Why All of the Fuss About “Sequestration” and Losing Some Border Patrol and TSA Agents?

Like her boss in the White House, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has been expressing theatrical concern over the possible effects which “Sequestration” will have should Congress and the President not agree on a budget by the end of the week.

True, there will be across the board “cuts” (or more accurately, decreases in federal spending increases as Fox News and the WordPress blog “Quiner’s Diner” have been reminding us).  But the worry about it damaging our national interests and security is particularly humorous in view of what has been happening for some time.  Losing some border patrol and TSA agents is miniscule compared to the internal destruction going on right now with the approval of 50.7% of the voters last November 6.  (It might actually be beneficial to the border patrollers – being displaced means they’ll stand less of a chance of being killed with our guns in the hands of foreign drug criminals.)

For the 50.7% (including, sadly, many of my fellow “Catholics”), let me remind them of the modern version of the Fall of the Roman Empire unfolding in front of us (the order of this list does not necessarily indicate priority):

1)  $16 trillion in debt, 48% owned by foreign governments and individuals.As of last June, China owned ¼ of our foreign owned debt.Two huge problems here.  Climbing debt slowly strangles our government’s ability to deal with anything except servicing the debt, not to mention weakening the dollar.  And, do we really want an ideological opposite like China to have this level of power over us?  (Well, maybe not such an ideological opposite as we’ll see in the following items.)

2)  Disregard for the dignity of human life.  (This should be first, as all other rights are in danger when this one is ignored.)  “Choice” and “reproductive rights” are the morbid euphemisms resulting from a terribly flawed Supreme Court decision forty years ago.  Oh well, Obama and his followers don’t need to worry.  Those 55 million murdered can never vote against them.  Incidentally, an ardent Obama supporter, George Soros, contributed to the development of the abortifacient “RU-486”and its use.3,4

3)   Major contributors to the President’s political party who are opposed to our nation’s survival.  Not true?  Well, back to George Soros again, one of the masterminds pushing for Democratic election victories since 2003.  Soros commented that “Some global system of political decision-making” in which “the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions” when “collective interests” are at stake.5  Also, “[Soros] argued that a vision of ‘open society idealism’ must supersede traditional state sovereignty if globalization is to benefit all.”6

4)  Doing away with the basic unit of civilized society, the family, by attacking the sanctity of marriage.  OK, so you don’t believe in the Ten Commandments, then I hope there is some acknowledgement of Natural Law.  Men and women are different physically for a reason.  (surprise!)  Same gender sexual activity must be condemned because it is intrinsically disordered.  We are morally bound to afford those afflicted the same care and consideration as we do for anyone else experiencing disordered tendencies such as gambling addiction, alcoholism, heterosexual addiction, pedophilia, greed for power and money, etc.7
Marriage was not invented by the Church or the state.  Neither of these institutions has the authority to redefine it.  Legitimizing same sex “marriage” has ripple effects which disrupt the structure of the family.

5)  Making it so that citizens are dependent on Big Brother for everything.  Food stamp recipients increased by about 47% or 15 million during Obama’s first term.

Laws using distorted definitions of “discrimination” and “equality” are threatening the major areas of non-governmental social programs and agencies.  Religious organizations, many of which are Catholic, are finding that they are running afoul of creative laws which declare them to be discriminatory.  Catholic adoption agencies have closed because they cannot accept same-sex couples as appropriate guardians because of Natural Law and core beliefs.  The very existence of religious schools, hospitals and social organizations is threatened because they will not deny deeply held faith beliefs in order to be compliant with government directives such as the HHS mandate.

6)  Essentially suspend freedom of religion, an inalienable right, by limiting its practice to church buildings.  Not only are there dangers such as the HHS mandate, but we also have, “Lawsuits a plenty against religious freedom and expression in the land of the free. Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union when religious symbols were against the law.”8

7)   A federal government so insecure that it touts the crimes of a few, criminally insane as justification to work toward disarming the citizenry.  You and I are such a threat to their vast teams of undercover, armed agents and military might?  This warrants therapy for us, but they’d better hurry before all Catholic Social Services are out of business!

8)   Increasing invasions of privacy under the guise of “protecting” us.  Cameras everywhere.  Drones at Obama’s disposal.  New cars in 2014 required to have “little black boxes” to record vehicle operations data similar to that of 600 mph jets.  Chip implants, just for “high security workers” now, but eventually for “medical records” followed by “etc.”

