Mr. Speaker?

First of all, politically I’m a conservative, and I’m likely far more conservative than Matt Gaetz or any of the other Republican reps who voted against Kevin McCarthy in today’s first and second votes for Speaker of the House. From what I can tell, these men and women simply despise Kevin McCarthy and are conservative simply because their constituents are conservative. I’ve heard nothing from them that addresses exactly what they seek in a Speaker, exactly what they want as members of Congress. When they address policy issues, they speak in gross generalities but their words tell us only one thing: they simply don’t want McCarthy. Their hatred for Kevin McCarthy drives their votes for Speaker. It has little to do with policy but everything to do with personality. 

Who are these guys and gals? Trying to describe them isn’t easy, but then I recalled one of my favorite movies, One Eyed Jacks, starring Marlon Brando. At one point in the film Brando’s character, Rio, turned to a guy even more evil than himself, and used a rather descriptive epithet. He called him a “scum-sucking pig” which I will now refer to as an SSP. Although remarkably nasty, it was neither obscene nor profane, but simply a wonderfully vulgar descriptive. I must admit, although I’ve always liked it, i’ve never used it…until now. 

Don’t these elected representatives realize what the American people want from the Congress they have elected? They want action, not a soap opera of personal vendettas. McCarthy even helped several of the these SSPs in their recent elections, providing both funds and personal support. The SSPs are also making the Republican Party look remarkably foolish. Note that the Democrats are solid in their support for Hakeem Jeffries (NY) while more than a few Republicans seem to enjoy the Congressional chaos they have created. One can only hope enough of them come to their senses so our government can move forward in the direction the people want. 

We live in strange times, folks. Even the good guys despise each other.

A Look To the Past

A parishioner sent me a link to one of my own posts, written 13 years ago, telling me how prophetic it was. I disagreed strongly. It was not at all prophetic, but merely a statement of the reality we faced at the time. I also chided him for spending any time reading stuff I wrote years ago. I’m sure he had far better things to do.

Anyway, the post was written on September 28, 2008, just weeks before the election of Barack Obama as president. I did not support Obama for many reasons, but primarily because he denied the right to life and the sanctity of marriage. I firmly believe that anyone who supports abortion cannot honestly claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Such people are morally and spiritually dysfunctional. We must pray for their conversion.

All the issues I addressed in that post remain with us today. They differ only in their degree of acceptance by the American people. We are still aborting millions of unborn children and a large percentage of American Catholics and other Christians continue to support and elect pro-abortion politicians. Despite the scandal surrounding former Cardinal McCarrick, too many bishops still tolerate active homosexual priests. Sadly, the scandals of the past will likely continue into the future. As for our society, greed has penetrated every level, and has especially driven our largest corporations. In particular, the huge social media multinationals have become so big and so supportive of big government that our nation is beginning to mirror the traditional fascist state in which complete control of the population becomes the overriding goal. 

That these evils remain among us today is not at all prophetic, but merely a reflection of what happens when a society, when our nation, turns its back on the God who loved us into being. God asks for a response. He asks for our repentance, our faith, and our obedience. Did not Our Lord Jesus begin His public ministry with the words, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the Gospel” [Mk 1:15]?

Here’s a link to that earlier post: Elections and Disintegration

Take some time to pray today and thank God for creating you, for giving you the wondrous gift of life.

Homily: All Souls Day

Today, on All Souls Day, Diane and I celebrate our 52nd wedding anniversary. All Souls Day is really a rather odd day for a wedding; indeed, back then it required the bishop’s dispensation. And I’d certainly not dare to forge any kind of connection between marriage and purgatory. Perhaps I’d better change the subject… 

All Souls Day is a really a day when we’re led to contemplate death. Sadly, so many today believe that death is the end; that nothing follows. And so they avoid even thinking about it because to do so would drive them to the depths of despair. How sad for them. And how blessed we are, full of faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ, Our Savior, and full of hope in His promise of eternal life. 

How did St. Paul put it in our second reading? “…we too might live in newness of life.” “Newness of life” are particularly pleasing words for those of us now experiencing the oldness and oddness of this life. It’s all, Paul tells us, because of the promise of Our Lord’s Resurrection: 

“For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection.” 

