The Bishops’ Choice...a Postscript

Some thoughts today, as a postscript to yesterday’s post...

Anyone who supports, or even tolerates, abortion will support or tolerate any evil.

I’ve believed this for years, ever since the U. S. Supreme Court permitted abortion in 1973. Abortion is the linchpin, the key that provides us with a clear understanding of the true motivation behind all the policies of the left. Without it, these motivations would be muddied. But because the left, including almost the entire Democrat Party, supports and encourages the unlimited slaughter of innocent unborn children, we can confidently identify why they do what they do. Because they support abortion, we know that human life means absolutely nothing to them. How could it? Their only concern, their one, overriding motivation is power. They will do whatever is necessary to gain and maintain political power. 

Many bishops have long praised the Democrats for their seeming support of refugees, immigrants, minorities, the poor. But they fail to understand that these Democrat policies do not stem from an altruistic concern for these unfortunates. The left doesn’t give a damn about the lives of others.  Remember, if they support the murder of innocent children in the womb, they will support anything. To the left, refugees, immigrants, minorities, and the poor represent only one thing: votes, the means to power. Just consider the many programs of the "war on poverty." They did little to eliminate poverty, but did much to ensure a perpetual underclass dependent on the government. And for whom do they vote? Guess.

Once the left gains power and controls the instruments needed to wield it — the courts, the mass of federal agencies, the military, the police, etc. — the voters become meaningless, as does the Constitution, a mere scrap of paper. One recalls when President Obama said the Constitution mostly "says what the states can't do to you...what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or sate government must do on your behalf." Uh, Mr. President, that's because the Constitution is all about liberty, about the freedom to conduct one's own life without government interference.

If one wants to see what unconstitutional governments decide they "must do," look at the former Soviet Union, Communist China, Cambodia, Cuba, North Korea, and every other “socialist paradise” in which leftist leaders, once they gained power, focused on the elimination of those among their own people who opposed them. It’s all about power, folks. 

 

Sadly, few politicians are immune. Too many Republicans, folks like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham, who have been in Washington forever, are just as guilty. They might not be leftist ideologues, but they thrive on the power and the perks that come with the territory.

If yesterday’s elections in Georgia turn out as expected and hand the Democrats both congressional and executive power, and if history is any guide, the party’s leadership will move quickly to consolidate that power. We can expect moves to neutralize the power of the Supreme Court, to eliminate the filibuster and other legislative obstacles, to disarm the people through prohibitive “gun control,” to assign new, supportive civilian and military leadership in the Department of Defense, and to create a quick path to citizenship (and voting rights) for immigrants who have entered the country illegally, and so much more. Will a “moderate” President Joe Biden resist these power moves? That remains to be seen, but I wouldn’t count on it. How does the old saw go? He who hesitates is lost. Gained power means little if it is not retained. 

To consolidate their power the left must confront and overcome many obstacles, among them Christianity, specifically the Catholic Church. Because it is so fragmented, Protestantism is likely seen as a less serious threat. The belief is that it can be dealt with piecemeal, one denomination at a time. That, of course, might not be so easy. After all, the Holy Spirit moves where He wills. But the Catholic Church is big. It's worldwide. It has a hierarchy and an authoritative center. Of course, in the past the left never really took the Church all that seriously. How did Stalin put it when told of the Pope’s concerns? “The Pope? How many divisions has he?” Yes, indeed, it was all about power, the application of pure physical power. But things changed in the 1980s, as shown by the personal alliance between Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II. The communists learned that political and military power, when united with spiritual power, could be a formidable enemy, one that almost put them out of business. 

Admittedly, because of the abuse scandals, abetted by the weakness of so many bishops, the Church has lost much of its influence, even among Catholics. Not too many years ago, when a bishop spoke, people listened. Today too few listen and many don’t even know he has spoken. To this we can add decades of weak catechesis in which the Truth was hidden from the faithful, buried beneath layers of psychobabble and secular argot. And so, today, we encounter a Church almost as divided as the nation.

What the Church and the world need today are courageous bishops willing to set an example for the faithful, bishops willing to sacrifice position and reputation, even their lives, to uphold the Truth.  We need bishops willing to take meaningful action against Catholic politicians who publicly embrace evil. We need bishops willing to be faithful witnesses to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whatever the opposition. 

 

Recall those of the last century who did just that and confronted the evils of both fascism and communism. Cardinal Mindszenty of Hungary, Blessed Aloysius Stepinac of Yugoslavia, Blessed Vasile Aftenie of Romania, and so many others, including thousands of priests, religious, and faithful laypeople, who sacrificed their freedom and their lives for the Catholic Faith. They knew that on their own they could do nothing, but with God all things are possible. 

 

As Diane recently reminded me, maybe it will be the faithful, the Body of Christ, that will do the leading and shame the bishops into doing what Christ asks of them.

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.