting the nation.

Here in Florida, for example, one of our US representatives launched an attack ad in which he compared his pro-life opponent to the Taliban! Now, I'm certainly no expert on electioneering and campaigning, but I suspect such an ad will appeal only to pro-abortion extremists, really a rather small minority. I also think it will likely mobilize pro-life voters and, because of its shrill tone and inherent unfairness, might actually affect the votes of those who are normally indifferent to life issues. I may well be wrong but I still have faith that the average citizen wants to make what my brother, Jeff, used to call a "Superman vote"; that is, for "truth, justice, and the American way." I suppose we'll find out on November 2nd.

Anyway, I hope our fellow church-going citizens will all go to the polls next month and cast their votes intelligently and with faith. I won't presume to tell you for whom you should vote, but I will share some of the criteria I rely on when I step into the privacy of the voting booth.

First, I am a pro-life voter. In fact, I have never been able to cast a vote for anyone who supports abortion, the great evil of our time. Fifty million murdered babies in 37 years is, for me, simply too much for any so-called "pro-choice"candidate to overcome. In Massachusetts, where we lived for several decades, and where Democrats and Republicans often differ only on fiscal issues, I frequently cast no vote or wrote-in another name. Many of my more politically active acquaintances have criticized me for this, telling me I should vote for the "lesser of two evils." But I simply can't bring myself to do it; an evil is an evil. As a Christian and a Catholic I'm called to live my faith, not compartmentalize it. And as a sinner, well, I already carry enough excess baggage through life without adding more.

Second, I look for a candidate who possesses at least some degree of humility. A humble politician may sound like a contradiction in terms, but believe me there are some out there. Of course, almost every politician talks a humble line in public: I'm just a public servant...a plain ol' country lawyer...a man of the people...etc., etc... And I suppose most of us accept these comments at face value. But I'm always suspicious of those who actually talk about their humility. As my father used to say, "Humility's a strange commodity. Once you know you have it, you just lost it."

And so I tend to ignore most of what politician's say and focus instead on what they do. In this my criterion stems directly from the Gospel when Jesus told the Pharisees, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" [Mt 22:21]. No politician who blatantly usurps God's role in the world by denying His authority in such areas as life, marriage, the family, etc., can hardly be called "humble." How did the serpent phrase it on his last visit to Eden? "...you will be like gods." And so I look for a candidate whose actions show humility in God's presence and in the presence of God's people.

Third, I disapprove of the idea of politics as a life-long career choice. Lord Acton's famous words about power corrupting come to mind when I encounter one of these career politicians who seems to believe that we, the hoi polloi, owe him his career and exalted place in society. All else being equal, if I'm presented with a choice between a career politician and a newbie, I'll always choose the latter. Experience in politics is greatly overrated. Too often the more experienced pol has just learned more ways, at best, to ensure his reelection and, at worst, to enrich himself. It's always refreshing to encounter a politician who agrees to self-imposed term limits and then actually sticks to them.

James Madison in Federalist #51 wrote, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Since we are, however, far from angelic, we not only need a government, but we also need controls on that government, reminders that the people, not the politicians, are sovereign. This is what our votes are intended to do. Don't waste yours.

New Video - Catholic Vote

CatholicVote.org has released a new TV ad. Very timely...