Yes, God puts in the heart of every living person a desire for eternal life and happiness with Him. While death claims each of us at our appointed time, God gives us something which death cannot touch -- his own divine life and sustaining power. We need only accept Him in faith, and live that faith. Jesus, of course, said it best:

“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him on the last day." 

He makes so many wondrous promises, doesn’t He? And because He always fulfills His promises, His Church calls us to celebrate God’s merciful love and the salvation of all who have gone before us. For today we not only think of and pray for those we have known and loved, but we also confront our own mortality. Today we pray for those who have died before us, and in doing so are reminded that we too will die. But death is nothing to fear; for Jesus will raise us up at the last judgment to live with him forever. As we prayed in today’s Psalm:

“To dwell in the house of the Lord for years to come…” 

He reminds us, too, that the Father doesn’t want Him to lose any entrusted to His care, but to lead us to eternal life. We must do our part and pray diligently for all our departed, remembering today those who have died in the hope of seeing God face to face. 

Remembering those who died after having sought God with a sincere heart. 

Remembering those who struggled to accept the gift of faith, those who so often slipped into despair. 

But we do not judge them, brothers and sisters, we leave that to the only One who knows their hearts. Indeed, the Father wants no one to be lost. And so, remembering all, we too can pray those words we heard from the Book of Wisdom:

“…chastised a little, they shall be greatly blessed, because God tried them and found them worthy of Himself.” 

In my own remembering, decades of names and faces pass before me – the many lives that touched mine with love and wisdom in times of sorrow and joy. For each I remember a characteristic, a word, or a moment that captures the person for me; and pray that each now shares in the glory of seeing God face to face. Like you and me, they were sinners, but we trust in His mercy for them and for ourselves. Filled with hope, we look forward to joining them one day. Only then shall we know God as He is; only then shall He make us like Himself. 

 As he begins the Liturgy of the Eucharist Father Vitalis will invite us to lift up our hearts in praise and thanksgiving to God. It is good that we do so. Even though our hearts are sorrowful at the loss of those we love, we should indeed lift them up. We praise God on this special day, thanking Him for these precious lives, for these unique and unrepeatable lives we were privileged to share. 

 Above all, give thanks to God for the gift of eternal life He offers us through His Son, Jesus Christ. With that promise before us, we recall the words of Jesus to His disciples on the night before His own death:

“…Do not let your hearts be troubled. You have faith in God. Have faith also in me.” 

Yes, brothers and sisters, today we pray that our Lord Jesus has taken each into His loving embrace, that He’s wiped away the tears, and given them the first taste of that eternal joy we all hope to share.

One more thing...Before Mass someone asked me if I were going to say something about the election. Of course, we are not supposed to tell you whom you should vote for. But I think I can tell you what you should vote for. Vote for Life, brothers and sisters. Vote for Life!

Time to Vote

About all I'll say with regard to the current electon -- assuming, of course, that you have not yet cast your ballot -- is VOTE PRO-LIFE!! 

I have never voted for a pro-abortion (aka, pro-choice) candidate in any election. How could I? Anyone who can support abortion, the willful slaughter of the most innocent among us, will likely support anything. And that's the most disturbing thing about pro-abortion politicians and those who support them. 

Dear Diane and I will be on a brief vacation in advance of election day, and will take time to pray for our country and those we have elected or intend to elect. We pray that all turn to God in humility and strive only to do His will for our nation and in their lives. 

And remember, our God, a loving God, the God of mercy and forgiveness, is in complete charge of His Creation, and that includes this country and it’s people. His ways are so very different from ours, so we accept all and thank Him for all. Everything is a gift for those who love the Lord. 

Faith over fear, dear friends.

God's peace...

God Chooses Whomever He Wants

I suppose, because of a few of my earlier posts and comments I’ve made to others, some people assume they know for whom I intend to vote in the upcoming presidential election. (Hey, it’s still a secret ballot, so I can keep it to myself, can’t I?) Anyhow, this became apparent the other morning when a parishioner approached me in the parking lot after Mass and said, “I can’t believe you support Trump. Don’t you realize that God can’t possibly want this man to be our president?” His words surprised me, although I suppose for many folks their political party outweighs their faith.  

