A Catholic's Gratitude for Barack Obama

Yesterday, November 22, was Thanksgiving Day in America.  This a day that has been set aside for all Americans to pause and give thanks for the blessings in our lives.  Originally it was to give thanks to our Creator, but since it is now basically against the law to mention Divinity in public, I guess we're suppose to just sort of thank each other.  But in recent years even giving thanks on this day has become moot.  Thanksgiving has become a time to watch football and/or go to to the mall and stand in line for Black Friday so we can get an iPad or flat screen TV really cheap.

Shoppers camping out at mall on Thanksgiving Day

The point of this post is not to lament the loss of the meaning of Thanksgiving and what that says about the sad state of our culture. That's for another time.  Notwithstanding what much of the rest of the nation does, I still like to use this day as originally intended and thank my Creator for all the many, many blessings I have received.  I thank Him for my faith, for my family and friends, for the fact that I still have a job in this economy, for the fact that we did not suffer the ravages of Hurricane Sandy as so many did here in the Northeast.  And I also thank God for the re-election of Barack Obama as President of the United States.

Oh yes, you read that correctly.  I, a serious Catholic who loves my faith above all else in my life, am grateful for President Barack Obama, an avowed enemy of the Catholic Church and everything that is holy and sacred.   I am saying that the re-election of Barack Obama, while not a good thing for Catholics, was absolutely necessary if any part of our Church is going to survive in this once great nation.

Before you decide that I have completely lost my mind and move to something else, read on a bit.  Up until the election of Barack Obama, most Catholics, and specifically our bishops and priests, sort of sat back and let things happen.  Our nation legalized the killing of our babies in 1973.  There has been outrage here and there, and admittedly many good Catholic groups were raised up to fight this terrible evil such as the Priests for Life and the Sisters of Life, but for the most part we rarely heard about this holocaust from our pulpits.  The vast, vast majority of Catholics (well over 90%) used birth control, yet next to nothing was said about this.  Millions of Catholics were living together without benefit of marriage, but silence pretty much reigned supreme on this subject as well.  

Militant homosexuals were gaining ground and making themselves accepted by general society, and not only was little being said, but to the contrary, a fair number of Catholic Churches were proudly proclaiming themselves "inclusive" and welcoming sexually active homosexuals into their parishes.  The Church did get what should have been a wake-up call when the sexual abuse crisis hit.  She was forced to admit that there were renegade clergy in her ranks, but nothing much changed in her message to the faithful and the rest of the world.  The vast majority in the Church quietly continued along on what seemed to be a path of self destruction.

Father Frank Pavone

Then came Barack Obama, put into office by the Catholic vote in 2008.  There were most definitely voices from the Church warning us of the danger in doing so.  I remember a Youtube video from Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life the day after the 2008 election in which he gave us a very dire warning:

Barack Obama has been elected the new president of the United States, and this is one of the biggest mistakes that the American people have made in the entire history of our nation.

And the many reasons why that's true, will come to light as the months go on. But the biggest reason why that's true, is that here, we have a president elect who cannot tell the difference between serving the public and killing the public.

He is, as you know, the most ardent supporter of the so called 'Right to Abortion', in an unrestricted way, throughout all nine months of pregnancy for any reason, or no reason at all. This is the man who said, 'I don't know when human rights are attached to a baby.' Well if you don't know when human rights begin, you're in no position to govern a country that was founded on the principle of human rights.

We saw how prophetic Father Pavone was when newly sworn-in President Obama's first executive order was to overturn the Mexico City policy put into effect by President Ronald Reagan, and allow funding for overseas abortion.  This was only the first of hundreds of actions on the part of the Obama administration in promoting abortion and other intrinsic evils.  The crowning achievement of the Obama administration is Obamacare, which allows, nay enforces federal funding of contraception, sterilization and abortion.  Of course this bill also requires all employers to provide, via insurance coverage, free contraception and morning after pills to their employees regardless of the employer's personal beliefs.  We must not forget that Obama is also our first president to openly support homosexual rights and same sex marriage.

We have seen the bishops come fully awake under President Barack Obama.  They have had no choice but to acknowledge to the world that the Catholic Church is under siege from the government.  Unlike the 2008 election, bishop after bishop has been announcing from the pulpit that Catholics cannot vote for politicians who openly support abortion and other intrinsically evil practices.  Because of the HHS Mandate, the bishops have been forced to talk about birth control, some for the first time in their ministries.  They have to tell the faithful and the rest of the world that the Catholic church views birth control as evil and that use of it endangers the salvation of souls.

Here is a screenshot from pewsitter.com from just before the election, showing several headlines about bishops warning of voting for Barack Obama:

Bishop John Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois

Our bishops are now talking about salvation and sin and even hell, subjects that seemed to have been taboo and forgotten by large portions of the Church for the last decades.  We are hearing about the need to make our faith and our Savior the central point of our lives.  Bishops are taking responsibility for the grave crisis we have seen in the Church in the last decades.  In a response to the HHS Mandate back in April 2012, Timothy Cardinal Dolan made a huge admission:

In a frank interview with the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who heads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and is increasingly being billed as America’s leading Catholic cleric, says the Church has failed to communicate its moral teachings in the area of sexuality. He says further that the fault lies with Church leaders.

“I’m not afraid to admit that we have an internal catechetical challenge—a towering one—in convincing our own people of the moral beauty and coherence of what we teach. That’s a biggie,” said Dolan.

“We have gotten gun-shy . . . in speaking with any amount of cogency on chastity and sexual morality,” he added.

The Church’s own failure to communicate its teachings on contraception has been one of the leading tools used against it in its fight against Obama’s mandate, with critics repeatedly pointing out that the majority of Catholic women are using some form of contraception.

Cardinal Dolan

There is the recent speech given at the Bishops' Conference by Cardinal Dolan in which he did not specifically mention the war being waged by President Obama against the church, but Cardinal Dolan did say that in response to these times in which there are so many lapsed Catholics, we need to once again emphasize the Sacrament of Penance, starting with the Bishops themselves, as a pathway to reconversion. As he said at the end of his speech:

With this as my presidential address, I know I risk the criticism. I can hear it now: "With all the controversies and urgent matters for the Church, Dolan spoke of conversion of heart through the Sacrament of Penance. Can you believe it?"

To which I reply, "You better believe it!"

First things first!

This theme was very much echoed by Cardinal Charles Chaput of Philadelphia in which he said that "Being a Saint is the Only Thing that Matters".  As the Cardinal stated:

“More than 70 million Americans describe themselves as Catholics. But for all practical purposes, they’re no different from everybody else in their views, their appetites and their behaviors.”

Cardinal Chaput went on to say that Catholics need to get back to basics:

“So we need to ask ourselves: What do I want my life to mean? If I claim to be a Catholic, can I prove it with the patterns of my life? When do I pray? How often do I seek out the Sacrament of Penance? What am I doing for the poor? How am I serving the needy? Do I really know Jesus Christ?”

“Who am I leading to the Church? How many young people have I asked to consider a vocation? How much time do I spend sharing about God with my spouse, my children and my friends? How well and how often do I listen for God’s will in my own life?”

One of the most important results of Barack Obama's re-election as president is that more and more Catholics are realizing that our salvation, both physical and spiritual, is not in politics, as shown in this editorial from catholicculture.org entitled "The End of Pro Life Politics.  As Dr. Jeff Mirus writes:

Have we as pro-life Catholics been wrong to invest the lion’s share of our time, talent and energy in the political battle against abortion over the past forty years? Or even if we have not been wrong the whole time, are we wrong now? Perhaps it is obvious that I believe the answer is yes. It ought to be clear by now that Western culture is insufficiently healthy to sustain a political solution to abortion. Therefore, it is counter-productive to pour our resources into the effort to achieve such a solution. We must use our resources far more wisely than that.

Dr. Mirus writes:

The time has come to admit the obvious and, in consequence, to speak the unspeakable. Is it not clear now that the social order as we know it in the West is utterly incapable of sustaining successful pro-life politics? The evidence is overwhelming. First, there is again the remarkable lack of success over the past forty years despite the staggering resources expended in the cause. Second, in the United States at least, this lack of success seems to conflict with polls that repeatedly show a majority of voters to prefer restrictions on abortion—which proves that such voters do not regard abortion as significant enough to influence their votes. Third, as indicated at the outset, the number of other serious social and political challenges which have so rapidly emerged in recent years are clear signs that our mainstream culture has problems far deeper than a disagreement about how to handle the question of legal abortion.

It is no longer satisfactory—in fact I would say it is disingenuous—to stress (for example, in response to the Obama juggernaut) that we simply need to go back to the trenches and mobilize more people and more resources in the same political effort next time around. Twenty-five years ago this seemed to make sense. Ten years ago people were reluctant to suggest that it did not. Today, anybody who thinks this is a reasonable response to the problems we face either has his head in the sand or possesses a vested interest in the economic viability of one or more of the many pro-life organizations which—almost certainly through no great fault of their own—simply cannot succeed.

What does Dr. Mirus see as the proper response to the evil surrounding us and the persecution of the Catholic Church?

Personally, I do not see this as cause for alarm, just as I do not see it as anything new. I think, rather, that we are just beginning to see our situation as it really is, after a generation and more of intense confusion over the signs of the times. This misreading of the signs has unfortunately caused us to waste enormous amounts of energy fighting not so much for Christ as for political outcomes which cannot be sustained without Christ. This does not mean that we must despair, though we are very likely in for a rough time. Nor does it mean, obviously, that we are absolved from voting morally. But it does mean that we ought to expend our greatest energies elsewhere, in widespread efforts to strengthen the Church, to develop our own Christian subculture complete with vibrant intermediary institutions, to evangelize our neighbors, and to offer practical service to any and all who, increasingly ill-served by a bureaucratic pagan State, may turn to us in their need.

This is, in fact, exactly what Christians had to do in the early centuries of the Church (and what they must never fail to do at any time, even when things happen to be going better politically). In other words, the answer to the disturbing question with which I opened this essay is clear. This is not the time to place the emphasis on politics, any more than it was time for politics when Karol Wojtyla was growing up in Poland. This is the time for Faith and family, evangelization and the formation of Christian culture.

This is not the time to waste immense resources and energies on political efforts which our larger Western culture cannot possibly sustain. It is rather a time to grow in Faith, evangelize those around us, and form vibrant local cultures which draw our neighbors into the light of Christ.

The re-election of Barack Obama has forced the Catholic Church to face reality with no place to hide.  Our enemy is firmly in control.  The GOP has made it it quite clear that they are no longer going to fight, if they ever did. The war started by Barack Obama against the Catholic Church will continue unabated and for all intents and purposes, unopposed by the Republicans.  As Politico told us two days after the election:

House Speaker John Boehner made it official Thursday: Obamacare isn’t going anywhere.

In an interview with ABC News, Boehner seemed to suggest the election ended any efforts to wipe out the whole law. When “World News” anchor Diane Sawyer asked if there would be any more votes to repeal the law, Boehner said “the election changes that” and “Obamacare is the law of the land.”

If Mitt Romney had defeated Barack Obama, many Catholics would have heaved a sigh of relief with the belief that we will live to see another day.  We would have comforted ourselves with the thought that Romney would appoint the right judges to the Supreme Court who would make everything right.  God would come back into the public square.  The HHS Mandate would be lifted, and the Catholic Church could once again go about her business unimpeded.  In other words, we could put the blinders back on as to the real condition of the nation and our Church.

An Obama administration leave us with nowhere to hide and forces us to face our own spiritual nakedness.  We need to acknowledge and repent of the fact that the problems we as a Church face in 2012 are largely the result of both our own actions and inactions of the last 50 years   Catholics are realizing that while Barack Obama is the face of our enemy, our real fight is not against him.  Our fight is against our own disbelief and rejection of Church teachings, our lack of dependence upon and faith in our Savior, Jesus Christ, and our indifference to the sin in our lives and our lack of repentance for it.  The solutions to our problems are spiritual, not political.

The message we are getting from our bishops and other leading voices in the Church is that the answer to the spiritual crisis in which we find ourselves is to rediscover our Catholic roots. We need to become Catholics again.

The best days of the United States are behind us.  We are headed for very dark and troubling times. The Culture of Death is firmly ensconced in our nation and our entire world, and all those who oppose it will be persecuted.  The Obama administration is not the cause of the great evil that we face but the symbol of it. As the Apostle Paul told us 2000 years ago:

For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.  (Ephesians 6:12)

Barack Obama has galvanized the Church in a way no one and nothing else has been able to do and made us realize that we are in the fight of our lives, both physically and spiritually.  And that is why I as a Catholic am thankful for Barack Obama.

Pray for our bishops and priests that they will have the courage and fortitude to stand up to the evil that we all face, and pray for your own soul as well.  St. Paul gave us our marching orders in Ephesians 6:13-18:

Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.

¡Viva Cristo Rey! ¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!

Vote: We Can't Sit It Out

Today is Election Day in the United States of America.  As Americans and as Catholics, we have a responsibility and a duty to vote.  I had seriously thought about sitting this one out because I absolutely cannot vote for Barack Obama and I am highly skeptical of Mitt Romney.  But this one is just too important. And it is about more than the presidential race.  We also must consider our local races.  There are many good candidates running for office, men and women who support Godly traditional values and morals.  They need our support and our vote.

We are in the middle of a great spiritual war.  The sides are clearly delineated.  As Blessed John Paul II told us, it is the Culture of Death versus the Culture of Life.  I don't believe the results of the election will necessarily change the course of our nation, but it can certainly mitigate the damages and perhaps give us more time so that we can hopefully change the road that we are on.  If Barack Obama and the Democrats are given four more years, the United States of America as we know it will cease to exist. That is not hyperbole.  It is that serious.  Americans voted for the Culture of Death in 2008, and we have seen the disastrous results:  a ruined economy, a more deeply divided country than we have ever seen, greater dependency on the government, and for Catholics, a direct attack on our Church, our beliefs and our way of life.  I'm not trying to sound like a Republican attack ad on the Democrats, but those are the facts.

So pray about your choice, and then get out there and vote.  Do the right thing.

I have copied below an Election Prayer which National Catholic Register reposted from Catholicvote.org:

CatholicVote.org has released "An Election-Year Prayer" by Cardinal Raymond Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura at the Vatican: 

O Lord Jesus Christ, you alone are the Way, the Truth and the Life.

In your Church, you show us the way, you teach us the truth, and you give us your life. 

Grant, we humbly beg you, that, always and in all things, we may be faithful to you in your holy Church and to your vicar on earth, the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI. 

Grant also, we beg you, that, in these times of decision, all who profess to be Catholic and who are entrusted with the sacred duty to participate in public life may, by the strength of your grace, unwaveringly follow your way and faithfully adhere to your truth, living in you with all their mind and heart, for your greater glory, the salvation of souls and the good of our nation. 

Amen. 

Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mother of America, pray for us. 

St. Thomas More, patron of religious freedom, pray for us.

Hurricane Sandy Humbles Us

Those of us who live here in Northeastern United States are getting ready for what is being called the worst storm in 100 years.  Hurricane Sandy is on her way and she is going to do whatever she wants to do, with all of us completely at her mercy.

In a seemingly unrelated story, the country is also getting ready to vote in a major election for our president.  Here is the electoral map, showing what areas of the country are leaning towards Romney and what areas are going to Obama.  Per usual, the northeast United States is backing the Democrat - pro-abortion Barack Obama

Then looking at Sandy's tracking map, we see that the same areas are in the direct path of Hurricane Sandy.

As the Huffington Post tells us:

From Washington to Boston, big cities and small towns Sunday buttoned up against the onslaught of a superstorm that could endanger 50 million people in the most heavily populated corridor in the nation, with forecasters warning that the New York area could get the worst of it - an 11-foot wall of water.

As rain from the leading edges of the monster hurricane began to fall over the Northeast, hundreds of thousands of people from Maryland to Connecticut were ordered to evacuate low-lying coastal areas, including 375,000 in lower Manhattan and other parts of New York City, 50,000 in Delaware and 30,000 in Atlantic City, N.J., where the city's 12 casinos were forced to shut down for only the fourth time ever.

"We were told to get the heck out. I was going to stay, but it's better to be safe than sorry," said Hugh Phillips, who was one of the first in line when a Red Cross shelter in Lewes, Del., opened at noon.

"I think this one's going to do us in," said Mark Palazzolo, who boarded up his bait-and-tackle shop in Point Pleasant Beach, N.J., with the same wood he used in past storms, crossing out the names of Hurricanes Isaac and Irene and spray-painting "Sandy" next to them. "I got a call from a friend of mine from Florida last night who said, `Mark, get out! If it's not the storm, it'll be the aftermath. People are going to be fighting in the streets over gasoline and food.'"

Authorities warned that the nation's biggest city could get hit with a surge of seawater that could swamp parts of lower Manhattan, flood subway tunnels and cripple the network of electrical and communications lines that are vital to the nation's financial center.

And Sandy isn't threatening only the northeast.  It is stretching all the way to Chicago, hometown and stronghold for President Barack Obama.  From nbcchicago.com:

Powerful Hurricane Sandy has caused the National Weather Service to issue a lakeshore flood warning in Chicago.

During the warning, which goes into effect at 1 a.m. on Tuesday until 4 p.m. Wednesday, waves of 16 to 22 feet are likely to build along the Cook County Shoreline, reported the National Weather Service.

Is someone trying to tell us something?  Maybe yes.  Maybe no.

In all seriousness, when we are faced with acts of nature such as Hurricane Sandy, it serves to remind us of the awesome power of our Creator and just how puny and powerless we really are. I pray for all of us who are in Sandy's path that we are protected and safe.

PRAYER FOR PROTECTION FROM HURRICANES AND STORMS

God, our Father, 

Eternal and Omnipotent,

Creator and Lord of the Universe,

you have set the earth on its foundation

and all elements of nature obey your command. You give food to all flesh,

cover the heavens with clouds,

and provide rain to the earth ─

We humbly beseech you

Lord, Most High,

to keep us safe from all dangers

and to calm all the storms of life that threaten us:

especially the attack of whirlwinds and tornadoes,

the calamity and destruction of hurricanes,

the din and damage of hail storms,

the striking of thunderbolts and lightning,

and the devastation of floods and tidal waves.

May we be secure in your loving protection,

seek your Will in all our experiences,

and serve you always with grateful hearts.

We ask this through our Lord, Jesus Christ, Your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Amen.

Courtesy of franciscan-sfo.org

Abortion: Obama vs. Romney

In 2004, Alan Keyes ran against Barack Obama for US Senator in Illinois.  The Obama machine successfully painted Ambassador Keyes (US ambassador to the UN from 1981-1985), who is a devout pro-life Catholic, as a kook and extremist, and took advantage of the fact that he was from out of state to call him a carpetbagger.  Obama won that race, and used that position to run for US President in 2008, just 3 short years after being sworn in as US Senator.  We now have the most inexperienced and at the same time, the most radical President in the White House this country has ever seen.  

Ambassador Keyes has tried to warn us about Barack Obama and the harm he will do to this country.    Below is a video from a debate between Barack Obama and Ambassador Keyes when they were running for senator.

Now Dr. Keyes has written an excellent editorial for Renew America in which he discusses the troubling positions of both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama on the issue of abortion.  I have posted his opinion piece below.

October 22, 2012 

Regarding abortion: what both Obama and Romney want us to forget

By Alan Keyes

A Christiannews.net story reports that "Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has released a new television advertisement underscoring his support for abortion and contraception." According to the report, "the thirty second advertisement, geared toward women voters, features Sarah Minto, who outlines that she had concerns about Romney's 'extreme' abortion views until she realized that he wasn't completely opposed to abortion after all."

When I read reports about a candidate's stand on abortion, I do a little mental exercise that serves as a preliminary test of my judgment about its moral validity. I review the description of their stand, substituting the word "slavery" for the word "abortion." In this case, the result is a television advertisement that has Romney underscoring "his support for slavery..." and a voter relieved because "she had concerns about Romney's abolitionist views until she realized that he wasn't completely opposed to slavery after all."

To anyone who has bothered to review the consistent pattern of Romney's stance on abortion, this report should come as no surprise. But such a Romney campaign advertisement ought to be a wake-up call for all the supposedly pro-life "leaders" and voters comforting themselves with the false pretense that he's "pro-life."

Romney's stand on abortion is very like the stand on slavery taken by Abraham Lincoln's nemesis, Stephen Douglas. Throughout his career, Douglas took care to reassure the proponents of slavery that he was no abolitionist. He supported the rights of slave owners, and the prerogatives of the slave states. Douglas worshiped at the altar of "popular sovereignty." So he held to the view that justice is whatever the will of the majority says it is, even when the majority's will contradicts the premise of God-endowed right that is the basis for the majority's right to make such decisions (i.e., its right to government based upon consent).

It's ironic these days that the very people who clamor for "minority rights" when race or money are the rubric suddenly adopt the Douglas "majority rule" position on an issue like abortion. They are ready to decry the notion that might makes right when the rich and powerful abuse the poor and relatively powerless. But nascent children, bereft of every form of wealth or power but their simple humanity, may be murdered at the whim of individuals who happen to be stronger than they are, so long as a majority can be found willing to support or tolerate such murders.

Because Stephen Douglas was willing to tolerate restrictions on slavery established by majority whim, we could argue that he was not pro-slavery. The problem is, of course, that if one community makes slaves, and another community annuls what they have made, whose view determines when and whether a slave must be treated as such? Or, in the case of abortion, if one community makes human beings, and another denies their humanity, whose will determines when and whether their humanity must be respected? (As we will see, America's answer is that neither community gets to decide, for the Creator has already determined what both must respect.)

People like Mitt Romney assert that in this case or that the will of the majority of the people; or the majority of the judges and justices; or even the majority of one mother and one doctor ready to accept her rule, can strip away every human offspring's title of humanity. Yet the original claim to the title of humanity has the same basis for their offspring as it does for those who claim the right to murder them. If, on this basis, Romney and others hold that people may be treated as non-human for purposes of coldblooded murder, why do they pretend to deny that, on the same "majority rule" basis, people may be treated as non-human for the purposes of slavery, racial perfection, or religious purity? Of course they will indignantly exclaim that "Racism and religious fanaticism are unacceptable grounds for inhumanity." But it's patently absurd to suggest that lust, ambition, and personal convenience are acceptable motives for inhumanity, but not the desire to perfect the species or assure its path to eternal salvation. It's plainly irrational to pretend that humanity may be abused so that perishable individuals can feel free, by all means, to make money and fornicate, but not so that the species as a whole can perfect itself for all eternity.

Eventually, of course, the illogic of this irrational absurdity will give way to the more consistent and plainly evil logic hidden within it. Today, people like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney pretend they are just offering some individuals the right to sweep aside the constraints implied by our respect for common humanity. But we live still in the shadow of fanatical political, social, and religious ideologies who claim that right on behalf of the progress or salvation of humanity itself. When asserted on the strength of these more comprehensive motives, all the imperious reasons for totalitarian inhumanity are again unleashed (as they were in the 20th century), motives such as: perfecting the evolution of the race; fulfilling the project of History; or converting all people to a path that leads humanity to godhood.

I cringe when I hear the rhetoric (either malicious or simply stupid) that characterizes opposition to all dehumanizing murder as an "extremist" view. So now the people who believe that dehumanizing murder "should be an option," in this case or that, are the "moderates"? With the massive atrocities of the 20th century still fresh in human experience; with the spirit of terrorist atrocity every day overshadowing our lives, what madness possesses those who think that the license thus given to individuals to murder millions of human offspring will not soon again extend itself to renew the open, systematic slaughter aimed generally at all rest of the children of men who refuse some goal of the collective will?

I stand by the principles of America's founding largely because they articulate an understanding of justice that precludes the sick delusion that it can ever be right or optimal to read some people out of the human race so that others may have license to abuse and murder them. Whether they are many or few, whether they are powerful or weak, whether they are spurred by overweening pride and ambition, or by justifiable resentment against the abuses such pride and ambition can cause, people have no authority to take away what it is never in their power to alter or abolish. That authority belongs to the Creator God, and God alone.

It's telling that these days, the loudest complaints against those who invoke God's authority in the way America's founders did, come from people who are, even as they speak, asserting the right to act like God when it comes to authorizing dehumanizing murders. Perhaps the most salutary effect of the founders' acknowledgement of God's authority is that it reveals the lie at the heart of any human claim to wield such authority. To anyone who wishes to usurp the Creator's throne, whether it be a tyrant dictator or a tyrant people; or a tyrant dictator claiming to act for the people, there is one right the American people may always claim with certainty, and with certainty never surrender, and that is the right to tell them, by word and deed, that they are wrong. But what Obama, Romney and all the proponents of dehumanizing murder, in any case, really want us to forget is this: We cannot claim the right, from God, to limit abuses of right by others unless, for God's sake, we first exercise the right by limiting our own abuses.

As I have posted, I will be voting for Mitt Romney, more as a vote against Obama than for Romney.  But I'm not kidding myself as far as Ronney's positions are concerned.  We should not be surprised at Romney's positions on abortion.  Just a few years ago he was completely pro choice, saying he would always support a woman's "right to choose."  We can't be sure if he has truly changed his position or just taken a politically expedient stand on abortion when he now says he would like to see Roe v. Wade  overturned. However, we must be realistic.  Romney has actually told us that the issue of abortion is not part of his agenda.  We need to listen to that and realize that in all probability, nothing in regard to abortion is going to change under a Romney administration.

The reason I am voting is because I am convinced that it is my Catholic obligation to vote.  But I still believe that the only way real and important change will come to this country and that the only salvation for our country is getting on our knees before our Creator, repenting of the evils in our land and begging His forgiveness.

A Catholic's Obligation To Vote

I have been posting throughout this election season that there is no real choice between the two parties, and that it is basically a waste of time to even bother voting.  I have had many discussions with very good and devout Catholics who have tried to convince me just how wrong I am, that it is our Catholic duty to vote.  I have given this subject a good amount of thought and prayer, and after doing some research, I am convinced that as a Catholic, it is our obligation to vote, especially when faced with such blatant evil as we see in Barack Obama and the Democratic party.

So I am here and now doing a "mea culpa", meaning "I was wrong", sort of.  I'm still not convinced that when you take away all the trappings that there is a whole lot of difference between the Democrats and Republicans, but there is no denying that the Republicans at least say all the right things, while the Democrats are so far out that they can't even be considered.  So even though I will have to hold my nose, I am going to vote in this election, and for president, I will, of course, vote the Romney/Ryan ticket, more as a vote against Obama than a vote for Romney, because not to vote at all is the same as casting a vote for Barack Obama.

Catholic Apologetics gives an excellent explanation of why Catholics are obligated to vote:

In an allocution to the Congress of the International Union of Catholic Women’s Leagues, September 11, 1947, the Pope [Pius XII] spoke of the gravity of the obligation for all. He insisted that those who would not take part would be guilty of serious sin. “There is a heavy responsibility on everyone, man or woman, who has the right to vote, especially when the interests of religion are at stake; abstention in this case, in itself, it should be thoroughly understood, is a grave and fatal sin of omission. On the contrary, to exercise well, one’s right to vote is to work effectively for the good of the people, as loyal defenders of God and of the Church.”

Catholic Apologetics goes on to give us more examples of prelates who declare voting to be an obligation all all Catholics:

In the important elections of June, 1951, nearly all the bishops of France issued pastoral letters on the duty of voting. In printing a selection of these statements, La Croix said it was impossible to quote them all. They were cast in similar terms, insisting (1) upon the duty of voting and (2) upon the duty of voting only for those candidates who were prepared to support spiritual values and in particular to support a true freedom of choice in education that would make it possible for parents to send their children to Catholic Schools. Such were the statements of Cardinal Gerlier and Cardinal Lienhart. 

Archbishop Feltin of Paris said that to abstain was treason. [82] Archbishop Richaud of Bordeaux declared that no one was free from grave sin for not voting unless it were actually impossible for him to do so.  Archbishop Lefebre of Bourges said there was no excuse for abstaining simply because one had been disappointed with the performance of a party in which he had placed his hopes.  Bishop Jaquin of Moulins reminded his flock that none could do anything that would favor Communism, while Bishop Mathieu of Aire and Dax declared that it was not enough simply to register a vote against Communism, since the French Socialist Party had always shown a constant malevolent opposition to Catholic ideals. 

When the French people failed to vote in the elections of October 7, 1951, several members of the Hierarchy issued statements condemning such indifference. Cardinal Gerlier, Archbishop of Lyons, and Cardinal Lienart, Bishop of Lille, were particularly outspoken. “To vote,” said Cardinal Lienart, “is a serious obligation, abstention from which would be a sin. Each person has one vote. If he does not express his wishes by casting his ballot, it is equivalent to giving an extra vote to the opposition. One does not escape his responsibilities as a citizen by not voting, he increases them.” 

There is absolutely no way for a Catholic in good conscience to vote for Barack Obama or 99.99% of the Democratic Party in the United States.  As I have shown in other posts, they are the party of death, not only supporting but actually celebrating such issues as abortion, contraception and homosexuality, all in direct defiance of the Catholic Church and the Law of Almighty God.  Whatever good they may promote is completely overshadowed by their anti-morality, anti-God positions.

So we are left with the Republicans.  I have complained mightily here that I feel they are really no different than the Democrats.  They give lip service to what is right and good, but they never seem to follow through.  The GOP Presidential Candidate, while proclaiming to be pro life, says he supports abortion in cases of rape, incest and the health and life of the mother.  He supports homosexuals in the Boy Scouts, he supports same sex civil unions as long as they are not called marriage.  He supports the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the legal right to imprison any American for an indefinite length of time with no charge and no trial.  I find many of Mitt Romney's views to be troubling, to say the least.

BUT, and this is a huge BUT, in contrast to his opponent, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney is a breath of fresh air.  Barack Obama is the personification of complete opposition to everything the Catholic Church supports and teaches.  And in no surprise, he is a direct enemy of the Catholic Church, trying to force us to go against our own teachings.  He is surrounded by apostate Catholics, such as Kathleen Sibelius, the HHS Secretary who is enforcing the HHS Mandate and Vice President Joe Biden, who publicly supported same sex marriage even before Barack Obama did, and who says that while he supports the pro life teachings of the Church, he cannot impose those views on others.

As Catholics, we have only one choice in this presidential election, and it ain't the Democrats.  Mitt Romney, for all his faults, did pick one of the most pro-life Catholic politicians available as his running mate - Rep. Paul Ryan.  He is a good and devout Catholic who I believe can be counted on to always support the teachings of the Church.  I have certainly disagreed with some of his actions, but when compared to the Democrats, he is like an angel of God.

The Catholic Church itself is restrained from telling us specifically whom we should support.  But as Bishop John Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois told us:

I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.

To sum up, we are told by the Church that we have a responsibility to vote, and we are also told that our choice could literally affect our own personal salvation.

I am still not totally convinced that there is any real difference among Democratic and GOP leaders. But at least the Republicans do not overtly support anti-life and anti-Catholic values.  And there are most definitely those GOP candidates who have shown great courage in going against the mainstream, such as Todd Akin of Missouri and Joe Walsh of Illinois, who just recently said that abortion is wrong in all situations.

I have looked at the presidential candidates, and have come to the conclusion that despite my misgivings about Mitt Romney, not to vote for him is to vote for Barack Obama, and I cannot do that.  Barack Obama is the personification of everything for which I, as a Catholic, stand in complete opposition.  To give Barack Obama another four years is to condemn our nation to total destruction.  Mitt Romney will not solve all of our problems.  He may not solve any of our problems, but I do believe a Romney/Ryan administration will give us a reprieve and mitigate some of the terrible punishment that is due our nation for turning its back on God.

To quote again from Catholic Apologetics:

In a discourse to the Pastors and Lenten Preachers of Rome March 16, 1946, [Pope Pius XII] gave this advice:

The exercise of the right to vote is an act of grave responsibility, at least when there is the question involved of electing those whose office it will be to give the country its constitutions and its laws, particularly those which effect, for example, the sanctification of feast days, marriage, family life and school, the various phases of social life. It therefore falls to the Church to explain to the faithful their moral duties which derive from their right to vote. [11]

To the same body of clergy he spoke two years later (March 10, 1948) and with even more emphasis. His words were the following:

It is your right and duty to draw the attention of the faithful to the extraordinary importance of the coming elections and to the moral responsibility which follows from it for those who have the right to vote. In the present circumstances it is strictly obligatory for whoever has the right, man or woman, to take part in the elections. He who abstains, particularly through indolence or cowardice, commits thereby a grave sin, a mortal offense.

On November 6, I will be going to the polls along with millions of other Americans to cast my vote.  If you are a Catholic, you are under obligation to do the same.

Hold your nose and get out there and vote.

Can it be? A Politician With Principles?

Back in August, Rep. Todd Akin, who is running for senator in Missouri, was pounded by the media and the Republican elites after he made a comment that pregnancy rarely results from "legitimate rape." It was, to say the least, a poor choice of words and he apologized for it.  His comment was made in the context of saying that abortion should not be the answer in pregnancies resulting from rape. 

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney immediately denounced Akin and said he, Romney, absolutely does support abortion in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape (which, I might add, is in direct opposition to the GOP platform).  Romney called for Akin to immediately resign from his senatorial race.  We also had all the Republican talking heads such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh calling for Akin to give up his senate race not just for the good of the Republican party but for the good of the entire nation.   Limbaugh said, "Akin's Remark was Stupid and Untrue -- Now He Must Put the Nation's Future First."  Coulter wrote a column entitled, "If Akin Loves His Country, He Will Step Aside." 

There is a large portion of the
GOP elite who still have it in for Akin

The supposedly pro-life GOP did everything it could to kick out its most pro-life candidate.  Their message was winning is everything, dead babies be damned.  Sen. Mitch McConnell, GOP Senate minority leader said, "Although Representative Akin has apologized, I believe he should take time with his family to consider whether this statement will prevent him from effectively representing our party in this critical election."  Sen. John Cornyn, head of the Senate GOP campaign arm, cut off GOP money to Akin's campaign and said, "Congressman Akin's statements were wrong, offensive, and indefensible."  Rep. Paul Ryan, GOP Presidential candidate who also co-sponsored a pro-life bill with Rep. Akin, actually called Akin and told him he should leave the senate race.  And of course, there is the infamous comment by Karl Rove, who "joked" about murdering Akin.  He told a bunch of GOP fundraisers, " “We should sink Todd Akin. If he’s found mysteriously murdered, don’t look for my whereabouts!”

Well, Todd Akin, to his credit, stood strong in the face of this storm and did not leave the race.  He had until Sept. 25 to take his name off the ballot, and despite pressure from every side, he didn't do it.  After taking a hit in the polls, his numbers are now impressively rising.  As a result, some of the GOP are changing their minds and starting to support Akin. 

Below is a wonderful opinion piece by Jill Stanek as reprinted on Lifesite News.  Like Ms. Stanek, I believe that, along with the presidential contest, this is the most fascinating political race this year, and I find it much more important, at least symbolically, than the presidential race.  In my opinion, our choice in the presidential race is worse and worser.  It won't be great if Romney wins, but it will be a total disaster if Obama gets back in. 

But the Akin race, IMHO, is of real significance because it involves a truly pro-life politician who is willing to fight for his principles, even against his own party.  In fact, it involves the rarest creature of all God's creations - a politician who actually has principles!  Akin even went to jail once for his pro-life activities, as reported in the Huffington Post:

Yesterday I spoke to a group of people who had been in jail with me, you know don’t tell anybody I’m a jail bird, you know, but there were a bunch of us that were years ago involved in the pro-life movement and the question becomes: the Bible says, ‘rescue the innocent that is being led to slaughter,’ so a bunch of us sat in front of these doors and the police gave us a ride to the free hotel for a while, and you know how it goes, and the question is, is that biblical or not?

I am very reluctant to trust any politician, but I think I am willing to take a chance on Todd Akin.

Here is Jill Stanek's opinion piece:

Big name conservatives rally for Todd Akin; GOP establishment warms

by Jill Stanek

Mon Oct 01, 2012 12:23 EST

October 2, 2012 (JillStanek.com) - The final deadline for Missouri Republican U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin to drop from the race came and went on September 25, and he did not.

The GOP establishment that had stood alongside Democrats and feminists to castigate Akin for his August 19 “legitimate rape” misstep must now eat crow [Yes!!]. The polls and grasp of the U.S. Senate are too close.

Todd Akin

This entire debacle separated pseudo-conservative Republicans who put party above principle from real ones who do the opposite. [Exactly!] They will say they were just being pragmatic. But c’mon, they way overreacted. The other side would never abandon one of its own were the situation reversed. But the other side walks in lockstep on abortion, while our side is afraid of and/or double-minded about it.  [I think the truth is that too many GOP politicians either don't care about the issue of abortion or even actually support abortion.  They obviously consider winning political races far more important than saving the lives of innocent babies.]

 

So we saw Missouri U.S. Senator Ray Blunt write in a statement the morning after the deadline passed, “I’ll be working for the Republican ticket in Missouri, and that includes Todd Akin,” when back in August Blunt was one of five Missouri senators to write in a statement that Akin should “step aside.”

Now the National Republican Senatorial Committee is calling Akin “a far more preferable candidate than liberal Senator Claire McCaskill,” and said that “we will continue to monitor this race closely,” i.e., spend money on Akin if his polls look good. NRSC’s backpedal earned it the “worst week in Washington” award in a Washington Post op ed.  [Well deserved, I might add.]

Even Karl Rove’s American Crossroads super-PAC appears to be equivocating, spokesman Nate Hodson telling ABC, “You kind of know where we are on Missouri. We don’t discuss any strategy moving forward” – tepid opposition at best, this after Rove wished for Akin to sleep with the fishes only a few weeks back.

Meanwhile, social conservative favorites Rick Santorum and U.S. Senator Jim DeMint issued a joint endorsement on September 26, and DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund, nemesis to colleague John Cornyn’s NRSC, pledged $290,000. Gary Bauer through his Campaign for Working Families has pledged a “six-figure” expenditure to help Akin.

Phyllis Schlafly also expressed her support and went further to ask people in an email on September 26 to call RNC Chairman Reince Priebus (202-863-8500) and Cornyn (202-675-6000) “and tell them they have an obligation to reverse their decision cutting off Republican money from Todd Akin. They have an obligation to open those bank accounts so Todd Akin and Mitt Romney can carry Missouri, the bellwether state.”

This might be why Preibus, who ludicrously claimed back in August, “He can be tied, we’re not gonna send him a penny,” said on September 28 Akin was “absolutely” a better option than McCaskill.

Former House Speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was campaigning for Akin even before the deadline and defended him well on Greta Van Susteran’s show last week.

Next to the presidential race, the Akin/McCaskill race will be the one I most pay attention to on November 6.  [That makes at least two of us.]

Please donate to Akin’s campaign here. Elect an authentic pro-lifer who may also help wrest the U.S. Senate from Harry Reid.

* * *

The Todd Akin campaign has been a true bellwether in the Republican party.  This incident would seem to say that many in the Republican leadership are much more interested in winning campaigns than in saving the unborn.  For me, Rep. Paul Ryan's reaction was the most stunning and most disappointing.  Rep. Ryan in the past had a very strong pro life record and had stood against abortion even in cases of rape.  He had actually drafted pro life legislation with Rep. Akin.  Yet, he personally called Akin to advise him to drop out of the race.  It seems he has completely sold out in order to be the VP candidate. We know Mitt Romney supports abortion in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape, and now it seems that Rep. Ryan does as well. 

Politics is as cut throat at is gets, and your close friends can become your enemies in a matter of minutes if you are perceived as a loser.  We all like to think that our representatives are there because they really care about us and the country and want to make things better.  I am sure that is true for some.  I do believe it's true for Todd Akin.  But let's face it, folks.  The people in Washington are mainly there for the power and all the perks that come with it.  If you really want change, you are going to have to do it yourself.  And the best place to start is on your knees in supplication to the only real Power there is. 

God Bless Todd Akin.  I admire his tenancity and courage, and I think that alone should qualify him to be Senator, or even more if he should ever choose to pursue it.  I hope the people of Missouri will see how truly genuine he is and give him a chance to prove that he will be a true representative for them.  He is David that stood up to Goliath. 

Take that, Karl Rove.