And we’re supposed to lose sleep because Janet Napolitano’s budget will be affected if Congress doesn’t give in to an executive-order happy President? 

– Kimberly Amadeo, www.About.com, 1/8/2013
2 – Ibid., 9/5/2012
3 – Rachel Zimmerman. “Choice Allies: Awaiting Green Light, Abortion-Pill Venture Keeps to the Shadows,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/5/2000, reference posted in www.churchmilitant.tv
4 – “Contributed $1 Million To Planned Parenthood For “Outreach, Education and Training” Relating To RU-486,” Marc Kaufman, ”Abortion Pill Deliveries Begin Soon,” The Washington Post, 11/16/2000, also in www.churchmilitant.tv
5 — Matthew Rees, “Saving Capitalism From Soros,” The Ottawa Citizen, 12/9/1998, in www.churchmilitant.tv
6 — Carlin Romano, “George Soros Offers A Plan To Help Poor Via Globalization,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/24/2002, also in www.churchmilitant.tv
7 – “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.  They do not choose their homosexual condition: for most of them it is a trial [blog author’s note: “trial” as in a “tribulation,” not trial as an experiment].  They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.  These persons are called to fulfill God’s Will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
“Homosexual persons are called to chastity.  [blog author’s note:  just as any man and woman not married to each other are called]  By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested [note: meaning not self-serving] friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection” (paragraphs 2358 and 2359 of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” Liguori Publications, Liguori, MO, 1994)
8 — Xavier Lerma, pravda,ru web site, 11/19/2012, posted in the article “Fiscal Cliff: Obama Poised to Win Either Way, U.S. Loses Either Way,” on www.CartaRemi.wordpress.com, 12/29/2012


Fired H.S. Asst. Principal, His Supporters and “Scandal”

Definition:  “scandal” – “is a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another’s spiritual ruin… It is not the physical cause of a neighbor’s sin, but only the moral cause, or occasion… and as such it [scandal] exercises on the will of another an influence more or less great which induces to sin.”1

We live in an era of politicians getting away with obvious untruths and expecting the absurd to be accepted with greater unquestioning “faith” than that given to Church teachings.  To some, this may be “scandalous” in the modern sense, but more closely related to “shocking” than to the classical “scandal.”

The Catholic Church has guarded the faith carefully because of the earlier definition in the first paragraph.  Teaching error, as is the case with most sins, affects more than the individual committing it.  It is this particular concern which the Archdiocese of Cincinnati had with the issue of Mike Moroski and his personal blog.  His statements afterward, and those of some of his supporters, could come under both versions.  Either way the situation was unfortunate.  But it was also very necessary that he be fired on February 11 from his administrative and teaching position at Purcell-Marian High School in Cincinnati.2


Moroski  posted his support for “gay marriage” on his personal blog.  He acknowledged “that he violated the Archdiocese’s social media policy.  The contract he signs every year also requires him to ‘comply with and act consistently in accordance with the stated philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.’”  Moroski was put on administrative leave Feb. 4 and given the opportunity to recant his blog statements and thus, retain his position at the high school.3,4

Significance  of  Actions

These agreements are required because the Archdiocese of Cincinnati operates Purcell-Marian.2  Both have the responsibility to ensure that Church doctrines are taught and presented accurately.  All Catholics, not just priests, are morally bound to defend critical Church teachings to the best of their abilities5 to avoid the earlier version of “scandal” – communicating an error which misleads others; and subsequently into wrongdoing.  Those in official positions of authority are also bound contractually, as Mike Moroski was.


When he refused to remove his statement from his blog, he said, “I believe in Catholicism, but my conscience will not permit me to recant my statement.  I put it up there because I really, truly, honestly believe it.” The newspaper added that he said he “‘knew the statement I was making was not in accordance with Roman Catholic beliefs,’ but he does not think he violated the contract because he was following his conscience.”2

His stated belief in Catholicism and having the courage to act on his own beliefs is certainly admirable.  But how could a teacher in his 12th year at a Catholic high school (including ten years at Moeller) continue to sign a contract whose explicit expectations were so opposed to at least one of his beliefs?  There is no mention of, nor would one expect there to be, a provision in the contract which allowed a school administrator to publicly contradict a Church doctrine because of conscience, well-formed or otherwise.

Letters  to  the  Editor

The local secular newspaper published a majority of comments in Moroski’s defense.  Powell Grant’s letter 3included, “There is no reason why marriage should be denied to any couple that loves each other.”  (except that the author of marriage, God-and not the state, explicitly forbids same-gender sex)  “No one is ever harmed by someone else’s marriage.”  (just the couple who is violating the 6th Commandment… or anyone influenced by their actions to do likewise… uh, oh, “scandal” would be occurring here, too)  “Recent polls indicate a majority of Americans have reached the same conclusion [that prohibiting homosexual couples from marrying is unjust].”  (hm, I just happened to have posted an article on moral truths not being subject to popular opinion, 2/11/2013)

Carolyn Schultz3 brought up a good point that Obama-Biden bumper stickers have been prevalent at Purcell-Marian.  Her implication was that that it’s no different from what Moroski did on his blog, expecting readers would reach the conclusion that he should be exonerated.  Actually, they should go the other direction and bring those teachers to task for their open support of disordered behavior!

All of the pro-Moroski writers are probably well-intentioned, but it cannot be ignored that they are like the rest of 50% “Catholic vote” in perpetuating the moral errors promoted by the President.  In their opinion, his victory last November justifies his rewriting of things spiritual as if they were things of state.

Beth Egbers was one respondent who understands the gravity of this situation regarding the sanctity of marriage. She wrote, “They can choose to offend God, but when they are leading Catholic students astray6, they are multiplying their offense exponentially.  The fact that Moroski has been educated at Xavier and Notre Dame says a lot, unfortunately.”3

Yes it does, very unfortunately.  Just as these universities used poor judgment7, now their former students are spreading error on critical issues.  I hope this teacher and his supporters gain a valuable lesson about “scandal.”

1www.newadvent.org> Catholic Encyclopedia
2Cincinnati Enquirer, 2/10/2013
3Cincinnati Enquirer, 2/12/2013
4 — WLW radio reported the Moroski’s option during the week of February 4
5 – “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope,” (from 1 Peter 3:15), The New Catholic Answer Bible, Fireside Catholic Publishing, Wichita, KS, 2005
6 – and therefore, is an example of scandal in the classical sense
7 – Xavier University retracted its position on contraceptives and abortifacients and resumed coverage of these in its insurance policies last year.  Notre Dame invited President Obama to give the commencement exercise in 2009, which included the usual honorary degree.   Unfortunately, it was to someone who holds many of the Church’s teachings in contempt and works to stifle them.

By the Way: Moral Truths Have Never Been Subject to Referendum

Trying to understand Catholicism is difficult for many in the United States.  It has been worsened by two of generations of weakened catechesis producing many “Catholics” who are unable to explain basic concepts or who mistakenly believe that the expression of their faith must be confined to the church structures a la Biden, Pelosi and Sebelius.

As there are only so many hours in a day, one must be judicious in allotting time to clear up the widespread misconceptions.  Consequently, I will only be addressing a couple of points in an article I read in a recent newspaper.

Bloomberg View columnist Margaret Carlson was commenting on the U.S. Catholics bishops’ response to the recently announced “religious accommodation” regarding the much-debated HHS mandate, also known as Obamacare.1  My purpose here is not to delve into the doctrinal justifications for the bishops’ position of which she seems unaware.

Issue “A” :  Pro-Life  vs.  “Choice”

I will, however, address the two statements which stood out the most.  After she suggested that the bishops were probably looking to pick a fight with the President (make that three statements needing rebuttal, but the third will have to wait for another time) Ms. Carlson wrote: “In 2004, the bishops warned Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry that he would be denied Communion for his pro-choice views.  By ostracizing political candidates, they like to enforce beliefs that their parishioners have rejected.”

This implication that the bishops are defending something archaic comes from the mistaken notion that moral truths can be voted out.  (This is one of several erroneous concepts in the Christian community having roots nearly 500 years old.  And you thought you were having trouble with weeds in your yard.)

“Thou shall not kill” was declared by God long before Christ established His Church early in the first century.  To the apostles and their successors, Jesus delegated the responsibility and authority to guide His Church until His return.  He did not confer upon them the authority to change His father’s Commandments.  Just because the “Catholic vote” went 50-48 for a presidential ticket which ignores this basic law of right-to-life does not make the 5th Commandment irrelevant, but it does make the “50%” voters essentially non-Catholic.2,3,4

Issue #2:   Purpose  and  Responsibilty  of  Sex

The other point of contention to be dealt with here arose from: “Of course, Catholics will use contraception.  They have been for decades.”  Several polls have attempted to calculate how many people claiming to be “Catholic” have ever used or routinely use contraception.  There is often confusion as to what the data really mean or which percentage is truly representative.  But in reality, it is immaterial whether a few or nearly all “Catholics” use contraceptives frequently.   Popularity has no authority to change a moral truth.

Moral relativism may be in fashion, but it has no justification.  If it did, we could dispense with that annoying 6th Commandment (you know, the one about sexual relations outside of a valid marriage are forbidden).  I’ll even add the conveniently forgotten statement of Jesus in Matthew 5:27-28 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’  But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”  (More proof that “Catholic guilt” is Scriptually sound.)  Incidentally, some contraceptives cause early term abortions. Consequently, the 5th Commandment is involved here, too


The Catholic Church is not a social committee presided over by the pope and bishops who take periodic surveys to see what Commandments the faithful feel like following.  Its teachings have Scripture and Tradition backing them up.5  While society and technology change, moral truths do not… they cannot, or they wouldn’t be truths.  Whenever a pope, often in consultation with the bishops, makes a statement regarding a current issue, he is not revealing a “new” truth.  Rather, he is applying one with at least a 2000-year old track record to address an issue which didn’t exist at the time of Christ or of the apostles after the Ascension.

Murder has always been wrong, regardless of the euphemisms used to disguise the true nature of a particular mode of killing (“reproductive rights,” “choice,” etc.)  What constitutes a valid marriage and the inherent responsibilities of this vocation (including openness to children) have been the same since God revealed it in ancient times.  Sex is solely tied to marriage regardless of what our spiritual adolescence wishes were true.

Speaking of adolescence, the attainment of age 21, 40 or even 70 does not give us license to dismiss any of the Commandments.  Rationalizations become comfortable when Pride takes hold.  It is good to remember who is the chief promoter of Pride and how it led to his fall.

1 – as published in the Cincinnati Enquirer, 2/9/2013
2 – voter breakdown from www.freerepublic.com
3 – The stance which pseudo-Catholics take regarding what constitutes a “Catholic” defies rational thinking.  If one does not believe in the foundational beliefs of any group, then one is not a member of that group.  This is logic, plain and simple, not being “judgmental.”  Rationalizing that a true “Catholic” can be in favor of allowing abortion and same-sex “marriage” is as contradictory as a person claiming to be “Christian,” who does not accept that Jesus is the Messiah and that He is both God and human.
4 – Technically, a Catholic could vote for someone who does not defend the unborn if he is not supporting the candidate because of that particular issue and the candidate is not using that belief to promote the evil and if there are no alternative candidates who are pro-life or if there are pro-lifers but they support other intrinsic evils.  Such was not the case last November.
5 – It is helpful to remember that Church Tradition existed before the New Testament came into being.  Re:  “Whoever listens to you listens to me.  Whoever rejects you, rejects me.  And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” (Luke  10:16)
“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matthew 28: 19-20)

“Christian” Confuses Obama’s Supporters And Many So-Called Christians

For a term which has existed for almost 2,000 years, what constitutes a “Christian” has somehow become confusing to outsiders and even to many who think of themselves as being Christian.  The recent election has made this painfully evident.

A specific example of this surprising misunderstanding appeared in a letter to the editor in the Monday, November 12, 2012 edition of the Bradenton (FL) Herald.  The writer, Carol Gazell of Bradenton, stressed that President Obama had won re-election because he appealed to a majority of many different demographic groups, which in fact he did.  But she he went on to say that, “We are no longer a nation inhabited by primarily white Christians.  As much as conservatives may not like it, that is the fact, and there’s no going back to those days.”  She would fit in with those who believe that the Obama win represented a victory over what they have named the “Christian right.”  Their rhetoric claims that those who hold these views are a minority who belong to an earlier time and are no longer relevant.

It is true that the various groups of “minorities” are, as a whole, the new majority.  Fair-minded individuals are not paranoid about this reality because this is merely a continuation of the “melting pot” phenomenon which created our great nation.  However, the troubling point is her implication that white Christians have a different set of priorities from non-white Christians.  This is contradictory.  A true Christian must follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Church He established to guide us until His second coming.  These teachings transcend race.  In fact, the equality of all races in the eyes of God is a key Christian tenet.

The real Christian strives for the good in this life and the hereafter for everyone, not just for him or herself.  To achieve “good,” the genuine Christian will, among other virtues:

1) champion the right to life of all human beings from conception until natural death
2) protect the sanctity of marriage which creates the family [basic unit of civilized society]
3) ensure the inalienable right of freedom of religion, which automatically includes its practice.

Such values will be encouraged in a just society, not disparaged.

This brings us to the dichotomy of the last two general elections.  How is it possible for so many “Christians” (and sadly, a majority of my “Catholic” brethren) to have voted for a ticket which:
1) promotes an intrinsic evil (abortion) in the U.S. and elsewhere
2) enables and legitimizes disordered behavior (“LGBT”) at the expense of the family
3) drives toward replacing the free practice of religion with a dominating State?

This is a sign of something definitely out-of-whack.

Let’s go back to the so-called “Christian right.”  The label implies that this group has become extreme in its views.  If this were accurate, they would be expected to push unconstitutional laws like mandatory church attendance for all Americans.  This has never been part of their agenda.  They might try to legislate the return to closing stores on Sundays in order to “keep holy the Lord’s day.”  They could attempt to levy mandatory donations to churches or charitable organizations as a tax in a similar way the Administration was able to convince the Supreme Court to save one aspect of the HHS mandate last June.  The “Christian right” has not attempted to do anything like this.

The “Christian right” passionately believes that “good” should be accomplished, but at the lowest possible level.  The Christian looks to the federal government only when all other means have failed.  In other words, the government should only be involved in helping people to do those things which they cannot do for themselves.  (The Catholic Church has a term for this: “subsidiarity.”  The site for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says: “The principle of subsidiarity reminds us that larger institutions in society should not overwhelm or interfere with smaller or local institutions, yet larger institutions have essential responsibilities when the more local institutions cannot adequately protect human dignity, meet human needs and advance the common good.”)  Therefore, it does not mean, as Obama’s supporters charge, that the “Christian right” believes in neglecting the disadvantaged.

The “Christian right” also does not believe that something must be condoned and accepted as inevitable just because it’s legal.  This includes an array of actions such as: discontinuing retirees’ health insurance, allowing speculative financial tools to be used which line the speculators’ pockets and cause hardship to millions, killing the unborn, same sex so-called marriage, etc.  The “Christian right” is just as much a defender of “the little guy” as any other voting bloc because this IS the little guy.  A quick look at the voting pattern of rural areas will attest to this.

So what is so confusing or dangerous about white Christians or the “Christian right?”  Perhaps “right” in this case doesn’t stand for an extremely conservative position (as opposed to “left” or liberal).  Maybe it’s really a matter of right versus wrong…. a very sensitive area for those desperately trying to ignore their consciences.

End of confusion.

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.”


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.


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.


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”).


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. 

It’s (Not Just) the Economy, Stupid

In the 1990s, it became popular to acknowledge that the outcome of presidential elections would be decided primarily by the state of the economy with the statement, “It’s the economy, stupid.” This tradition has filtered down to a more local level as seen in the 8/19/2012 Sunday edition of the Hamilton (OH) JournalNews. The Ohio Senate race, between incumbent Democrat Sherrod Brown and his Republican challenger Josh Mandel, was headlined “In Senate race, it’s still the economy.” While the writer may have been correct in the general assessment of voter concern, attempts to fix the economy both statewide and nationally will ultimately fail unless we cure philosophical illnesses first.

Our national deterioration has been accelerating since the 1960s when the major problems of race relations and the handling of Viet Nam were also symptoms of far greater foundational cracks in our values. After we put band-aids on those issues, we found ourselves facing energy shortages, financial panics and international crises which mutated like viruses every few years. Treating only the symptoms is as futile as patching holes in a dam of fundamentally faulty construction.

So, what are some of the root causes of our need for ongoing crisis management? Sifting through the fog of confusion, we find increasing disregard for:

  1.  the dignity of human life at all stages
  2.  the sanctity of marriage and the indispensable family unit
  3.  the inalienable right to freedom of religion

Ignoring these timeless principles always produces self-serving decisions which harm the present and endanger our future.

In the JournalNews article, one citizen was quoted, “The economy is extremely important because everything flows out of that.” I propose that our values are most important, because the economy and everything else flows from them.

When we lose sight of right and wrong, no amount of government can save us.