Trying to keep things light, I chuckled a bit and said, “Boy, it must be wonderful to know the mind of God,” and then I referred him to the prophet Isaiah:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" [Is 55:8-9].

I should have added that if he participated in our parish Bible Study, I wouldn't have to remind him of this, but that would have been rude.

I really didn’t want to get into the politics, but couldn’t help myself: “So you count God among the never-Thumpers and believe He wants Joe Biden to be president?”

He looked at me oddly -- because a mask covered half his face, I really couldn’t read his expression very well. He shook his head, snorted, and said something like, “Trump is an idiot. He’s certainly no Christian. So there’s no way God wants him to lead this country.”

I suppose I could have stayed there and argued for a while, but I really didn’t think I could say anything that would change his mind.  So I just smiled and said, “Next time God reveals His will to you, let me know.” 

Okay, that was a little snarky, but I’ve already overdosed on politics and really didn’t want to begin another argument that might turn into a quarrel. But you see what worldly politics does to us; it reveals all the nastiness we’d rather keep hidden. I probably should apologize the next time I see him...well, maybe.

But he got me thinking, thinking about God and how He calls on the most unlikely people to carry out His divine will. If we turn to the Old Testament, we can choose almost anyone. Just pick a Patriarch, any Patriarch from Abraham to Joseph, and you encounter weak men with a wide variety of faults and foibles who, through the gift of faith and the grace of God, managed to help God get this whole salvation project going. 

And, of course, Moses and his brother, Aaron, were really not the best of men. But they listened to God -- well, most of the time -- and did God's work of turning His Chosen People from an enslaved rabble into the fledgling nation, Israel. 

The prophets, too, were not the most impressive of men. Called by God, often enough they had to be dragged to their vocation kicking and screaming along the way. And there were many others.  How about David and Bathsheba, their little adulterous affair and subsequent marriage that led to Solomon?  As Matthew reminds us in his genealogy, all three were among the human ancestors of Jesus: “And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah...” [Mt 1:6] 

But there were others, pagans and other Gentiles, who managed to fulfill God’s plan by doing His will. Some, like the Pharaoh of Exodus, strongly resisted God’s Word, but by doing so, unintentionally did what was necessary to fulfill God’s plan. Yes, indeed, God’s ways are higher than our ways. 

Another man of worldly power chosen by God was Cyrus, the Persian King. Having conquered Babylon, Cyrus brought about the return of God’s People to Jerusalem after decades of exile. Listen to his words:

“Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, ‘The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and He has charged me to build Him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all His people, may the Lord his God be with him. Let him go up’” [2 Chron 36:23].

These are the remarkable words of a pagan king who listened to “the Lord, the God of heaven” and did His will. Because of Cyrus, the exiled Jews returned to the Promised Land and, led by Ezra and Nehemiah, began to reform as God’s People in readiness to receive the promised Messiah. 

The New Testament, too, offers many similar examples. Much like Pharaoh, the Herods and Pilate each unwittingly fulfilled his role in God’s plan for the salvation of humanity. God moves the powerful to do His will before they crumble into dust. And yet He gathers twelve of the least of men to form His Church, a Church that will remain until the end of days. Our Blessed Mother, Mary, described it beautifully in her Magnificat:

“He has shown the strength of His arm, He has scattered the proud in their conceit. He has cast down the mighty from their thrones, and has lifted up the lowly” [Lk 1:51-52].

If we step out of Sacred Scripture and turn to later human history we find many other examples of God working through some of the most unlikely folks. Among my favorites, though, is another king, a man named Canute. If you're not a student of European history, you probably haven't heard of this interesting fellow, so let me tell his story as briefly as possible.

The restored Christian kingdom in England had reached its peak under King Edgar (959-975). Sadly, for the English, the good times didn’t last long. Repeated invasions by the barbarous and pagan Vikings drove the country into ruin. For the next quarter-century England was pillaged from one end to the other by Vikings who slaughtered many and left very little of value behind. 

