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.

The War

The first major battle of the Civil War, the battle of Bull Run, took place near Manassas, Virginia, not far from our nation’s capital. Most Northerners expected an easy victory, and many civilians, carrying picnic baskets, followed the Union force, planning to watch the battle as if it were a sporting event. You can imagine their surprise when the Confederate troops not only won the battle but forced a Union retreat. Suddenly all those curious civilians became unwilling participants in the battle and ran for their lives. Most managed to escape, although one New York congressman was captured and spent many months in a Richmond prison. The battle convinced many Americans the Civil War would last far longer than anticipated.

Today we, too, are in the midst of a war, a very different war, one against demonic forces. I suspect most Americans don't realize this and assume, as one person recently told me “It’s just politics.” But it's not. It's a full-fledged, declared war against our civilization's foundational religious and moral values. To undermine these values the enemy first disguised their battle tactics as merely political, but then, realizing this couldn’t guarantee success, they decided, rather boldly, to claim traditional values are exactly the opposite of what people generally believe. The moral, then, became immoral, the good became evil, the Godly became diabolic, and vice versa. 

Our president has, willingly or not, joined the demonic forces as he accuses pro-life and pro-marriage Americans of being "white supremacists" and "extremists." Indeed, he slapped the same labels on anyone who objects to his economic agenda and went on to define “MAGA Republicans” as those who believe Americans have “no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who (sic) you love...MAGA Republicans have made their choice. They embrace anger. They thrive on chaos. They live not in the light of truth but in the shadow of lies.” Here we see a perfect example of the reversal of good and evil, where the truth is shrouded in a “shadow of lies.” And not surprisingly, he said little about his economic agenda, and nothing about inflation, gas prices, or border security.

And the demonic forces? Radical left or radical right, it makes little difference. Although the communists of the USSR and Mao’s China called themselves “international socialists” and the Nazis called themselves “national socialists,” both sought one thing: power. Both used that power to slaughter millions they considered threats. Both applied near identical methods to achieve total control over their populations. And surprise, surprise! Both claimed to be socialists. Today, though, the greatest threat to our civilization comes from the ideologues of the radical left. Yes, they rule China, a nation determined to replace American influence in the world. But they also educate our youth in high schools and colleges. You’ll find lots of victimized snowflakes, the left’s “useful idiots,” in every college classroom, but you’ll have to search long and hard to find a neo-Nazi on a campus. 

Because many of the radical left’s desired outcomes carry highly negative connotations, euphemisms abound. Abortion, the willful slaughter of today’s Holy Innocents, is disguised and celebrated as women’s health. Total control of our nation's citizenry (that's you and me) is disguised as national healthcare, or the patriotic search for enemies, or gun control, or necessary suppression of misinformation. To criticize an actual enemy — for example, the Chinese Communist Party or the Taliban — becomes racism. Global warming, because the facts keep getting in the way, is redefined safely as “Climate Change.” “Follow the science,” we’re told, even though the science, as always, is far from settled. For decades some scientists and pseudoscientific experts have issued a stream of predictions, each telling us the world will end on some future date that is inevitably forgotten as it moves into the past. But this doesn’t stop those in power from destroying the economy to protect us from terrors that never materialize. Why do they do this? If you want the truth, don’t bother following the science, just follow the money.

As I have often said on this blog, probably far too often, the left has focused primarily on abortion; it’s their sine qua non. For almost 50 years, since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, abortion was legal. But then in 2022 the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, claiming "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision." The court, then, decided to "return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives.” 

Abortion, no longer nationally legal, suddenly became a state and local issue. And so other moral issues now take center stage and the enemy has extended its reach to include transgenderism, even pedophilia, and the indoctrination of school children in sexual perversion. These are all celebrated as acceptable lifestyle choices and offered as positive alternatives to the intolerance of religion, especially Christianity, the bete noire of the radical left. Yes, indeed, just listen to the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, et al and you will discover that Christianity is a racist religion of white supremacy. Following the same script, a highly politicized FBI decided that traditional Catholics were likely domestic terrorists and white supremacists. We’re it not so serious, it would actually be humorous since I know people of all races who regularly attend Latin Masses. The feds actually planned to, and likely did, infiltrate Catholic churches in which Latin Masses were celebrated. It doesn’t take a Constitutional scholar to recognize that the Department of Justice apparently isn’t bothered by First Amendment concerns.

