Archive for the ‘Elections’ Category

My Catholic Voting Decision

Monday, October 27th, 2014

[Several years ago, in anticipation of Election Day, I posted on my personal opinion about how to approach making a voting decision.  I've revised and combined those earlier posts, because the stakes in the current election are so high -- it is vital that we maintain a pro-life majority in our state Senate.]

Once again, Election Day approaches.  At times like these, I am frequently asked how people can do the right thing as voters, as citizens, and as Catholics.  As I understand the teachings of our Church, there are several critical questions involved here. The first is the formation of my conscience.  Our bishops have said quite clearly that

“Conscience is not something that allows us to justify doing whatever we want, nor is it a mere ‘feeling’ about what we should or should not do.” (Faithful Citizenship 17)

A good, Catholic conscience is obedient to the teachings of the Church, and open to hearing the voice of God.  It considers God’s will more important than any partisan interest that I may have.  It always directs me to do good and avoid evil, and in the case of voting,

“A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, The Participation of Catholics in Political Life 4)

Building on the proper formation of conscience, we can then turn to the issues and the candidates.  One thing is crystal clear at this point:  all the issues are not the same, and the defense of human life is the paramount issue for Catholics to consider. The teaching of our Church is clear:  we must vote pro-life.  As the United States Bishops have said,

“This exercise of conscience begins with outright opposition to laws and other policies that violate human life or weaken its protection.” (Faithful Citizenship 31). “The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.” (Faithful Citizenship 28)

This means that in evaluating a candidate, we must consider, first and foremost, their position on the defense of human life.  As the U.S. Bishops have said:

“As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.” (Faithful Citizenship 42)

Our New York Bishops have said the same:

“The inalienable right to right of every innocent human person outweighs other concerns where Catholics may use prudential judgment, such as how best to meet the needs of the poor or to increase access to health care for all.” (New York State Bishops, Our Cherished Right, Our Solemn Duty)

Cardinal Egan once confronted us, in language as plain as possible,with the choice of conscience and discipleship that we face when going into the voting booth:

Look [at the pictures of unborn children] and decide with honesty and decency what the Lord expects of you and me as the horror of ‘legalized’ abortion continues to erode the honor of our nation. Look, and do not absolve yourself if you refuse to act.”

Cardinal Egan also once said,

Anyone who dares to defend that [an unborn child] may be legitimately killed because another human being ‘chooses’ to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

This also means, of course, that we have to inform ourselves about where candidates stand on the issues.  We can’t just blunder around the voting booth with no information.  And given the abundance of data available on the internet, it really doesn’t take much effort to find out about the position of candidates.  Just visit their websites, and see where they stand on abortion, “reproductive rights”, “choice”, and, in the case of New York State candidates, the “Women’s Equality Act” (which contains a provision that would greatly expand abortion in our state).  An example of an informational voter guide, from a reliable outside organization, can be found here.

So, from my perspective, this boils down to a very simple test that I try to adhere to, as best I can: If you think that killing unborn children should be legal, then I won’t vote for you. You haven’t earned my vote.  In my opinion, you’re not qualified to hold public office.  I just won’t vote for someone who will promote or permit grave evil.  I don’t subscribe to the principle of the “lesser of two evils”.  All that means is I’m voting for evil, and it still produces evil in the end.  If there’s nobody in a race that fits my standards, I’ll leave the line blank or write in a name.

When I pick up my ballot on Tuesday, I will see a stark choice between candidates who are pro-abortion, and others who are pro-life.  In fact, several of the pro-abortion candidates (who were baptized as Catholics, sad to say) are not just mouthing the old “personally opposed but…” sham, but are instead ardent promoters and defenders of the legalized killing of unborn children, and they have strongly campaigned on the issue.  If they are elected, there is a grave danger that the evil abortion expansion plan hidden in the “Women’s Equality Act” will be pushed forward. I cannot see how I as a Catholic could vote for such persons.

So for me, the choice is easy — I will vote only for the pro-life candidates.

(Important Note: I am going to repeat what is said in the disclaimer on the side of this blog — the opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone, they do not in any way reflect an official position of the Archdiocese, nor should they be considered an endorsement of any candidate by the Archdiocese.)