But in 1016, something odd happened. Canute, the Viking son of the chief pagan leader, became King of England and formed, in effect, an Anglo-Scandinavian empire. At the time, because of his military victories and their material rewards, Canute was probably one of the wealthiest men of his time. One would expect Canute’s victory to result also in a pagan victory, but inexplicably that didn’t happen. Instead, Canute sent the Viking army home and decided to rule England by following the traditions King Edgar’s earlier Christian kingdom. He supported the Church and built tombs for the saints, even building one for St. Alphange who was killed by Canute’s father. He sent English bishops, priests, and monks to Scandinavia and then made a pilgrimage to Rome where he participated in the coronation of the Emperor in 1027. We can, therefore, say that Scandinavia was brought into Western Christendom through the conquest of England by a pagan barbarian. Go figure! Canute, then, offers us one of those wonderful paradoxes that so often display God’s power working in ways so much higher than our ways. 

Today we’re confronted by President Donald Trump, a man who certainly doesn’t project the usual presidential image. His language is the kind heard around the kitchen tables of many, perhaps most, Americans. Although a man of great wealth, he quickly connected with Middle America and focused on what they consider their greatest needs. Unlike Wall Street and Silicon Valley, unlike the movers and shakers among the Fortune 500, unlike the academics in our top business schools, and unlike the “deep state” indwellers of both parties, most Americans are not globalists. They really aren’t concerned with the EU or China or Mexico. They’re concerned with family safety, with jobs, with a good education and a promising future for their children, with their own retirement. They are patriotic Americans who love their country. They believe in a loving God and attend church services regularly. They want political leaders who truly represent them, who share their beliefs, and understand their needs. They want leaders whose actions follow their words, who fulfill their promises. And this is why so many of them like and support Donald Trump.

Personally, Donald Trump has surprised me. Yes, I voted for him in 2016 because the alternative was beyond horrific. Four months before the election I predicted his victory simply because of the obvious strength of his support and the tremendous enthusiasm of his supporters. Clinton lacked both. But I never expected him to become the kind of president he is today. I think he surprised a lot of people, especially his enemies. In 2016 they portrayed him as a buffoon, and they’ve continued to do so even though the facts demonstrate how wrong they are. This cannot help them in November.

What does God think of Donald Trump? The only thing I can say with any certainty is that God loves him, but then God loves all whom He has created. Does God want him to be president? I haven’t a clue. But over the past three plus years, Donald Trump has demonstrated strong support for the pro-life movement. He has done much to strengthen our nation’s longstanding support for religious freedom, both at home and abroad. He has achieved remarkable success in easing tensions in the Middle East and helped establish peaceful relations between Israel and several of its former enemies. He has rebuilt a military that was largely ignored by the previous administration, while at the same time limiting our military involvement overseas. His federal judicial appointments are strong Constitutionalists who will likely support the freedoms spelled out in our Bill of Rights. Economically his efforts have led to remarkably low unemployment levels among all Americans, and significant increases in the wages of lower and middle income earners. All of these things are good. 

The U.S. Bishops are unhappy with his policy regarding illegal immigration, but in truth he simply follows the law. If we disagree with federal law, we should lobby Congress to change it. Believe me, though, Congress (even liberal Democrats) won't change it because they fear the reaction of the people. Instead, they use other means -- state and local laws to create sanctuary cities and states, or fund healthcare and education for illegals, etc. -- to achieve their ends. It's all very strange.

Here is an open letter to the U.S. Bishops by a coalition of pro-life leaders asking the Bishops to declare abortion to be the "preeminent priority" when voters decide for whom to vote. The link to the letter: Citizens for a Pro-Life Society

Is President Trump another Canute, or another Cyrus? Again, I haven’t a clue. But to rule it out would be a mistake. Donald Trump might well be another of those most unlikely men chosen by God to show not the power of man but the ineffable power of our God. You and I just have to wait and see. Fortunately, we have front-row seats.

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.

Subsidiarity

Finally, brothers, pray for us, so that the word of the Lord may speed forward and be glorified, as it did among you, and that we may be delivered from perverse and wicked people, for not all have faith [2 Thes 3:1-2].