It’s not just freedom of religion that’s under attack; it’s religion itself. And believe it or not, some people, far too many people, have bought into this. Let me just highlight one very recent example. Our president just proclaimed March 31, 2023 a Transgender Day of Visibility, and then using Twitter celebrated the day with some remarkable words: 

“On Transgender Day of Visibility we want you to know that we see you just as you are: Made in the image of God and deserving of dignity, respect, and support. We'll never stop working to create a world where you won't have to be brave just to be yourself.”

President Biden then went on to issue a lengthy proclamation on the Transgender Day of Visibility. It’s a bizarre proclamation, but worth your time if only to understand better who our president really is. We know our “devoutly Catholic” president openly rejects Church teaching on most moral and many theological issues. Reading his transgender day proclamation only confirms how distant he is from the Church. I think we can stop pretending Joe Biden is a Catholic since he ignores or openly attacks Church teaching. 

Of course, like all of us, so-called “trans” people were made in God’s image and likeness, but for them, that seems to be the problem. They want to change what God has done, to alter the image and likeness He created. In other words, they and their enablers want to assume God’s power, to become little gods able to recreate humanity in their own image, and a false image at that. If we truly “follow the science” we discover that DNA is forever, that males are males and females are females, just as God made them.

The timing of the president’s proclamation also seems a bit unusual. Just days before, a transgender woman had slaughtered six people, including three young children, at a Christian school in Nashville. She was killed by a team of courageous and competent police officers who responded and surely saved many more lives. Since then, some in the trans community have called her Nashville’s seventh victim, even though she was the murderer of six innocent people, and certainly no victim. To emphasize their obvious disdain for those six victims in that Christian school, a radical trans mob, led by several legislators, stormed the Tennessee legislature protesting guns but not murderer or the death of Christians. It is all, of course, symptomatic of the culture of death that St. John Paul described in his 1995 encyclical, Evangelium vitae (The Gospel of Life): 

“…this situation, with its lights and shadows, ought to make us all fully aware that we are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the ‘culture of death’ and the ‘culture of life.’ We find ourselves not only ‘faced with’ but necessarily ‘in the midst of’ this conflict: We are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life” (Evangelium vitae, 28).

Trans, pro-abortion, LGBTQ, and all the rest…it’s all of one piece, all part of Satan’s effort to undermine and destroy the domestic church, that is, the family, and to lead people away from God and His one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The deceiver, who was “a murderer from the beginning…a liar and the father of lies” [Jn 8:44], uses whomever he can to spread evil throughout God’s creation. In the end, of course, he will fail, but how many souls will he take with him? 

As Christians we cannot sit on the sidelines and passively observe the battle. Like the tourists at Bull Run, we must eventually recognize and accept our involvement. 

Just Some Stuff…

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated. President Biden, and his sidekick, Dr. Anthony Fauci, have spoken frequently and loudly about the “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” Their purpose was always to shame those who haven’t gotten the mRNA COVID shots or, almost as bad, neglected to be boosted. In the spirit of full disclosure, Dear Diane and I both got the two Moderna shots and the 1st booster…but that’s it. We’ve decided to get no more COVID shots until we know more about the effects of these still experimental drugs. 

I actually believe I contracted COVID back in early 2020, before I had been vaccinated. I felt so bad I went to the doctor on a weekend and was treated by a very nice and seemingly competent PA. I had all the symptoms of COVID, but since no test was yet available, she assumed I had a bad case of some random virus. She gave me meds and told me to rest, drink liquids, and come back if it got worse. After a week or so, I recovered and forgot about it. But many months later I spoke to several others who had suffered from COVID and our symptoms, although they varied in intensity, were identical. Despite my age, I am in good health, so I think I just slid through my case more easily than many. 

Anyway, yesterday the CDC released its latest data on COVID deaths and — surprise, surprise! — “a majority of Americans dying from the coronavirus received at least the primary series of the vaccine.” This, of course, alters the narrative that it is only the unvaccinated who will die from COVID. My unscientific guess is that those who are dying today are folks with serious comorbidity issues and compromised immune systems. Perhaps the president should change his mantra since it apparently doesn’t reflect the “science,” which is always a moving target.

