In Retrospect: Perhaps the Church’s Tax Exempt Status Should Have Been Sacrificed

The Catholic Church has been diligent to ensure that its statements both inside and outside of church walls have been in compliance with the requirement that tax-exempt institutions are not permitted to endorse specific candidates or political parties.  In view of the terrific hit which basic morals and religious freedom received on November 6, perhaps it would have been better for the Church to have relinquished its tax-exempt status and address the educational needs of an obviously uninformed “faithful.”

HAMPERED  MISSION  WORSE  THAN  LOSS  OF  TAX  EXEMPTION?

To be sure, the financial loss which would accompany its change in taxation would be significant.  However, the re-elected President and the composition of the new Congress are likely to hamper the Church’s mission in far greater ways.  It is disgraceful how the “Catholic vote” has once again given our federal government the permission to continue: killing the unborn, undermining the family through legitimizing disordered behavior, and further relegating the inalienable right of religious freedom to the compost piles for politically incorrect ideas.

APPLAUDING  BILLY  GRAHAM’S  EFFORT

Billy Graham deserves much applause for his willingness to take a very visible public stand.  He published a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal and many local papers across the nation a couple of weeks before the election.  He implored all citizens to step up and support, via the voting booth, those time-tested values which have made this country great and which are necessary for any civilization to thrive.  He noted that the election would be the day before his 94th birthday.  Unfortunately, we didn’t give him the present he requested.

DIFFERENT  CHURCH  APPROACHES

Church leaders could have publicly endorsed the Romney/Ryan ticket with a clear statement declaring that, while the Republican Party does not entirely embody Catholic principles, a vote for President Obama totally contradicted our beliefs.  A concerted effort was necessary to assist Catholics in discerning the false prophets of today’s political scene (see 2 Peter 2:1-3).  A knowledgable faithful would have provided more than enough votes to thwart the relentless march of the intrinsic evils of Obama/Biden.

The Church should have taken a more “interactive” approach to counteract the grossly misleading ads of the Democratic party.  Our society has become so mesmerized by all forms of visual and audio stimulation that traditional means were insufficient.  This is not to absolve the Republican Party for also failing to use television and cyberspace more assertively.  However, in an age when too many do not respect or even consider the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Church) as “relevant,” it was a critical time for the Church to reassert its teaching authority which was given by Jesus to His apostles and their successors (and to paraphrase Casey Stengel, “You can look it up in Luke 10:16”).

FUTURE  OF  DARKENED  SKIES

Although China is the clear leader when it comes to religious oppression, the U.S. is now participating in the same league.  The results of this past Tuesday have given Big Brother more encouragement and greater means to continue making religion subordinate to him.  For the long term, more Supreme Court appointments by President Obama in the next four years will strengthen the anti-life tendencies for the next generation.  There are likely to be two retirements coming up and a Senate sympathetic to Obama and his distaste for decency will ensure his agenda.

Recent legislative trends, unbridled executive orders, and a society enamored with the excesses of the Roman Empire’s latter days will produce the following:

1) We will witness an accelerated demise of Catholic adoption and counseling agencies.  They will not be premitted to operate because they believe that disordered sexual practices are to be treated with loving care, but not legitimized.   The sanctity of marriage is being redefined by secular governments who have no authority to do so because they didn’t create marriage.

2) Unless the courts overrule aspects of the HHS mandate that violate the First Amendment, Catholic schools, hospitals and other care-giving organizations will close because of the draconian penalties for following deeply held beliefs, including the right to life.

3) Even if the Church’s institutions survive, there seems to be little to protect small employers or individuals such as this blog author from financial penalties imposed as a result of following God instead of “Caesar” on matters of faith.

4) The Church will come under attack under false charges of “discrimination” for not being able to ordain women and homosexual men as priests.  Public opinion will turn against the Church when so-called “Catholics,” who publicly contradict the Church’s core beliefs in their positions of influence, are denied the Eucharist.  A current example of this is China, which thinks bishops must have governmental approval before being installed.   This is from a paranoia that Church teachings, exposing the immoralities of government policies, will cause political unrest.  Consequently, it has become more difficult for the Church in China to carry out its spiritual mission because it is not bowing to political pressure.  The U.S. authorities could conceivably adopt similar sanctions for the previously mentioned reasons and with the same net effect on the Church’s ability to function openly.

5)   Some Canadian Catholic schools are being challenged for teaching that the expression of homosexual and other disordered tendencies are sinful.  Expect this to cross the border and infect us soon, especially since public schools in many U.S. cities are already usurping each parent’s inalienable right to teach young children about all matters of behavior and morality.

None of these concerns are far-fetched.  The spectre of an increasingly domineering federal government, emboldened by public ignorance and disinterest, makes the Church’s losing its tax-exempt status a relatively small price to pay for combatting the enemies gathering around it.

Fellow Catholic Voters: Living Our Faith Helps Society, Does Not Impose On It

In the 2008 presidential election, exit polls stated that “Catholic voters” favored Obama over McCain.  Poll pundits have used the so-called Catholic vote as one of many groups in their demographic analysis of voting trends and predictions.

But did a majority of Catholics really support someone who is diametrically opposed to key aspects of the faith’s foundation?  The confounding results of ’08 can be understood in light of the Administration’s most prominent “Catholics” and other supporters of the President who claim to be members of the 2,000 year-old religion.

As with any organization which has survived the test of time, the Church continues because it has a clearly defined mission.  The mission is driven by specific tenets in its foundation of beliefs.  The body of core beliefs is, by basic logic, to be embraced by anyone representing himself as a member.  Alas, the names of Biden, Pelosi and Sebelius are a disturbing contrast to Ryan who is committed to his faith enough to practice it, even in the face of ridicule.

In the half-century since the days of President Kennedy, the U.S. citizenry has generally graduated from its over-reactionary concern that any Catholic president would make executive decisions on direct orders from the Pope.  However, the secular ideologues have successfully transformed our nation from one guided by well-formed consciences to one driven by lower animal instincts.  In the process, any true Catholic in a position of political influence is labelled as against women, intolerant, insensitive, etc. which couldn’t be further from the truth.

The genuine Catholic holds several core beliefs including:

1)  the right to life for all human beings from conception to natural death

2)  the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman

3)  freedom of religion, its practice not just worship

#1)  Paul Ryan’s views are much more similar to Mitt Romney’s (a Mormon) than to the previously mentioned “Catholics.”  Opposition to abortion is not a “War on Women.”  If anything, abortion is the war on 500,000+ female babies every year who never get to see the light of day under the auspices of “preventive care.”  Ryan also knows that respect for the dignity of human life goes beyond ensuring a safe birth and a natural death because both are due to respect for our Creator.  He understands that the government should do those things which individuals cannot do for themselves.  It is not a carte blanche entitlement, but a responsibility to help without being an enabler.  It’s a responsibility that understands that any assistance given must not endanger the government’s ability to help future generations.  The Biden-Pelosi-Sebelius (BPS) trio and other influential “Catholics” misrepresent the faith entirely on these matters.  In the case of Pelosi, she has publicly claimed that the Church is not sure when human life begins.  Absurd!  The Church teaches anyone paying attention in the least that the sacred gift of life begins at conception.  In addition, the BPS has shown an unrestrained desire to implement any program to ensure loyalty of their followers.  The HHS mandate indicates not only a lack of respect for the dignity of human life via provided abortion and abortifacients, but a fiscal disregard for future generations by compounding federal debt.

#2)  Ryan’s opposition to granting same-sex unions the complete status of one man and one woman marriages is not intolerance.  Rather, it is a complete understanding of the basic unit of society — the family.  Marriage was instituted by God through religion. If one is an atheist or agnostic, he must still recognize that marriage originated from religion, not from the state.  Marriage is based on natural law and thus pre-dates civil law; consequently, civil law has no authority to redefine it.  To accommodate disordered behavior, even if from genetic aberrations, will produce an enabling society.  Such a society would, therefore, automatically be compelled to assist other “uncontrollable habits” such as alcoholism, other substance abuses, and even addiction to heterosexual desires.

#3)  The free practice of religion is another inalienable right.  That is, it is one which the state has no authority over, pure and simple.  To impose mandates such as the insurance plan offered by HHS, without regard for deeply held moral beliefs, puts the state over religion.

Following so-called Catholics like the BPS puts us on a dangerous track with numerous historical disasters.  The doomed societies of ancient times (the Roman Empire, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.) have one thing in common with the failed ideologues of the 20th century (Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, etc.).  They egregiously discarded the three points above.

My final plea to all Catholics on this, the day before a momentous election:  Vote as if your faith means something — support the Romney/Ryan ticket!  The past could have benefitted from these values.  Let’s make sure the future has the same opportunities we’ve been given. 

Issues or Values? Either Way, It’s Romney-Ryan Over Obama-Biden

I have been telling young adults that this is my 10th presidential election and the likely ramifications of its outcome exceed all others in my experience. This is from analysis, not a product of the drama inherent with endless, spinning political ads.

There are always policy differences between two presidential candidates. It is critical to examine the philosophies underlying the policies. If a candidate will not protect the right to life, the most fundamental of all inalienable rights, then his social agenda is merely to win favor among the masses and to keep them in check.

“Civil rights, equal rights, etc.” spring from the right to life.  Societies have been bamboozled throughout history repeatedly. For all of the vaccines developed, we do not have one to immunize us against being deceived.  The right to life must be paramount.

A number of people, including a few friends, have taken issue with me on this position.  Looking at the long-term viability of our country makes loyalty to my children and grandchildren-to-come take priority over other relationships.

It’s not about my having insurance which would cover pre-existing conditions, which
I need, right now and at all costs (moral or financial).  Whether a free market insurance system with modifications will provide what I “deserve” better than Obamacare can is not yet determined.  However, I CANNOT be a participant in any program which provides for the killing of the most innocent of human beings, either by inhumane dismemberment or by medication (“the morning after pill”).

It’s not about my receiving assurance that the money my employers and I have
put into Social Security for almost 40 years will all come back to me (which I need and is rightfully mine).  As FICA payroll tax revenue continues to be spent elsewhere and Congress will not agree to permit workers to be responsible for investing their contributions (as opposed to their employer’s half of taxed amounts), there is only so much a president can change.  Of the two candidates, Romney could work with Congress.  He has the proven track record in government, the President does not.

Nor is it about a job commensurate with my abilities.  The paper mill in which I was employed for 23 years was closed in 2001, partly due to an increase in lower priced foreign imports.  I’m sure that the companies Romney has worked for may have been a party to foreign out-sourcing of jobs in some industries— just as the President’s 401(k)’s have enjoyed growth from similar investments.  The difference is that Romney understands the harm of past business practices and is also willing to hold China accountable for being a currency manipulator.  Obama is hesitant to do anything which will anger the largest socialist country, the kind of government-reliant society he envisions for our future.  His position is evident in his lack of concern for the $1.15 trillion of our national debt which China owns.  (And, like China does, he also puts the state over the Church with his useless religious exemption to the HHS mandate, but that is a topic for a separate article.)

It IS about ensuring that our descendants’ future is one where they understand
that life is a gift, to which we are stewards, not owners. My fervent hope is that they will be “other-centered” instead of self-centered because they have been fooled into thinking that there is no hope except a reliance on Big Brother. Being respectful of our inevitable Judgement Day and being “other-centered” places us in the best position to solve problems.

The Romney-Ryan ticket “gets it.”  I sincerely hope they get your vote!