The upcoming election will certainly highlight the vast policy differences that define the Democrat and Republican platforms. And if we dig a little deeper we'll also encounter major differences in the underlying principles that form these policies. From a political and societal perspective, perhaps the most basic principles are those that describe how best to organize human communities and activities.

As I pondered this the other day, I couldn't help but turn to a principle the Catholic Church has long considered key to the proper establishment and function of any human community: the principle of subsidiarity. Here's how the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes this principle:

Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs." This "socialization" also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.

Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good" [Pope John Paul II, Centsimus Annus, 48].

God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order [CCC: 1882-1885].

Subsidiarity, then, is really a simple principle: if something can be done well (or better) by a smaller, simpler organization, it should not be done by a larger, more complex organization. In other words, opt for decentralization when it comes to the actual work performed. Note, too, that the Church bases this principle on the action of God Himself. In other words, subsidiarity has divine roots.

As I used to tell managers during my consulting days: 

“Get decision-making down to the level where the real work of the organization is done. As managers, your job is to develop policies that support the organization’s ends, to set the boundaries of action for those who do the hard work, to give them the freedom they need to work within those boundaries, and to monitor the quality of work so you can adjust policies and provide the necessary resources.” 

Managers in most small- and mid-sized companies usually understood and accepted this, but I often encountered resistance from executives of large corporations. Too many didn’t trust their frontline people, so decision-making moved to higher levels, away from those who did the work and understood the real needs of the company's customers. 

Socialism, in all its forms, rejects the principle of subsidiarity. Socialist governments, by their very nature, seize power from the people and grant decision-making authority to ideologically pure elites. Personal freedoms disappear and government becomes essentially unlimited in scope. It begins as a seemingly benign welfare state, but moves inexorably toward totalitarianism. Socialism, then, is the very opposite of the federalism upon which our nation was founded.

The principle of subsidiarity, therefore, is a bulwark, a key protector of limited government and personal freedom. It's implementation conflicts with the power-focused desire for centralization and the mindless bureaucracy characteristic of the ideological left. 

You might want to keep this in mind when you exercise your right to vote this November.

Politics and Politicians

Put no trust in princes,

in children of Adam powerless to save;

who breathing his last, returns to the earth;

that day all his planning comes to nothing.

Blessed the one whose help is the God of Jacob,

whose hope is in the LORD, his God...

[Psalm 146:3-5]

I think, sometimes – perhaps most of the time – we forget that only God saves, and that He, not us, remains in charge. If we look to another human, whether man or woman, to rescue us from the perils we ourselves have created, we will soon be greatly disappointed. Of course, the Lord of History sometimes raises up the least likely individuals to fulfill His plan, so we must look to their fruits if we hope to recognize God’s action in the world.

If you are among the 80+ million Americans who watched the presidential debate on Monday evening, you witnessed two people trying to convince us that they, and only they, can lead our nation to the promised land. Each has a very different vision of what that land looks like and how to get there.

[Full disclosure: I skipped the debate, preferring to catch the highlights the next day -- far less tedious.]

The First Debate

One candidate, Hillary Clinton, plans to follow the same path paved by the current administration in which she was a key player. But she seems unable to recognize or accept that the plan is dysfunctional, and has created far more problems than it has solved. And so she tells us: Don't get all wrapped up in who caused our current problems, because I've got some brilliant solutions ready to go. Her solutions, though, seem more than vaguely familiar; indeed, they're the same leftist approaches that have consistently failed whenever and wherever they've been tried.

Mrs. Clinton is also afflicted with a few other issues. If the polls reflect reality, a majority believe she is not healthy enough to be president. This can be a tricky problem for her. She must convince voters that these concerns are baseless despite all the contrary evidence. And what about Tim Kaine, her running mate? She can't focus too much on his presidential qualifications without seeming to confirm her own health issues. Lots of webs being woven here.

But perhaps more troubling for Hillary Clinton are the large numbers of Americans who simply don't trust her to tell the truth. I suppose it all began years ago when she mobilized her team of sycophants to provide cover for her husband's "indiscretions." She did so by attacking the women, so many women, on whom Bill preyed. Impeached but not convicted – his sins, after all, were the same as those of his judges – Bill has been rehabilitated by the folks who matter.