Dumbing Down the Legal Profession. The American Bar Association has decided that those hoping to enter law school should no longer be required to take the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), and apparently Harvard and Yale have decided to go along with this. Interestingly, the LSAT is designed to measure prospective law students’ ability to reason, solve problems, comprehend what they read, along with other intellectual traits that lawyers believe they should possess. I certainly won’t argue with the need for these traits. If I ever need a lawyer, I want him to be rational and smart. But one can only assume that by failing to test for these traits and abilities, some aspiring lawyers will lack them. I suppose, then, we can conclude that, on average, the lawyer of tomorrow will be less rational, less capable, and not nearly as smart as today’s lawyer, assuming such an outcome is even possible.

Okay, okay…my apologies to all my lawyer friends for that last remark. Perhaps I was thinking only of those lawyers who gravitate to government and subsequently do everything they can to siphon political power from the people, who are sovereign.

Abortion, Religion, and Politics. Shortly before the recent mid-term elections, during one of those “after Mass” conversations with a parishioner, I was told that “the Church really shouldn’t get involved in politics. After all,” he added, “our country was founded on the concept of separation of church and state.” I assumed he was telling me this because of his tacit acceptance, and the Church’s adamant condemnation, of abortion. As it turned out, my assumption was correct. Of course, his supporting statement was false. Our nation was not “founded on the concept of separation of church and state.” In fact, that specific concept was voiced by only one man, Thomas Jefferson, in a rather obscure letter written to a Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut in 1802. The Constitution does not demand separation. Here’s the actual text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note that the first freedom, that which the founders believed to be most important, is the freedom of religion. The Constitution prohibited Congress from establishing a state religion of the sort found at the time in many European countries, especially England where the ruling monarch was, and remains today, the head of the established church. But it said nothing about banning religious faith from influencing political thought or action. Indeed, for true believers of any faith, religious values have a major influence on every aspect of their lives. This understanding no doubt drove the founders to add the second clause in which the government may not prohibit citizens from freely exercising their religious faith. Both religious freedom clauses are further supported by the subsequent clause that guarantees the freedom of speech. 

Because our bishops — and, yes, even priests, deacons, religious, and the faithful — are citizens, they may scream to high heaven about the gross injustice of the government’s support for the willful slaughter of the unborn. Abortion is by no means solely a religious issue. It is also moral and political, as we all saw in the last election. Politics, religion, and morality cannot and should not be separated. Religious values have always had an impact on politics. We need only consider the Ten Commandments and their place in many of the world’s legal systems. 

When I said all this to our parishioner, he just shrugged and mumbled something about disagreeing. But he apparently decided not to argue the issues with me and walked away. At first, I was pleased because his silence told me I had “won” the argument. But then I realized I had done little to change his opinion. In truth I had focused more on myself and my ability to argue effectively than on his need for conversion. We must learn to listen to Jesus and let the Holy Spirit speak through us:

“…do not be anxious how or what you are to answer or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say" [Lk 12:11-12].

I’ll have to talk with this parishioner again.

Breaking with the Left. I often must remind myself of the reality of the passage of time. For example, anyone younger than 35 really has little memory of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European puppet states. After all, by the early 1990s much of the world had been transformed. For decades all of these nations had been ruled by the iron fist of communism, an ideology that maintained power only through the application of terrorism against its own people.

The exploited and the poor, those who suffered under earlier tyrannies, had liked the sound of socialism. It seemed to provide a solution to their problems, to offer a better life, to promise a leveling that would eliminate the vast disparity among the classes. Yes, indeed, socialism, and even its more violent and oppressive manifestation in communism, sounded so very good to the uninformed. Often enough, war and revolution created the catalytic environment needed to bring about radical societal change and a total shift in the balance of power. The Soviet Union was born out of the chaos of World War One and its subsequent discord, while Communist China arose in the aftermath of World War Two. 

But once the left assumes power and the people actually experience the reality of totalitarianism, they realize their lives are controlled by a corps of elites who wield absolute power. Even after they come to understand the truth about socialism, it becomes very difficult to turn back the clock. Only when an oppressed people decide that their freedom and that of their children is more important than life itself do they rise up, cast off their chains, and overthrow the tyrants. Perhaps the people of China, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and too many other nations will someday make that decision.

Now for something a bit lighter, a wonderful fish story. 

A Goldfish Story. When I was growing up, like a lot of kids, I had a few goldfish. I managed to keep them alive, at least for a while, and I suppose the biggest ones might have grown to four or five inches long. The size of the tank seemed to be the limiting factor, so they never got much bigger. I just assumed that goldfish were by nature small fish. But the other day I was hooked by a story about a man who caught a rather large goldfish in a French lake. How large was it? A whopping 67 pounds. Here’s a photo of the UK fisherman, Andy Hackett, with his catch, a goldfish appropriately named “Carrot” by the locals. And don’t worry, after photographing his record catch, Hackett released Carrot so the remarkable fish could gain a few more pounds and continue to set new world records.

 

Bureaucracy and Courage

Here's a phrase I never expected to utter: "One cheer for Elon Musk!" Yep, I have to hand it to the Tesla architect and SpaceX pioneer who has shown us all that government bureaucracy is no friend of working people, economic growth, or the Constitution. 

Elon Musk

According to Musk, an "unelected and ignorant Interim Health Officer" of Alameda County (California), ignoring "Constitutional freedoms and just plain common sense," decided that Musk's Tesla plant should not reopen for business. Musk, so incensed about this seemingly capricious decision by a local bureaucrat, plans not only to sue the county but also to move his manufacturing operations from California to Nevada or Texas.

As expected, Musk defied the local authorities and opened the Alameda plant on Monday. It's now up and running, with Musk claiming he has joined his employees on the production line. Of course, the relevant local government agencies, when asked who was responsible for responding to this violation of the county's mandates, all pointed in different directions. The county sheriff's office, the local police, and the county health office each suggested that others should address the issue. Musk went on to state that he'll be in the plant and "if anyone is arrested, I ask that it only be me." Predictably, the county caved and will now allow the plant to open next Monday, even though it's been open all week. Go figure!

Yes, Elon Musk is controversial and more than a little odd. He claims to be "socially liberal and fiscally conservative," a far too common but contradictory blend of beliefs that betrays a lack of moral foundation. But on this issue he's absolutely correct. Can anyone really doubt his company's ability to open the Alameda plant safely? I'm pretty sure Musk's production people can run things better and more safely than most supermarkets. Our local Walmart, for example, seems to have done little to encourage safe shopping. Other than the sanitizing of shopping cart handles, I've seen few changes. It's no wonder Musk's employees (and many investors) think highly of him. Personally, if I had money to invest, which I don't, I probably wouldn't invest in Musk's companies. But if my past decisions are any guide, I'm not the best source for investment advice.

Anyhow, all of this led me to think a bit about leadership, good management, bureaucracy, and courage. Let me begin with a simple truth: when an announced policy applies to everyone without exception and under all circumstances, it ceases being a policy and becomes instead an inflexible rule. 

The problem with rules is that they do not allow for interpretation but are applied unthinkingly to every situation. Certainly, some rules are necessary. For example, no passenger on an airplane would want the pilot to fly intoxicated. Requiring a pilot to be sober is a good rule and demands little interpretation. But too often, because rules are easy to make and enforce, lazy managers prefer rules over policies. In the same way, bureaucrats and incompetent politicians deal with problems by applying the same solution regardless of geography and demographics. But such reliance on inflexible rules is driven by more than laziness or incompetence. It also indicates a lack of courage. It takes little courage to defend the application of a rule: "They disobeyed the executive order and must accept the consequences." How often have we heard such words from governors and bureaucrats?  

It's far more difficult to interpret a policy, applying it as needed to differing situations. The development, application, and interpretation of policies is hard work. The decision maker must actually seek out and listen to the varying opinions of others and be willing to change the policy as conditions change or new information arises. It also takes courage because it demands a willingness to admit mistakes, to say, "I was wrong!"

The president, through his federalist approach, has issued policy guidelines and encouraged the governors to apply them wisely to their states' unique situations. He realizes that there can be no "one size fits all" approach in a nation as large and diverse as the United States. Unfortunately, many of our state governors are far from wise and fail to understand this. One can only hope that their actions are simply the result of stupidity and not motivated by something more sinister, by motives that place political considerations above the good of the country and the lives of its citizens. 

Latest update: Musk has been talking with Texas governor, Greg Abbott. According to the governor, “I’ve had the opportunity to talk to Elon Musk and he’s genuinely interested in Texas and genuinely frustrated with California,...We’ve just got to wait and see how things play out.”

Elections and Advocacy

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

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

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

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

The memorandum concluded with a boldfaced caution:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God and Politics

I'm tired. I'm tired of the arguments, tired of defending the truth to people who should know better. Sometimes I just want to crawl into my tent, close the flap, and get away from it all. 

For example, the other day after Mass, a parishioner approached and, I guess, challenged me. I don't know why he came to me, but for some reason I was his target of opportunity.

"Religion and politics don't mix," he told me. "The Church should stay away from politics, and politicians should stay clear of religion." 

He had thrown down the gauntlet and I should have addressed the many errors in his statement, but the thought of another long argument...as I said, I'm tired. My reply? "I'm sure many people agree with you, but I'm not one of them. Maybe we can talk about it later, when I have the time." With that I turned and entered the safety of the sacristy, my tent.

As I removed my vestments I couldn't help but recall the words of St. Paul, who seems to delight in reminding me of my weaknesses:

"Do not grow slack in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, endure in affliction, persevere in prayer" [Rom 12:11-12].

In other words, "Keep going, pal. If you're not tired, you're probably not doing what you're called to do." And so I resolved to talk with that parishioner the next chance I get. 

Politics, of course, is just one of many human activities. It involves the how and why of governance, the practice of directing the affairs of human society, particularly public policy. 

Religion involves man's relationship with God, the Creator of all. And since that relationship must involve every aspect of human life, neither politics nor any other human activity can be divorced from religion. 

Some, of course, will wrongly argue that our Constitution's First Amendment is designed to do just that, to separate religion from politics. But that's not its intent. It merely tells citizens (and politicians) that the state may not favor one religious group over others by establishing a state religion. It also tells the state that it cannot prohibit its citizens from freely exercising their religious beliefs. Those who drafted our Constitution recognized the pervasive and beneficial role religion plays in regulating human activity, and sought to protect religion from those who would place unjust limitations on it.

Anyway, in the strange way my mind works, this got me thinking about World War One, and that brought to mind my Uncle Bill. He was my mother's half-brother -- I guess that makes him my half-uncle -- and was a Navy veteran of World War One. We will "celebrate" the 100th anniversary of that war's conclusion at 11 a.m. on November 11. The irony, of course, is that this "war to end all wars" and its aftermath brought us the even more devastating World War Two and all the other wars that followed. 

[By the way, if you're interested in a fascinating book about the end of World War One and the deadly and pointless fighting that continued right up to the final minute on that first Armistice Day, read Joseph Persico's fascinating book, Eleventh Month, Eleventh Day, Eleventh Hour.]

I was just a teenager when Uncle Bill died, but I remember him talking about WWI and his pride in having served. On one of our visits I recall him saying something to the effect that, "But the politicians sure made a mess of things afterwards. Maybe if they'd been more Christian…" And with those words, Uncle Bill beautifully summed up the mess the politicians made of the 20th century.  

"...if they'd been more Christian…" We suffer today because human powers decided to remove God from the political decisions that formed our modern world. God's Word was ruled out 100 years ago at Versailles. Instead of forgiveness, the ruling word was "revenge." The victors sought retaliation and reparations at any cost, and the world paid a high price indeed. The desperation of the Central Powers also sent Lenin's train to Russia, an act that ultimately cost far more innocent lives than the war itself.

I am not a pacifist. I accept that nations have a right to defend themselves from those who would attack them. I am well aware that sometimes just action can include the waging of war in order to prevent even greater evil. But when men try to repair a broken world by forgetting God and following only man's faulty wisdom, more brokenness inevitably follows.

But how many politicians actually take the Sermon on the Mount seriously? How many of us...?

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you" [Mt 5:43-44]. 

I know of no nation that has integrated this mandate of Jesus into its foreign policy. Is that what Jesus wants? Can we 
love our enemies and still defend ourselves from them? Yes, I believe so. But loving them still places demands on us, the kind of demands ignored by the victors at Versailles. And note Jesus' other command: "...pray for those who persecute you." In other words, at some point we must bring God into the picture, for that's what prayer is intended to do.

We cannot expel God from politics, war, economics, or any other human activity. He simply won't let us, and will insert Himself as He wills. He is, after all, the Lord of History. But to include Him in all we do as a nation involves far more than an annual prayer breakfast at the Capitol or the occasional speech-ending "God Bless America."  No, it means struggling to be imitators of God, to live up to our creation in His image and likeness, to strive to do what is impossible for man.

"Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Jesus concludes His teaching on loving our enemies with a  command impossible to obey, at least on our own: 

"So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect" [Mt 5:48].

To strive for this perfection that God desires of us means we must turn to Him in all things, and that even includes politics. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to vote for a politician who was striving for the perfection of our heavenly Father?

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.