Say “No” to Gambling in New York

Wednesday, October 30th, 2013

A ballot measure will come before New York voters on Election Day, asking us whether we will approve a constitutional amendment to permit an expansion of gambling in our state.  The Bishops of New York State have issued a clear statement on this initiative, urging us to consider all the relevant factors in deciding how to vote on this matter.

I have done as our Bishops have asked.  Speaking just for myself (and not in my capacity as an official of the Archdiocese), I strongly urge voters to reject this amendment.

The idea is being touted by state officials as a way to enhance government revenue and increase jobs.  In fact, the measure would just increase compulsive gambling, impose an unfair regressive tax on poor people, and further coarsen our culture by encouraging improvidence, wasteful spending, and vice.

Once you get past the propaganda and deceptions put out by the euphemistically-named “gaming industry”, you can see that gambling is a bad deal for New York, and that there was a reason that everyone once considered gambling to be a vice to be suppressed, not a form of entertainment to be encouraged.

Two recent scholarly studies (see here and here) summarize the negative social effects of gambling, particularly as it will impact New York.  Among their findings:

  • A modern slot machine is a sophisticated computer, engineered to create fast, continuous, and repeat betting.
  • Modern slot machines are carefully designed to ensure that the longer you play, the more you lose — and virtually everyone loses in the short and long run.
  • Modern slot machines are highly addictive — and are designed that way, to attract young video-game players into a more expensive “hobby”.
  • Problem gambling is more widespread than many casino industry leaders claim — far more than the 1% of the population claimed by the industry.
  • Problem gambling affects families and communities as well as individuals — the costs include financial hardships, burdensome debt, loan defaults, fraud, bankruptcy, loss of a business or home, sometimes total destitution, neglect of family and children, the diversion of money from productive to wasteful spending.
  • The benefits of casinos are short-term and easy to measure while many of their costs are longer-term and harder to measure — just ask yourself how Atlantic City is doing these days.
  • State sponsorship of casinos is a policy contributing to patterns of inequality in America — low-income workers, retirees, minorities, and disabled people make up a disproportionately large share of casino patrons, which only increases their economic hardships.
  • This doesn’t even include the awful corrupting effect on our political culture from the massive expenditures by the “gaming industry” to politicians — creating a repulsive marketplace for “legal graft” and back-room influence peddling in our state capital.  Or the deliberate and deceptive slanting of the language of the ballot initiative, in a transparent attempt to gull people into supporting it.  If you have a strong stomach, check out the recent report outlines the sordid political deals that have brought us to this point.

    In their report, “New York’s Promise: Why Sponsoring Casinos is a Regressive Policy Unworthy of a Great State”, the Institute for American Values asks a very pointed question about this ballot initiative:

    The question for New York is a simple one. Is this who we are?

    The answer should be a resounding “No!”  We are better than this.  We should not be wasteful, improvident, and exploitative.  We should not allow any powerful industry to prey upon weaknesses, nor should we allow our government and politicians to profit from them.  We should protect people and their families from vice and addiction.

    Please, for the sake of the soul of our state, and the lives of our fellow citizens.  Vote “No” on New York State Proposal One on Election Day.

    The View from Under the Bus

    Monday, December 3rd, 2012

    After the election, we have seen much discussion about why the Republican Party lost the Presidential election and failed to pick up some initially-promising Senate seats.  One of the proposals that we hear often is that the GOP should jettison “social conservatives”, or at least declare a “truce” on “social issues” like abortion and the re-definition of marriage.

    Far be it from me to give advice to the sage experts who have piloted the GOP to such electoral triumphs.  Nor is it my business to get involved in political strategy for a party that I am not even a member of.

    The reason I am interested in this question is that we are starting to hear a similar idea from pro-lifers — a sense that the political mission of our movement has either failed, or reached a final impasse, and that we need to re-direct our energies away from the political and public policy arenas, and focus instead on a more cultural approach to defending and promoting life.

    I think this is a fundamental mis-diagnosis of the current state of things in our nation, and it falsely sets up an unnecessary either/or, zero-sum choice.

    The current state of the pro-life movement’s political and public policy status depends on where you are standing.  Obviously, things may seem quite bleak in a place like New York City, which is essentially a one-party state dominated by a Democratic party that is almost completely dedicated to hard-line pro-abortion policies.  But that view can be deceptive.  In other areas of New York State, there is a functioning GOP that is at least theoretically supportive of pro-life policies, and there are still some staunch pro-life Democrats around.  The picture here in New York is quite daunting, there’s no doubt about it — but it’s certainly not time to throw in the towel.

    Of course, New York is not all of America (it’s not even part of the real world, but that’s another issue).  If you were standing in Oklahoma, Texas, North Dakota, Florida, South Carolina, or many other states, the picture would be much more encouraging.  Many public officials and candidates in those states proudly proclaim their pro-life views, and they have passed common-sense pro-life laws, like parental notification, informed consent, and abortion clinic regulations.  In fact, the public policy and political successes of our movement on the state level have proven to be a consternation to the pro-abortion forces, who continually complain about how many laws we have been able to pass.

    At a time when our movement is making progress on the state and local level, it’s no time to declare defeat — or a “truce”.

    But it’s more than a mere question of how many bills are passed, or how many candidates are willing to say they’re “pro-life”.  We’re engaged in a battle over our culture, which means that we’re striving to convert the hearts and minds of our brothers and sisters.  Our goal is not just to make abortion illegal, but to make it unthinkable.

    In this kind of struggle, it would be folly to abandon an entire field of the contest. The real question isn’t “politics or culture”, as if we can only work on one thing at a time.  Our challenge is to get better at transforming both.

    We absolutely need to ramp up our efforts to provide assistance to expectant mothers and fathers in crisis — that’s ground zero in the struggle to eliminate abortion.  We definitely need to offer more resources for those who are suffering the aftermath of abortion.  We have to reverse the anti-life, anti-chastity messages of our media, which create a climate of sexual adventurism and a contraceptive mentality.  All these are legitimate areas for the pro-life movement to improve and enhance our work.

    But law and politics are part of culture too.  They affect public opinion and shape private actions.  There is a growing body of opinion, especially among young people, that our nation has gone too far on abortion — that it’s a disgrace that 41% of New York City pregnancies end in abortion (the numbers are even worse in the African-American community), that horrifically unsafe abortion clinics are allowed to maim and kill women with impunity, that parents are excluded from their children’s key decisions about abortion and contraception, that handicapped children are routinely aborted, and that women are not being presented with all the choices available to them.

    Fewer and fewer people are satisfied with our country having the most liberal abortion laws in the world, and with a political, media and cultural “elite” who are so degraded that they think this is a good thing.

    There is a quiet cultural and political revolution on the way.  Our young brethren will lead it.  This is no time to end the struggle over abortion in the public square.

    It’s time to stand firm.

    Advice from General Grant

    Thursday, November 8th, 2012

    There’s no way to sugar-coat it.  The results of the election were very bad for those of us who are committed to pro-life, marriage and religious liberty:

  • The re-election of the President, who made his 100% anti-life agenda a centerpiece of his campaign, and who will now have no incentive to back away from his HSS mandate that violates our religious liberty.
  • Defeats for authentic marriage in four separate state ballot initiatives — with marriage being redefined in Maryland, Maine and Washington, and the defense of marriage defeated in Minnesota.
  • The defeat of two ballot initiatives in Florida — one to deny public funding for abortion and one to repeal a nineteenth century anti-Catholic provision (a so-called Blaine Amendment) in their state constitution.
  • There were, on the other hand, some signs of encouragement:

  • The people defeated (narrowly) an initiative in Massachusetts that would have legalized physician assisted suicide.
  • There remains a pro-life majority in the House of Representatives.
  • But on the whole, it was a bad evening for the causes that we hold most dear.

    Many people are reacting to this event with dismay and discouragement.  Blame is being freely thrown around, and people are even talking about giving up and abandoning the “social issues” in the public square.

    At times like these, I’m reminded of Gen. Ulysses Grant, after the Battle of Spotsylvania in May 1864.  He had recently taken over command of the Union armies, and they had just endured two grueling, bloody battles in northern Virginia.  The battles did not produce the decisive victory that Grant was hoping for, and there was sure to be political pressure on him as a result.  Union casualties were high, and everyone expected him to retreat and regroup.

    Instead, Grant gave the order to advance, and penned his famous line, “I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer”.

    The battle of the Culture of Life against the Culture of Death is a long, twilight struggle that will go on for our entire lives.  It is fundamentally a spiritual battle (see Eph 6:12).  It is a contest for the hearts and souls of individuals, and thus our culture, and our laws.  It is not decided by one election, or one defeat, or even one victory.  There is no room for defeatism or despair.  We need to fight with confidence in the Holy Spirit, and determination to carry on, no matter what.

    Will you join me in taking General Grant’s advice?  Because I certainly propose to continue the fight.

    Dividing the Body

    Sunday, October 14th, 2012

    The hyper-partisan state of contemporary American politics poses a significant threat to the unity of the Church.  And we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

    It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that politics is inherently partisan.  That’s the nature of the animal.  Having clear distinctions between parties is in many ways a useful and efficient way to structure the public policy debate, and to organize a government.  Principled disagreement is a healthy way to carry on a constructive dialogue about policies.  And, certainly, no democracy can function without a healthy party system — just look at the deplorable state of politics in New York City.

    But the modern obsession with politics has gone beyond a healthy debate about which policies are to be preferred, and which will work better to address social problems.  During this hotly-contested election, it seems now that all issues and all relationships are being colored by whether one is a Republican or Democrat,  or whether one favors or opposes the re-election of the President.

    This partisanship, which was reserved to the political arena, has invaded private life, and is intruding upon the Church.  People are being drummed out of the Church as not “real Catholics” because they show insufficient partisan zeal, or because they propose showing civility to one candidate or another, or because they suggest that one can vote for a candidate other than a Republican or Democrat.  And that is very dangerous.

    Look, I know very well that there is a lot at stake in this election — and I’m not even talking about pragmatic issues like economic and foreign policy. The policies of the current Administration are deeply anti-life — they aggressively promote abortion at home and abroad, undermine the authentic definition of marriage, carry out a program of aggressive warfare that recklessly kills civilians, and are openly and actively hostile to religious liberty.  I cannot personally imagine any “proportional reason” that would justify voting in favor of a candidate who supports so many intrinsically evil policies. (Remember, this is my personal opinion, not an official statement of the Archdiocese)

    But, no matter how significant this election is, the winners and losers are all mere flashes in the pan, here today and gone tomorrow, and their platforms are passing ephemera that nobody will remember in a short time. There are few things as dated and time-bound as partisan politics.

    The Church, the Body of Christ, is an entirely different matter.  She is eternal, and her mission transcends any temporary partisan election that divides people.  The Church continues Christ mission of calling all people to himself in unity through the Holy Spirit.  Factionalism in the Church has been a problem from the earliest day — just read Paul’s letters to the Corinthians.  But in any age, factions and divisions deeply wound the Church.

    I am a political wonk.  Election Day is my Super Bowl.  I read political news compulsively.  But I constantly have to remind myself that, as Pope Benedict once wrote:

    The state is not the whole of human existence and does not encompass all human hope. Man and what he hopes for extend beyond the framework of the state and beyond the sphere of political action.

    All people thirst for the divine, and politics cannot satisfy that need.  Only God, through the instrument of the Church, can provide the answer.  Before any political affiliation, electoral interest, or policy preference, we are Christians, members of Christ’s Body.  And we must never let any partisan politics divide the Church in any way that would diminish her ability to draw all people to God.

    Controversies and Dinners

    Tuesday, August 7th, 2012

    There is a controversy brewing in Catholic and pro-life circles over reports that the President has been invited to attend the annual Al Smith Dinner here in New York.  In my opinion, people need to take a deep breath, relax a second, and think carefully about this.

    It’s important first to understand what the Al Smith Dinner is, and is not, and then what the invitation means, and what it does not.

    The Al Smith Dinner is organized and hosted by the Alfred E. Smith Foundation, which is closely affiliated with but independent of the Archdiocese of New York.  It’s named after Governor Al Smith, an iconic figure in New York politics, who dedicated his life to serving the people of the state, particularly the needy.  He was a classic urban machine politician, but was also committed to working with others across party lines when he saw that it was in the public interest.  He was always proud of his Catholic faith and he defended the Church against attacks against religious bigotry.  He was certainly well familiar with anti-Catholicism, since his own faith was brutally attacked during his run for the Presidency in 1928.

    The dinner is not a religious event in any way — it’s a civic/political event that raises money for Catholic charitable institutions.  It’s not held at a religious building — it’s at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel.  It has no religious component aside from a benediction and closing prayer — much like sessions of Congress.  A large proportion of the people who attend the Dinner are not Catholic, and the list of past speakers shows that only once in its almost 70-year history has a religious figure given the keynote address (Cardinal O’Connor).

    The dinner has a long tradition of inviting New York elected officials of all parties, and candidates of both major parties for the Presidency.  It is strictly non-partisan, and an invitation to the dinner is in no way an endorsement of any office holder, or any candidate for office.

    It’s also important that the politicians who speak at the dinner are not being given any honor or award by the Church, but are rather delivering an address that is one part jocular remarks written by professional jokesters, and two-parts generic political after-dinner bromides.  Any comparison between the Al Smith Dinner and the honorary degree given to the President at Notre Dame’s graduation ceremony is thus completely off-the-mark.

    Everybody at the dinner understands this — it’s a civic event, much like a Veteran’s Day parade (but with a fancier menu and white tie).

    Some people have been saying that inviting the President in some way undermines or contradicts the Church’s public witness in defense of life and the family.  There is no question that the President’s political agenda and policy record are deplorable from a Catholic perspective — he is consistently anti-life and is ardent in his promotion and support of abortion, he is in favor of re-defining marriage, he opposes parental choice in education, his Administration is a consistent enemy of religious freedom, and there is good reason to believe that he has dealt with our bishops in less than good faith.

    Give the consistency and strength with which our bishops — particularly Cardinal Dolan — have been proclaiming the Catholic view of public policy, it is hard to see how this one Dinner could possibly lead anyone to believe that the Church is softening her defense of life, the family, and religious liberty.  When everyone wakes up the morning after, the struggle will resume.

    But, as a matter of fact, an invitation to the current incumbent President to the Al Smith Dinner actually sends a message, one that is important in this time of pathologically toxic politics.  It says to us that we can vehemently disagree with a public official’s positions, but we can still show respect for his office, and for him as a person, and treat him with civility.  It gives us an opportunity to act as Christians, and show some love to our adversaries, and even those whose policies we consider to be immoral and oppressive. After all, even St. Peter told us to “honor the emperor” (1 Pet 2:17).

    The message is also that we can set aside our deeply-held differences and leave the partisan politics at the door for an evening, speak nicely and politely to each other, and work together for a common cause in the service of the poor.  That’s a good thing, something that Al Smith would have been proud to associate himself with, and something that Catholics and pro-lifers should also support.

     

    Note:  Some bloggers and other news sources have linked to this blog post, and have said that it is a statement by “the Archdiocese”.  Please read the sidebar to this blog: “The opinions expressed by the Bloggers… are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Archdiocese of New York”.  These comments are not an official statement by the Archdiocese or the Cardinal — they represent my opinions, and mine alone.  Clear?  Okay, fire away — but in a civil way, please.

    Varia

    Friday, November 12th, 2010

    The following are some of the highlights from the daily email briefing about news and events, which  I send out to some of my friends and contacts (if you’re interested in subscribing to the daily mailing, leave your email address in the comments box):

  • Msgr. Charles Pope of Washington makes clear that abortion is not a political issue.
  • Contrary to the media presentation, Americans are actually surprisingly united on moral issues.  Hence Knights of Columbus Supreme Knight Carl Anderson’s new book: Beyond a House Divided. Here’s Kathryn Jean Lopez’s interview with the Supreme Knight.
  • USCCB’s staff, including pro-life ace Richard Doerflinger, give an outlook on the new Congress.
  • New Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christie vetoed three bills the other day, with the effect of de-funding the Temple of Moloch, er, I mean Planned Parenthood.
  • The Times recognizes that miscarriage can leave a psychological effect.  Of course, they continue to deny that abortion does so too.  Meanwhile, Prof. Michael New provides an important response to a biased news report that denied the mental health effects of abortion on women.  Why won’t they just listen to post-abortive women?
  • No doubt realizing that the democratic process won’t give them what they want, same-sex “marriage” activists turn to our Black-Robed Platonic Guardian Rulers on the courts, and file more challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act.
  • A quirky ad campaign in the UK to keep Christ in Christmas features a sonogram picture of a baby with a halo, and the message “He’s on His Way”.  Naturally, all the usual suspects are taking umbrage.
  • Today is the anniversary of the day on which former fetus Harry Blackmun emerged from the penumbras and emanations of his mother’s womb and became a “person” with rights which people are bound to respect.  He was destined to serve as one of our worst-ever Black-Robed Platonic Guardian Rulers on the Supreme Court.  His execrable decision in Roe v. Wade doomed millions of his fellow human beings to death.
  • Election Results

    Sunday, November 7th, 2010

    Gallons of ink, and millions of electrons, have been spilled on the results of last week’s election, and what it means for our nation, our state, the political fortunes of the President and a host of other presidential contenders, our new-fangled voting machines, etc.

    I’m more interested in real results.

    On the national level, the switch of control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans has brought with it a pro-life majority. The narrowing of the Democratic majority in the Senate also increases the chances for some pro-life legislation. These election results present new opportunities for real gains on Culture of Life issues.

    The top priority has to be passing the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. Currently, restrictions on public funding for abortion comes through piecemeal amendments to the budget bills. This means that pro-lifers have to be vigilant about all the various ways that canny legislators and bureaucrats can find to promote abortion. So, the Hyde Amendment restricts funding through the Medicaid program, the Helms Amendment stops funding for oversees abortions, the Smith Amendment prevents federal employee health insurance plans from covering abortion, and the Weldon Amendment provides conscience protection to medical personnel. Each year, these amendments have to be passed against the opposition of pro-abortion members of Congress.

    This bill would take the provisions of these individual amendments, make them permanent law, and apply them across the entire federal budget. This would cure the major flaw in the health care reform law, as well as offer genuine and solid conscience protection for all medical personnel. This is a bill that would easily pass the House, and has a decent chance of passing the Senate — public funding for abortion is deeply unpopular.  It would be very interesting to see what our pro-abortion President would do if this bill appeared on his desk.

    That’s one result of the elections that we’re looking forward to.

    On the state level, the results of the election are not as positive. Our state has elected an ardently pro-abortion Governor and a radically pro-abortion Attorney General. Both men have committed to pressing for the passage of the extremist Reproductive Health Act. The chaos over the results of the elections for the State Senate (the final outcome is still in doubt) leaves Culture of Life supporters with a deep sense of uneasiness that the real result of the state elections could be very, very bad. So, we must remain vigilant in monitoring what goes on in Albany.

    Perhaps the most interesting result of the election is the continuing demonstration of the popularity of the pro-life position. Conventional “wisdom” characterizes a pro-life stand as an electoral loser, and encourages candidates to avoid it. Conventional wisdom is dead wrong.   Polls show that 30% of the voters in this election said that abortion “affected” their vote. But it’s the breakdown of that 30% that’s most interesting — 22% voted for pro-life candidates, while only 8% voted for pro-abortion candidates. That’s an advantage of almost three to one in favor of life.

    This reflects an on-going trend that I’ve written about but that continues to elude the mainstream media. Our culture is slowly changing towards greater respect for life, and a greater desire to promote life. The new pro-life majority in Congress is just one reflection of this trend. More will follow.

    That is a very encouraging result of the election.

    Varia

    Friday, November 5th, 2010

    The following are some of the highlights from the daily email briefing about news and events, which  I send out to some of my friends and contacts (if you’re interested in subscribing to the daily mailing, leave your email address in the comments box):

  • Pro-life leaders reflect on the outlook for the new Congress.  The top priority is the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
  • A pretty good overview by George Marlin on Catholics and the midterm elections.  See also this interesting statistical study of the trends over the last decade.
  • Amidst the (justified) cheering in this post-election press release from National Right to Life is an important poll result that needs to be shown to every pro-life candidate:  voters who considered abortion to have affected their vote (30%!) broke 22% to 8% pro-life — a 14% advantage for a pro-life candidate.  Not only is it the right position, but it is a winning position.
  • You also need to hear what the other side is saying — they know they lost big in the House.  NARAL says that 248 members of the new House are “anti-choice”, only 154 are “pro-choice”, and 33 are “mixed”, a gain of 44 pro-life votes.  They also realize that our top priority will be the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.  (Sorry for the link to one of Moloch’s favorite organizations — sprinkle holy water on your monitor after you’ve looked at the article).
  • Yet another example of how the health care law can lead to public funding for abortion on demand — through the decisions of state officials implementing the law.  It may also lead to a nation-wide requirement that insurance companies pay for contraceptives (including the ones like IUD’s that cause early abortions).
  • The Secretary of State vows to fight against sex slavery and human trafficking.  This scourge against the human person needs to be eradicated completely.  Good for her.
  • An encouraging profile of the new, more pro-life “Generation Y”.  The trend is for life.
  • This is how bad the threat to religious liberty has become in the UK — a couple is barred from being foster parents because of their belief that homosexual behavior is wrong.  Even bishops of the Church of England are critical of this decision.  Coming soon to the US, no doubt.
  • Check out this great animated video of conception to birth.   Should be required viewing in every school.
  • 40 Days for Life has now concluded.  They know of at least 541 babies saved by the grace of God.  Here’s the story of one of them.
  • A very disturbing story about fertility colonialism — where rich Westerners go to poor countries to use their women as surrogates.
  • A disappointing story — a leak of contents from President Bush’s memoirs reveals that he personally approved the torturing of prisoners by waterboarding.  If done by a private party, that would be a crime.
  • Ethical investors, including Christian Brothers Investment, strike back at the cable industry’s distribution of porn.
  • The Feast of Christ the King

    Monday, November 1st, 2010

    On this Sunday before Election Day, we celebrate the Thirty-First Sunday in Ordinary Time in the new calendar.  But in the traditional calendar, which is used for the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (the Traditional Latin Mass), today is the Feast of Christ the King.

    This is no coincidence.  One of the chief dangers of the modern world, in my opinion, is the excessive emphasis on politics and the government as the focus of all our attention, as if they are the answer to all our problems and aspirations.  This can turn into a dangerous form of idolatry — “statolatry”, if you will.

    The Feast of Christ the King is a healthy reminder to us Christians that we cannot fall into this way of thinking.  Pope Benedict, in his book Church, Ecumenism and Politics, had this to say about the early Christians, who faced the “statolatry” of Rome, but the situation in many ways equally applies to our times:

    The state is not the whole of human existence and does not encompass all human hope. Man and what he hopes for extend beyond the framework of the state and beyond the sphere of political action. This is true not only for a state like Babylon, but for every state. The state is not the totality; this unburdens the politician and at the same time opens up for him the path of reasonable politics. The Roman state was wrong and anti-Christian precisely because it wanted to be the totality of human possibilities and hopes. A state that makes such claims cannot fulfill its promises; it thereby falsifies and diminishes man. Through the totalitarian lie it becomes demonic and tyrannical.

    The world-view of Christians instead holds up authentic hope for man, and allows us to be authentically human and to live in a good way in this world.  As Pope Benedict says:

    The Christian faith destroyed the myth of the divine state, the myth of the earthly paradise or utopian state and of a society without rule. In its place it put the objectivity of reason… True human objectivity involves humanity, and humanity involves God. True human reason involves morality, which lives on God’s commandments. This morality is not a private matter; it has public significance. Without the good of being good and of good action, there can be no good politics. What the persecuted Church prescribed for Christians as the core of their political ethos must also be the core of an active Christian politics: only where good is done and is recognized as good can people live together well in a thriving community. Demonstrating the practical importance of the moral dimension, the dimension of God’s commandments — publicly as well — must be the center of responsible political action.

    And so, as we Americans are about to head to the polls at the end of a seemingly all-consuming political campaign, the traditional liturgical calendar reminds us of the larger picture.  We cannot find our ultimate hope and fulfillment in politics, in who rules us, or what laws are passed.

    The real ruler of the world and our lives is not the temporary office holder who happens to inhabit the White House or the Governor’s mansion, a seat in the Senate or the House, or any other position of secular power.

    The real ruler of our world is Christ the King, and we are his subjects.  It is in Him, and only Him, in whom we can find authentic hope and fulfillment.

    Viva Cristo Rey!