Bill stumping for Hillary in NH -- Enthusiastic Women?

But Bill is only one chink in Hillary Clinton’s honesty armor; consider:

• Her removal from her House Judiciary Committee staffer job because of incompetence and lying;
• The whole Whitewater debacle;
• Her tall tale about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire;
• The "cleansing" of the White House travel office;
• The vast right-wing conspiracy that she claims was at the heart of her husband's problems;
• Her “flat-broke” claims after leaving the White House;
• Her speaking fees -- the pay for play, quid pro quo deals with Wall Street firms and foreign nations;
• The ongoing email-national security scandal and associated corruption of her State Department staff;
• The Benghazi lies and "What difference does it make?" attitude.

For me, however, it is her extreme stance on abortion that disqualifies her. How can anyone who so strongly supports the brutal killing of the most innocent and helpless among us be qualified for the presidency? This is the same reason I neither voted for nor trusted our current president, Barack Obama.

Oh! It's a "Person" but without rights...

The other candidate, Donald Trump, is an enigma, perhaps the most unlikely of presidential candidates. New York businessman, reality TV star, off-the-cuff stump speaker, as brash as his home town with an ego to match, Donald Trump has apparently caught on with many Americans. A multi-millionaire, he is viewed by his supporters as too rich to be corrupted by other people’s money. Many Americans are tired of the professional politicians who seem to love spending their constituents’ money on anything and anyone that will help their reelection. These same voters seem to regard Mr. Trump as the outsider who will clean house and remind the pols that the people are still sovereign. Could be...but that’s the problem with outsiders: they have no political track record. They force us to focus on the personal.

And so Donald Trump has had to define and refine and re-define his vision and plans for the nation. He’s had to leave the shallows and wade into the deeper waters of specifics, and that, some believe, will cause him problems. I don’t agree. Donald Trump has said so many things that the mainstream media and their fellow travelers consider outrageous, and each time he gains ground. That same media, following the lead of his opponent, have attacked him and his “deplorable” supporters as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic” and pretty much any other “ist” or “phobic” they can think of. The result: his poll numbers continue to rise. 

Trump: College Supporters

The elites in Hollywood and the media, as well as those who roam the corridors of power in Washington, are flabbergasted. How can this be happening? One can understand their confusion since few have spent much time among the hoi polloi, the masses in fly-over country who struggle to pay their bills every month. Interestingly, minorities – generally considered a lock for the Democrats – are beginning to show some interest in Donald Trump. I suspect he will draw a larger percentage of the Black and Hispanic vote than any of his recent Republican predecessors. 

And then there are the “Never-Trump” Republicans, really a mixed bag of neocons and establishment types, along with a few former opponents with hurt feelings. I’ve never really trusted the neocons because of their subtle dismissal of those “permanent things” that traditionally form the foundation of true conservative thought. Most gravitated to so-called neo-conservatism from the far left, and still seem partly connected to their big-government, Marxist roots.

Bush Presidents and Hopeful

Even the Bush family, the most establishment of all establishment Republicans, have come out against Donald Trump, with the elder George admitting he’ll likely vote for Hillary Clinton. Jeb Bush, who was just kidding when he signed that pledge to support the Republican nominee, is now encouraging Republicans to vote for the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson, a man who makes Donald Trump look positively Socratic. As for George W. Bush, I suspect he’ll probably sit this election out. 

I’ve said all along (see post: July 18) that I expect Donald Trump to win the election, largely because the stakes are so high. He's also generated a level of enthusiasm among his supporters that Hillary Clinton will never be able to match. As for Mrs. Clinton’s appeal to women – “Elect the first female president!” – it doesn’t outweigh all her negatives. Unlike President Obama who gathered in over 90% of the Black vote, Hillary Clinton will be lucky to draw 55% of the female vote.

Although not a Trump supporter, I will probably vote for him. To vote for a third party would waste a vote, and I can think of no third party worth my vote. From our perspective as citizens and voters, politics must always be the art of choosing the least imperfect. Is one candidate the lesser of two evils, or is the other the evil of two lessers? I think the latter. 

In the meantime, I'll try to avoid politics in future posts and just put my trust, not in princes (or princesses), but in God alone, the Lord of History.

Pray for our nation.

The Future of the Church in America

A few days ago I offered my personal reflection on the meaning of the recent elections. In doing so I made no specific predictions, other than suggesting that these elections portend the imminent collapse of Western Civilization. I suppose some might think that's a pretty dire prediction, although such suggestions are nothing new. People have been predicting this for decades. With Christendom gone, the civilization it founded will necessarily decline, to be replaced by something else. I won't even try to predict what that "something else" might be, except to say it will attempt to exert power over all things. In this, of course, it will fail because the power of God's love ultimately overcomes everything.

I'm reminded of something Malcolm Muggeridge wrote over 30 years ago [The End of Christendom, 1980] about an interview he conducted with Alexander Solzhenitsyn. He paraphrases Solzhenitsyn as saying:

"...if in this world you are confronted with absolute power, power unmitigated, unrestrained, extending to every area of human life -- if you are confronted with power in those terms, you are driven to realize that the only possible response to it is not some alternative power arrangement, more humane, more enlightened. The only possible response to absolute power is the absolute love which our Lord brought into the world."

Most Americans have yet to experience the kind of absolute, worldly power of which Solzhenitsyn speaks, the sort of power that confronted those who lived in Hitler's Third Reich, in Stalin's Soviet Union, or in Mao's China. And we naively assume we will never be the objects of those who wield such power. This, after all, is America. To a certain extent those who believe this are probably correct. I also do not expect our nation to turn into the typical 20th-Century fascist or communist state. No, those who wield power here are far too sophisticated, too progressive to follow the failed paths of the past. Instead, as Solzhenitsyn suggests, they will enforce power through a "more humane, more enlightened" sort of society, one in which all of life is controlled for our own good, as those goods are defined by those who hold the reins of power.

How long this transition will take is anyone's guess, but I expect it will not take long. And when it finally occurs, perhaps then, in the midst of this kinder, softer totalitarian oppression, those who have seemingly welcomed this change will begin to question. Perhaps then, as they experience the subtle but relentless attack on their very humanity, they will come to an understanding of what is happening to them. Perhaps then, as they search for answers, they will open their hearts to the only alternative: the power of God's love. And when they do this the Church will still be there to lead them to the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Although this little blog of mine doesn't generate many comments, (I'm pretty sure one has to have readers to get comments), I do receive occasional emails from friends and acquaintances who either agree or take issue with what I've posted. And I always appreciate both. But as a result of my last post, I received quite a few emails complaining about what they perceived to be a sense of despair in what I wrote. The only thing I can say in response is that I am never without hope when it comes to the "permanent things." If claiming that our civilization will ultimately collapse is to despair, I plead guilty. I am not at all optimistic when it comes to worldly hope and change. But then I don't consider our human, worldly civilizations to be all that important when measured alongside the salvation of souls, something of eternal importance. And although I love my country, I realize that it too is of human origin and necessarily doomed to turn to dust.

I do not, however, despair when it comes to the Church -- One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic -- since our Lord, Jesus Christ, promised to remain with us until the end of time. Will the Church in tomorrow's America have a different role than it has today? Not really; but how it must carry out that role will be very different.

This morning I read a most interesting essay ["What the Election Means"] by Fr. Philip de Vous, a Catholic priest and pastor in Kentucky. Fr. de Vous offers his thoughts on the election and what it will mean for the Church and for religious liberty in the near term. It is well worth reading.

God's peace...


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Decadence and Decline

The American people have spoken and, as my late brother once cynically remarked, "You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American voter." It would seem his cynicism has been borne out by yesterday's election.

As you have probably guessed, I am not happy with the results. My displeasure, however, has less to do with who won or lost in particular elections than the direction these results are taking our society and the unexpected speed of that movement.

To be blunt, I honestly believe Western civilization is nearing its total collapse. It's been coming for some time but I never expected to be alive when it finally happened. Europe, of course, has led the way and only the morally blind cannot see the depth of its decline. I am aware, too, that our nation must eventually go the way of every other nation. Original sin pretty much guarantees that. But I had optimistically held out the hope that the United States of America would last longer than most, that it would rediscover its uniqueness, that its people would somehow reclaim its birthright, that we would defy history and the forces of evil and bring about a rebirth of freedom. Alas, this is not to be. We have, I believe, passed a societal point of no return.

As a nation we seem to have fallen prey to democracy's fatal weakness: the awareness by the majority that they can bleed the minority with impunity. Once politicians grasp this, they use their considerable powers, especially the power of taxation, to aid their friends and harm their foes. Our founding fathers hoped to prevent this by means of a Constitution that would protect the rights of all, include checks and balances, and guarantee separation of powers. What they didn't foresee was: (1) a judiciary that would, in effect, rewrite the Constitution, adapting it to the prevailing zeitgeist; (2) an executive that would increasingly usurp the powers of the legislature; and (3) a weakened legislature that would allow this to happen. When the collapse will occur, I cannot predict, but it will occur, and soon enough.

This modern Western civilization of ours came to be through Christianity, but once its religious foundation crumbles it will cease to exist as a civilization. No civilization can survive when the core values that gave it purpose have disappeared. And Western man cannot survive in the shell of a civilization deprived of these values, its Christian underpinnings. These values are rapidly disappearing in the face of internal decay and corruption. Civilization grows closer to barbarism as it drifts father away from Christianity. Evidence of this can be seen in Western Europe where Christianity is now the faith of only a small minority and consequently is discounted as irrelevant by the politically powerful. These same worldly forces are not content to ignore the remnants of our civilization but have turned on Christianity and its values in an inexplicable suicidal attack. We are now witnessing much the same here in our own country. And, believe me, the signs cannot be dismissed.

Only the most brutal society will slaughter its children by the millions simply because they are inconvenient.

Only the most self-centered society will neither honor its elderly nor aid its infirm, preferring instead to find ways to eliminate them through "managed health care".

Only the most decadent society will equate sodomy with marriage.

Only the most corrupt society will pile up astronomical amounts of debt onto future generations merely to satisfy its own immediate wants.

Only the most faithless society will allow its government to undermine our nation's most cherished freedom, the people's free exercise of their religious beliefs.

The citizens of our nation have reelected a man who sees no evil in either abortion or infanticide, no problem with the continuing destruction of our free-market economy, and no contradiction in same-sex marriage. He bows to those who despise us and shows disdain for our allies. He is a man of his time, a man of our times, a man so certain he is right that he will never admit to being wrong. And he is, once again, our president.

Who's to blame for all this? We all are, along with those who came before us. Too often we stood by silently and watched as our citizenry slid into the decadence that surrounds us. Although I dislike doing so, I assign much of the blame to our American Catholic bishops whose reaction to all this was too little, too late. For years they said little and did less when Catholic politicians screamed their rejection of Church teaching from their bully pulpits in Congress and governors' mansions. Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo,  John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Martin O'Malley...these and too many other Catholic politicians have set an example that millions of uncatechized Catholics have followed. If it's okay for them, it must be okay for me. As one educated layman said to me a few years ago, "My pastor told me it would be sinful to vote against a candidate just because he's pro-choice or favors gay marriage." Comments like that make one wonder about the involvement of that pastor's bishop.

But perhaps this will wake up our bishops, our clergy, and our laity, and turn them into a holy remnant seeking God's will in their lives. Maybe it's exactly what we need. As my pastor said this morning, "It seems we all have a lot of work to do." He's right. The world is littered with so much dirt and squalor and hatred. Millions devote their lives only to the aimless and irresponsible pursuit of pleasure. These are the obvious symptoms of internal decay and corruption, and God will probably allow a purging. As Evelyn Waugh once wrote [Vile Bodies, 1930], there is "a radical instability in our whole world-order, and soon we shall be walking into the jaws of destruction." But we must always remember: even if our entire civilization crumbles around us, the Church will remain.This was promised us.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad