Gaslighting

Imagine a bunch of premies, in a hospital, asleep in their bassinets. The hospital has assured the parents that these children are watched and monitored, and they are securely locked in the nursery. Yet, that was not so. There is no guard, no monitoring, and the door is left unlocked. A mentally unstable patient comes in the room, removes five of them, and drops them on the floor, killing them.

What should happen to those responsible for the children? I think we can all agree that they should lose their jobs, face penalties, and possibly go to jail for their gross negligence with children left in their care, and the facility responsible should be sued out of existence.

This is basically what happened at an IVF clinic in Alabama. The clinic had told the parents their children would be guarded and monitored until they were ready to implant them. Instead the room was left unguarded and the door to the adjoining hospital unlocked. A mentally unstable patient came in, removed five children and dropped them on the floor killing them.

The "pro-choice" media is dancing on the graves of these children, blaming Pro-lifers for the "ban of IVF" in Alabama, proving that they really don't care about women and children. And Democrats immediately crafted legislation (more likely brought it out of the drawer where it had been waiting) to exempt the industry from all liability, and even expanding that to cover the creation of extra embryos for medical experiments without the consent of the parents.

Leaving aside the ethics and morality of buying and selling human beings, this really bothers me. You can say "oh, they're not children, they're embryos." But to the parents, these are their children, whom they spent years trying to have. Perhaps the only children they will ever have in their lives. Their hopes for a future family are gone, smashed on the floor, because of negligence and lies, and the media and politicians only care about how they can use this to make more money.

Disgusting!

Read More

The Leper

In today’s first reading we hear about the Mosaic laws concerning Leprosy. Leprosy, or Hanson’s disease, as it is called today, was serious business in the ancient world. There was no cure, and so the person with leprosy would spend the few years they had left gradually watching their body deteriorate, and pieces of themselves dying and coming off. Skin, fingers, toes, hands, feet, until they were left a helpless wreck, in constant pain, having to live alone until they were too weak to live.

Leprosy is a perfect analogy for sin. Without a “cure” the sinner gradually becomes a slave to sin. It takes over his life, until pieces of his life are lost, and eventually the sinner becomes too weak and in constant pain from his sin. The penalty for sin, like leprosy, is isolation and death. Now, you may think that there are people who are happy in their sin, but that is part of the problem. Ironically one of the penalties of sin is it feels good, and we take that immediate but shallow pleasure over the true joy of a relationship with God. And over time we lose that relationship to the extent that we no longer desire it, and are lost in habitual sin.

And consider what happens to the leper. He comes to Jesus, admitting his disease, and Jesus heals him, just as He heals us from our sins. After the healing, notice that Jesus can no longer enter the cities, but has to remain out in the wilderness. He is taking on the punishment that the leper “deserved” – namely he cannot go into cities. This all points to the way Jesus took our sins and suffered the punishment we deserved, death on the cross. What seems on the surface to be a simple story about a leper actually has a deeper meaning as well, about the love of God for each of us, and how He is willing to take our punishment so that we may live.

Lastly, consider how the leper approaches Jesus. He doesn’t try to hide his leprosy or impose upon Jesus. He humbly kneels, and doesn’t even presume to try to make Jesus heal him, he just trusts in Jesus and says “if you wish, you can make me clean.” Too often we ask God to do something for us, but we don’t actually trust that God can do it. So we pray over and over, “Lord heal this” or “Lord change that.” But if the Lord actually healed or changed what we ask, we would be surprised that it happened, and maybe even attribute the event to something else – “oh that chemo worked,” or “they changed their mind about it.”

We ask but don’t expect to be answered. On the contrary, the leper believes that Jesus can heal him, but does not presume to ask. What a great faith he has! May we all strive to be more like the leper. Acknowledge what we need, have faith that God will do what’s best, and leave it in His hands, knowing that He loves us and will take care of us. Or as Padre Pio so succinctly put it “Pray, Hope and don’t worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.”

Read More

GOP Primary - what they all got wrong

There's an old story about AT&T (or at least as I heard it), that if they bought Kentucky Fried Chicken they would rebrand it as "Hot Dead Birds." I disagree - I think they would have rebranded it as "Meal 5520." Either way, you get the idea.

Since the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, Republicans have treated abortion as a "losing" topic. It seems every time they bring it up poll numbers drop. Meanwhile, Biden and the Democrats are thriving on the "restoration of abortion rights" propaganda. In the media, pro-lifers are called "extremists" and the technique seems to resonate with voters.

At the GOP presidential candidate debate the other night, abortion and "pro-life" was a significant part of the discussion. All of the candidates professed to be pro-life, but some apologetically, and all of them proposed national bans at 15 weeks, except for Burgum, who thinks it is a "states only" issue, and Ramaswamy, who always manages to not commit to any concrete solution, and never gets called on it.

Several candidates pointed out that there is broad, bi-partisan support for a 15 week ban, and Nikki Haley shot them down saying that there weren't 60 senators who would vote for it. That's not helpful, Nikki.

Just like the "Hot Dead Birds" brand, Republicans never seem to find a way to make their message appealing.

On the other hand, she did call out Democrats for pushing abortion up until birth, and that's where the Republicans need to go, IMHO. Point out at every opportunity that the Democrats want abortion until birth, and they don't want parental notification. Parental notification is a hot button topic. Parents everywhere want to know what their kids are doing, and abortion without parental notification chiefly benefits sex traffickers who can get easy abortions for their underage victims. And just about everybody recognizes that a baby is a baby at a certain point in a pregnancy.

What I found most disappointing is every candidate used the phrase "pro-life" without ever saying what they meant by it. The only one who said why he was pro-life was Pence, who said basically "because Bible." Again, not helpful. Those who hold his view of the Bible are already in his camp, and those who don't will see it as another reason not to be pro-life.

Nope, none of them gave any coherent explanation as to what their views actually are or why they hold them. So I will say what I wished they would say.

I understand that not all of America is on the same page when it comes to abortion, but here is how I see it. Our founding documents tell us that we are all created equal and that we all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Over the years Democrats have always failed to recognize the rights of some. At first it was primarily slaves, then immigrants, now it is the unborn, the disabled and elderly.

Science tells us unequivocally that unborn babies are human beings, as are disabled people and seniors. On what grounds do we justify killing some human beings, simply because they are inconvenient? That's why I'm pro-life and why I believe that government at all levels must protect life at all ages.

Read More

Gun Control is a Sin (Part II)

In Part I I laid out a brief definition of Justice, and spoke of the two false assumptions used to justify gun controls. I left off with:

And so, even if gun control worked so well that it magically removed all the guns, it would be an injustice against the innocent, and against the physically weaker, or poorer members of society. The strong would prey on the weak with impunity.

But some gun control advocates will say, they don't want to get rid of all guns, just keep guns out of the hands of "bad" people. Let's talk about that. Who are the "bad" people? Apparently they think it is the gun owner, since that's who the law targets. Why do they claim gun owners are bad? Because they own guns. And we're right back to the false notion that guns have no legitimate use.

Conversely, who are the "good" people? Usually mentioned are the government or agents of the government. It is stunningly ignorant to think that a government worker is more moral than the average person. In the last century governments have killed more civilians than any mass murderer could dream of - some 262 million people.

One thing that stuck in my mind, that I learned from a course in the legal use of deadly force. Why do police carry guns? To protect themselves from danger of death or serious bodily harm. They don't carry them to "shoot bad guys" or to "save civilians." In fact, the criteria for a "good" police shoot is the same as that for any citizen defending themselves (at least in theory, we'll get into why they get a pass in another blog post).

And then there's the other class of "good guys" that gun control proponents don't mention: the rich. Of course, the right can have private body guards, and so can you. Wait, you're too poor? Then you don't deserve protection from criminals. Is there anything more unjust? Should we not, as a society, have laws that are preferential to the poor and underserved rather than the rich elites?

Thomas Jefferson is often quoted with the following, which was actually him quoting Cesare Beccaria (“On Crimes and Punishments”):

The laws of [false utility] are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator?

The point is a valid one. Gun control laws will be obeyed by good citizens, but ignored by those wishing to commit crimes. And so such laws disproportionately disarm the law abiding citizen rather than the criminal.

One of the dirty little secrets of gun control is that after such laws are enacted there is an increase in violent crimes. gun control advocates like to point out the difference in criminal statistics between the US and other countries, but they don't look at what happened in those countries when the gun laws were enacted. Nor do they look at the types of crimes. In the US the vast number of robberies are conducted when the home is empty. In the UK, most home robberies occur when the family is home (58%), and can be forced to hand over hidden valuables. This is because the criminal in the US fears the homeowner, whereas in the UK the homeowner is helpless, and a source to be intimidated and or beaten.

Likewise sexual assault and rape. In the UK there are 618,000 sexual assaults or rapes each year. In the US, that number is 735,000 sexual assaults or rapes. Sounds similar until you realize that the population of the UK is around 68 million and the US has 330 million people. So the rate in the UK is over 4 times that of the US.

Then there's the fact that in the US guns are not used in over 91% of violent crimes. So even if we were to disarm all criminals, it would result in a tiny drop in crime (assuming those who would have used a gun don't just use a different weapon). There are much more effective ways to reduce crime than gun control, such as strict enforcement of existing laws, abandoning so-called "bail reform", three strikes laws, etc.

I've rambled a little, but the key points are that:

• Gun control harms the victim more than the criminal.
• Gun control hurts the poor more than the rich.
• Gun control hurt minorities more than whites.
• Gun control increases crime.
• Even if it were "perfect" it would not reduce crime significantly.

For these reasons, gun control is a sin against Justice. In future posts, we'll be looking at the racist roots of gun control, and specific gum laws which gravely unjust in other ways. Stay tuned...

Read More

Gun Control is a Sin

This is part I of a longer discussion.

Over the course of the last few weeks I've received several notices from the USCCB urging me to support the Democrats' gun control bill. Considering that gun control is a matter of prudential judgement (meaning Catholics in good standing can come to vastly different conclusions), rather than a matter like abortion, which is an inherent evil, and considering how many more statements on gun control I received than on abortion, it got me to thinking and researching the matter more deeply.

I have come to the conclusion that, rather than being a matter of prudential judgement, gun control is actually a sin against Justice. It is also opposed to the pro-life cause. Not only should the bishops not be urging their flocks to support it, they should be advocating the opposite. Let me explain.

What is Justice? Justice is one of the four cardinal virtues, Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance. We don't often hear of the other three, but there is a lot of talk (mostly complaining about a lack of) justice. Justice is the principle by which we give to each person what is due him.

A St. Pope John Paul II said:

Christ left us the commandment to love our neighbour. In this commandment, everything that concerns justice is also contained. There can be no love without justice. Love “surpasses” justice, but at the same time it finds its verification in justice. Even a father and a mother, loving their own child, must be just in his regard. If justice is uncertain, love, too, runs a risk.

To be just means giving each one what is due to him. This concerns temporal goods, of a material nature. The best example here can be remuneration for work or the so-called right to the fruits of one’s own work or of one’s own land. But to man is due also his good name, respect, consideration, the reputation he has deserved. The more we know a man, the more his personality, his character, his intellect and his heart are revealed to us. And the more we realize—and we must realize!—with what criterion to “measure him” and what it means to be just towards him.

It is necessary, therefore, to deepen our knowledge of justice continually. It is not a theoretical science. It is virtue, it is [a]capacity of the human spirit, of the human will and also of the heart. It is also necessary to pray in order to be just and to know how to be just.

We cannot forget Our Lord’s words: “The measure you give will be the measure you get” (Mt 7:2).

To see why gun control is inherently unjust, first let's talk about what guns are (at least of the purpose of this discussion). Firearms (aka guns) fall into a broader class which we call weapons. A weapon is something which can be used to inflict damage. A weapon can be used for evil (to attack) or good (to discourage an attack, or defend against attack). Therefore weapons are morally neutral (excluding for the moment weapons which have no legitimate defensive use).

The most basic weapon is the human body. Humans instinctively use their hands, feet, knees, etc. to attack or defend. The basic premise is that you put energy into your fist (for example) and that energy is transferred to the object it strikes, causing pain and damage to that object.

The human body has very little range, and so other weapons were designed to increase that range. Contact weapons like knives, swords, clubs, and projectile weapons like rocks, knives, spears, arrows and firearms. A firearm, in principle, is basically rock throwing, only the rock is small and it is thrown very fast.

The thing that makes a firearm different from rock throwing, and fundamentally different from all the other weapons mentioned, is that its effectiveness to attack or defend does not depend on the strength of the user. And that fact is what makes them unique in the sense of Justice, and the reason why gun control is the goal of despots everywhere. As the old adage goes "God made men, Sam Colt made them equal."

Gun control advocates base their arguments on two principles, both of which are false. The first is that the world would be safer and more peaceful without guns. Anyone who has studied history can tell you that the world was objectively more violent and dangerous before the invention of guns. Modern liberals like to think that somehow people today are "more evolved" than those of a few hundred years ago, but even modern history shows that when one group of people has power over another the result is never good. Consider the Armenian Genocide Stalin's Russia, the the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide and abortion.The defenseless are still being killed in great numbers.

The second false principle is that guns have no good use. Again even a brief look at history shows that to be false. Guns have been used to defend against aggressors since they were invented. In the US today, guns are used between 1 million and 3 million times a year to defend against criminals. Those numbers are based on a 2012 report, ordered by president Obama, so you know they are not biased in favor of firearm owners.

To quote civil rights activist Carol Ruth Silver, "Access to firearms gives women, for the first time in history, the capacity to live independently and apart from men in safety and freedom." Consider the case of a 120 pound woman and her 240 pound would-be male attacker. Or an elderly or disabled person. Access to firearms makes them the equal of that attacker. And usually that is enough to dissuade the attacker. In fact, 95% of the time when a firearm is "used" to defend against an attacker, no shot is fired. The mere display of a firearm causes the criminal to rethink whether he wants to go up against even odds of being hurt or killed.

And so, even if gun control worked so well that it magically removed all the guns, it would be an injustice against the innocent, and against the physically weaker, or poorer members of society. The strong would prey on the weak with impunity.

More in Part II...

Read More

What is the Unpardonable Sin?

By AlexanderRahm - Own work, CC BY 3.0

There are a few passages of scripture that I cannot fathom. That's OK, in most cases, as I don't feel that I am capable of understanding everything about God. But there are several in this category I would really like to understand, because they may be relevant to my salvation or that of others.

Matthew 12:31-32 is one such passage. It reads:

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

I recently listened to an episode of "The Road to Emmaus" podcast with Scott Hahn where that was the topic of discussion. It left me with more questions than answers.

Here's what's conventionally said about the unpardonable sin. The context of the two verses above is that Jesus has cured a demoniac and the Pharisees claim Jesus has done so by beelzebul (the devil) rather than by God's power. Jesus rebukes them, then offers those two verses. The footnote in my Bible says "To attribute to the devil the works of the Holy Spirit seems to imply a hardness of heart that precludes repentance."

Somehow this is often equated to the sin of despair (denial that one's sins can be forgiven) or the sin of presumption (the belief that I do not need repentance for the forgiveness of my sins). I'm not sure I follow the leap from attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil to believing that  my sins are forgiven (or not), but there it is.

The Catechism says:

1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Aquinas describes three different interpretations of the blasphemy agains the Holy Spirit (see highlighted text below):

For the earlier doctors, viz. Athanasius (Super Matth. xii, 32), Hilary (Can. xii in Matth.), Ambrose (Super Luc. xii, 10), Jerome (Super Matth. xii), and Chrysostom (Hom. xli in Matth.), say that the sin against the Holy Ghost is literally to utter a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, whether by Holy Spirit we understand the essential name applicable to the whole Trinity, each Person of which is a Spirit and is holy, or the personal name of one of the Persons of the Trinity, in which sense blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is distinct from the blasphemy against the Son of Man (Matthew 12:32), for Christ did certain things in respect of His human nature, by eating, drinking, and such like actions, while He did others in respect of His Godhead, by casting out devils, raising the dead, and the like: which things He did both by the power of His own Godhead and by the operation of the Holy Ghost, of Whom He was full, according to his human nature. Now the Jews began by speaking blasphemy against the Son of Man, when they said (Matthew 11:19) that He was "a glutton . . . a wine drinker," and a "friend of publicans": but afterwards they blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, when they ascribed to the prince of devils those works which Christ did by the power of His own Divine Nature and by the operation of the Holy Ghost.

Augustine, however (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi), says that blasphemy or the sin against the Holy Ghost, is final impenitence when, namely, a man perseveres in mortal sin until death, and that it is not confined to utterance by word of mouth, but extends to words in thought and deed, not to one word only, but to many. Now this word, in this sense, is said to be uttered against the Holy Ghost, because it is contrary to the remission of sins, which is the work of the Holy Ghost, Who is the charity both of the Father and of the Son. Nor did Our Lord say this to the Jews, as though they had sinned against the Holy Ghost, since they were not yet guilty of final impenitence, but He warned them, lest by similar utterances they should come to sin against the Holy Ghost: and it is in this sense that we are to understand Mark 3:29-30, where after Our Lord had said: "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost," etc. the Evangelist adds, "because they said: He hath an unclean spirit."

But others understand it differently, and say that the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, is a sin committed against that good which is appropriated to the Holy Ghost: because goodness is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, just a power is appropriated to the Father, and wisdom to the Son. Hence they say that when a man sins through weakness, it is a sin "against the Father"; that when he sins through ignorance, it is a sin "against the Son"; and that when he sins through certain malice, i.e. through the very choosing of evil, as explained above (I-II:78:1; I-II:78:3), it is a sin "against the Holy Ghost."

But here's my basic problem with all the interpretations above. If you say that this sin is only unpardonable because it is not repented of, then it is no different from any other mortal sin, and yet we don't call every mortal sin unpardonable. Blasphemy agains the Holy Spirit then, is not unpardonable.

Want an example? The mission of the Apostles and the formation of the Church is a work of the Holy Spirit. St. Paul considers this an abomination against the Jewish faith - something of the devil, and so he persecutes the Christians. Yet Paul repents and his sin is (presumably - ha ha) pardoned.

Furthermore Jesus says that whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven. Well, isn't that what the Pharisees did? They said Jesus was in league with beelzebul, they didn't directly mention the Holy Spirit (nor did Paul for that matter).

For that matter it would seem that saying a word against the Son of man will be forgiven if the person repents, just like any other sin. And one could say that claiming Jesus is in league with the devil seems to imply a hardness of heart that precludes repentance of that. And indeed we see that many of the Pharisees (as far as we know) did not repent of their words against Jesus.

St. Augustine (one of my personal faves) has an interpretation that at least is consistent logically, but I don't see how it follows form the text. That is, final impenitence is not mentioned, and indeed if the sin is impenitence then it is not a "sin" per se, but impenitence of sin, that precludes forgiveness. The text seems to imply there is a sin which precludes later forgiveness, not a state you are in later that precludes forgiveness from any sin. I guess one could interpret the text as meaning "whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit until death" but that's not what the text says.

And so the whole thing remains a mystery to me. The common interpretation does not make sense to me because the same logic applies to every other mortal sin, including blasphemy against Jesus, which Jesus explicitly says is not this sin.

Read More

Don't. Stop Believing

Every mass, and indeed every time we pray the rosary we recite the Creed. The word comes from Credo, Latin for "I believe" since Catholics have no imagination and name prayers and documents after the first words (e.g. the "Our Father" or "Glory Be"). The text of the prayer is as follows:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; He descended into hell; on the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from there He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen

Here's my problem with that (you knew I'd complain about something). Immediately after praying this we go out into the world and make statements like "Trump is the best (or worst) president EVAH!" We say "masks don't (or do) work!" We say "Climate change is a hoax (or the most important problem of our day)!"

The thing is all of those statements are things we believe, but we don't say "I believe" these things, we state them as matters of fact, because we are so convinced of them that in our minds they surpass belief, and anyone who doesn't see this in the same light is clearly WRONG!

So why is our expression of beliefs on politics, or science, so strong compared to our belief in God? You could say that it's just the way people express themselves today, and that's a fair point, but as we speak so we think (or vice versa). In my reckoning, if our belief in God is absolute (and it should be, as God is evident from reason alone), why not express it that way?

God, the Father Almighty, is the Creator of heaven and earth, and Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; He descended into hell; on the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from there He will come to judge the living and the dead. The Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting are all true. Amen

Read More

The False Prophet of the Apocalypse

Of late there has been a spate of Catholics online spreading stories that run along the following lines: Pope Francis is not really the Pope, he the the antichrist, or the beast, or the false prophet. This is backed up by a bunch of "prophecies." One prominent news source and several Catholic "influencers" have posted similar things, and in the groups I manage I have had to "break up" numerous fights between "Catholics." I'm not going to waste your time or give them any extra eyeballs by posting links but you are welcome to google the title of this post if you want to read one of them. After reading this, you may not want to, however. Here are my thoughts.

First off, what is prophecy?

To a Christian, prophecy is not predicting the future, but speaking God’s truth. What is God's truth? Look at the Biblical prophets. With a few rare exceptions, they say nothing about the future world of politics and future events (the only exception I can think of is in Isaiah where he says someone named Cyrus will restore Jerusalem). Instead, they speak of current events (even though those events may have echoes in the future) and the truth that God loves us, will never abandon us, and that we need to repent and turn from false idols. Jonah – Ninevah must repent or be destroyed. Isaiah – God will shepherd His people. Hosea – turn from idols and be faithful to God. Elijah – God is faithful to His chosen people.

On the other hand, to the modern world prophecy is predicting the future through preternatural means. This is a corruption of prophecy and demonic. The Bible and the catechism both expressly forbid as serious sin the desire to know future events through means that are not natural. That’s not to say God does not reveal knowledge of the future to certain people -. Zechariah, Mary and Joseph, for example. But that knowledge was given to them individually, not to the world. To try to predict the dates of the “Great Apostacy” the “Tribulation” and the second coming of Our Lord is sinful. It is not for us to know, as Jesus Himself says in Sacred Scripture.

Regarding all these current trendy Catholic prophecies about saviors and antichrists (usually applied to Trump and Pope Francis respectively), I can make the “savior” ones apply to Trump to Obama or Biden or Pope Francis. On the other hand I can make the antichrist ones apply to Trump, or Pope Francis, or Biden. Most of them can apply to any world figure. All you have to do is first decide that person "X" is the antichrist, then manipulate things until you find some connection to the number 666. For instance, if you take the integer values of the ASCII encoding of the characters "BERGOGLIO" and add them up they equal 666! "Proof" that the Pope is the antichrist! If that hadn't worked, I'm sure there is some combination of characters in some part of his name that will add up if you translate and encode them just right.. Starting with a conclusion and manipulating times, events, names, etc. until you find some connection to something somebody wrote is NOT the way to the truth.

So the methodology is suspect right off the bat. Now let’s consider the sources quoted:

• Prophecies of St. Francis. This book claims to contain “unknown” writings of St. Francis of Assisi. It has an imprimatur from the bishop. Is this a good source? I don’t know but note that an imprimatur only means that the book does not contain statements that contradict Catholic dogma. It does not mean that the contents are true, or even that the church agrees with the book (see https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/imprimaturs-and-private-revelations for information on imprimaturs). Also, the book was published in 1882, and St. Francis died in 1181, 700 years earlier. Why is there no record of these writings for 700 years? But let us assume it is accurate – what does the book actually predict? I found it online (https://archive.org/stream/SeraphicFatherStFrancisOfAssisi?ref=ol#page/n265/mode/2up). The book notes that the prophecy was fulfilled in 1378 under Pope Urban VI. Does that mean it can’t also apply to today? It could, but 1378 was not the end of the world, so saying that this is THE great Tribulation and the Final end does not follow.

• St. Malachy. Just like the prophecies of St. Francis, the prophecies of St. Malachy were "discovered" in 1590, 450 years after St. Malachy lived, in 1148. They are simply not credible. For an explanation see http://jimmyakin.com/2013/02/how-reliable-is-the-st-malachy-prophecy.html Perhaps they should be called prophecies of "malarkey" instead.
  

• Our Lady of Garabandal – this apparition was determined not to be genuine by four successive bishops. Enthusiasts reject the bishop's authority and claim it will be recognized at a later date. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote of it "this Sacred Congregation wishes to assert: that the Holy See has never approved even indirectly the Garabandal movement, that it has never encouraged or blessed Garabandal promoters or centers. Rather the Holy See deplores the fact that certain persons and Institutions persist in formatting the movement in obvious contradiction with the dispositions of ecclesiastical authority and thus disseminate confusion among the people."

• Our Lady of LaSalette is an approved apparition, BUT as noted above, the recognition of an apparition by the church does not mean it is accurate, only that the message does not contradict Catholic dogma. The apparition took place in 1846 and was approved in 1851. However, the prophecy states that the antichrist will be revealed in 1865. That did not happen. That should be proof that at least the prophecy of the antichrist is false. See https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/la-salette-sorting-fact-from-fiction for more information.

• Our Lady of Fatima – these modern interpretations all assume that the consecration of Russia was not done and that there are more secrets that were never revealed (or more parts to the secrets). Sr. Lucia, the original visionary, confirmed several times that the consecration of Russia was done to Our Lady’s satisfaction, and that the secrets were as revealed. See https://www.bluearmy.com/letter-from-sister-lucia-confirmed-consecration-of-russia-was-done/ and https://jimmyakin.com/2019/10/the-third-secret-of-fatima-jimmy-akins-mysterious-world.html

• The “Warning” or “Illumination of Conscience” cited in these theories is false – see https://sqpn.com/2020/10/the-warning-the-illumination-of-conscience-catholic-prophecy/

• The “End Time” prophecies cited are false – see https://sqpn.com/2020/10/the-apostle-of-the-last-times-fr-michel-rodrigue-apocalyptic-prophecy-private-revelation-last-days-end-times/

• Pope St. Pius X’s prophecy about the next Pope with the same name – assuming this is even true – I can’t find the actual statement by the Pope, only later claims that he said this – is claimed to refer to Pope Benedict XVI. The prophecy speaks of a Pope with the same name who will suffer and flee to hiding, and then the last days of the world will come. Of course the next pope named Pius was Pius XI, who didn't fit the prophecy. Rather than accept that the prophecy was false, enthusiasts looked for ways to twist it to fit the "fact" that these are the last days. What they came up with is that Pope Benedict XVI's given name is Josef, which, when translated from German to Italian, is Giuseppe, which was the given name of Pope St. Pius X. However, if you want to go down that rabbit hole, there are better candidates: Pope Pius XII's given name was Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli – and he also was a pope Pius – that’s a better match for the prophecy than Pope Benedict… or the Pope after that, John XXIII was Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli… if you’re willing to twist things enough you can make the prophecy be about anyone you like.

So, the source material used is garbage.

Next, look at the “fruits” of the prophecies. The one thing that separates Catholics from all other Christians is the Pope. If you look at Martin Luther’s 95 theses, the church has basically adopted all of his reforms except one – that the Pope is not the seat of authority for the church. That is the Protestant heresy. So when I hear Catholics saying that Francis is not the “real” Pope what does that mean? The bishops acknowledge Francis as Pope, so these Catholics have separated themselves from the Magisterium. If they say “Benedict is Pope” – well, Benedict says Francis is Pope, so they are defying the authority of Pope Benedict as well. There is no scenario I see where this leads us to a closer relationship with Christ and His church. On the contrary it seems to me that such people should no longer be called Catholic, but they are now Protestant, since they do not accept the authority of any Pope.

So the fruit of this whole exercise is to cause divisions within the church and cause the faithful to leave the body of Christ. That's not to say that some people won't use these theories to give them resolve to repent, but these theories are not necessary for that, nor is that their goal. Instead they are sensational "click bait."

So my conclusion is that this is demonic because:

• The "goal" of the prophecies (to predict the second coming of Christ) is sinful, and something Christ warns us against.
• The methods used to come to the conclusion are deceitful and involve twisting the truth, they are not of God.
• The sources of the prophecy are false, possibly of demonic origin.
• The fruits of the prophecies are fear and division, putting our own "knowledge" above the teachings of the church.

Note, I do think Pope Francis is not being a very good Pope, and that we are living in the end times, but you don't need these prophecies to tell you that. Clearly we are in end times - we have been for 2000 years, but playing around with private revelations and false prophets is not something we should be doing.

 

One finally thought... a lot of the people pushing these theories see themselves as a "faithful remnant" because they are defying the "antichrist/beast." They point to things like the above, and that Pope Francis is bad and is "destroying" the church. But are they the faithful remnant for defying Pope Francis? Is it not them who are destroying the church? Remember in Israel, the son of Solomon, Rehoboam, was so bad that ten of the twelve tribes split off. Yet, the ones who stayed with the bad king were the faithful remnant, not the ones who defied him and set up their own temples.

I'm not suggesting we fall into line with the "new world order" and other ideas the Pope seems to embrace. But I am suggesting when we see things we don't like, we say "yes, he is wrong" and recognize him as Pope anyway. It is time we realize the Pope is not God, but a man.

 

Read More

God intended it for good

This is probably the worst Thanksgiving my family has had. All the family but my youngest are in other states, and "quarantined." Even my youngest son's girlfriend is quarantined, and so our family celebration consists of three people and a telephone. And yet it may be the best Thanksgiving my family has had. A reminder to be thankful for the blessings that we have, and to hold God above all things in our lives. It has given me an opportunity to reflect more on grace and blessing, and on God's word.

And so here is my Thanksgiving reflection for this year. Recall the story of Joseph in the Bible, in Genesis 37-50. Joseph is sold into slavery by his own brothers, and is taken to a foreign land (Egypt). There he works his way to a position of importance, and eventually is able to save not only Egypt but the lands around, including his own people, from starvation when a famine occurs. The story ends with him being reunited with his brothers and forgiving them, saying (Gen 50:19-20):

“Do not be afraid! Am I in the place of God? Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today. So have no fear; I myself will provide for you and your little ones.” 

Of course, Joseph is a prefigurement of Christ, who "empties Himself, becoming a slave" and through His suffering, many are saved. But that happened 2,000 years ago.

Recall the story of the first Thanksgiving. The Puritans had arrived at Plymouth and nearly half of them had died that first year. They did not know how to handle the unique challenges of the new world. A different climate, soil, wildlife, plants all were different. The only thing that pulled them through was help from the natives, especially Squanto. Squanto was able to help them because he spoke perfect English and understood their needs and culture. How did this come about?

Many years before, Squanto was sold into slavery, and taken to a foreign land (Spain). There his freedom was purchased by Franciscans, who taught him the Catholic faith, into which he was Baptized. They later brought him to England, where he learned the language and customs, and where he worked his way to a position of importance, and eventually bought himself passage back to America. He then became the means by which the Puritan settlers were saved.

Just as in the story of Joseph, and others, Squanto's story shows how God brings good even out of evil, so that many may be saved. I have no doubt that in His wisdom and mercy, God is doing the same for us today.

Thank you, God, for all the blessings you have given me; for family, friends, my health, prosperity, liberty, and most importantly the ability to know You and love You. I do not see the good in all things, and I complain day to day, but I have hope in Your mercy and firm faith that you will use this, as You do all things, for good.

May God bless you all on this unusual and trying Thanksgiving day!

Read More

Disproportionately Affected

One thing I hear all the time from my Democratic friends is that a law is unjust because it disproportionately affects minorities. Crime laws are unjust because there is a disproportionately high number of minorities in prison. Drug laws are unjust because they disproportionately incarcerate minorities. And the old saw, voter ID laws are unjust because they disproportionately disenfranchise minorities. But is that true? Out of six studies performed from 2014 to 2018, three found no effect, one found an increase in minority voter participation, and one found a slight decrease. Guess which study gets all the publicity? Now, newer studies have debunked that, finding flaws in the methodology of the study that found a decrease.

I'd like to look at it from the other side, however. I believe voter fraud disproportionately disenfranchises minorities. I was listening to this podcast by Dan Crenshaw and, interestingly, one of the most common kinds of fraud is perpetrated by people who have houses in multiple states, who receive mail in ballots and vote in each state. Now I don't know about you, but I'm guessing you have to have money to own multiple houses, meaning the rich are disenfranchising the poor, and minorities. Another type of fraud is ballot harvesting, which again is likely ti disproportionately affect the poor and minorities, who live in more densely populated areas. Finally, there is the old gray train, going through minority-filled city neighborhoods and offering to "help" people with their votes, often with a promise of a meal or some money. Again, this is disenfranchising minorities.

Even if voter fraud were color blind, it would still disenfranchise minorities more than whites, because there are fewer of them. It's simple mathematics. Let's say there are 100 people voting, and 90 of them are white, 10 are black. It only takes 10% voter fraud by whites to completely eliminate the black vote, even if they all voted in one monolithic block. In a more realistic split, just 1% or 2% voter fraud will nullify any chance minorities have of influencing an election.

So it seems to me that is you really care about minority rights, the thing to do is enact laws to safeguard legal votes and eliminate voter fraud. Ignoring or encouraging fraud is just another racist policy of the racist Democrat party.

Read More

If your world view is threatened...

...by a Supreme Court justice reading the Constitution as it is written, then you have not done government right. Here's why.

Let's say you want to make abortion legal everywhere. How do you do that? You get the senate and the house to vote on a bill, get it passed, get the president to sign it, and it becomes law. Likely that law will be challenged, and it will go to the supreme court. Let's say the court decides there is nothing in the Constitution to allow you to write such a law (hint, there isn't).

No problem, you simply write an amendment to the Constitution, get it passed by two thirds of the house and senate, and get three fourths of the states to ratify it. It then becomes the law of the land, and no amount of SCOTUS finagling should be able to knock it down. When the Republicans freed the slaves, gave them the right to vote, gave women the right to vote, etc. that's how they did it. And so you can't really have a Supreme Court justice decide to deny women the right to vote (for instance).

The Democratic party, and sadly, a lot of Americans, think that the role of the Supreme Court justices is to "vote" for what they want. Conservative justices will always vote for conservative things and liberal justices will vote for liberal things. We need to have a balance, or a majority of people who will "vote" the right way. But that's not what the Supreme Court is supposed to be about. They are supposed to see if the laws being enacted correspond to what's written in the Constitution.

Will that stop some liberal policies from being enacted? Yes. It will also stop some conservative policies from being enacted. That's life. You either live within the rule of law, or there is no law, only raw power to oppress your opponents. Don't like the Constitution? As noted, there is an amendment process. If you can't get the amendment you want passed, it's because the American people actually don't want what you want, and you have no legal or moral authority to do what you want.

If Democrats wanted abortion to be legal everywhere, they have had forty seven years to pass a law, and potentially an amendment. Instead, they relied entirely on perverting the judicial branch, and now they are crying because they are in the minority. And their solution is still not to go the legal route (pass laws and/or an amendment) but threaten to impeach existing justices they don't like, or pack the court with ones they do. Pathetic.

Read More

Seamless Garment Voting

My Catholic friends fall into one of two categories: Democrats and others. The Democrats are all voting Democrat because of something called "the seamless garment." The others are voting based on Catholic non-negotiables.

Without going into too much detail, the concept of non-negotiables is mentioned in Pope Benedict XVI's Sacramentum Cartatis. It basically says that there are some issues that are just wrong. You can't support them, even for the sake of doming some other good. These issues are the right to life, marriage and the family, and religious liberty.conscience rights. The idea is not that other issues aren't important, but that these issues are so fundamental to every moral good that support for them is abhorrent to morality.

The seamless garment theory was created by Cardinal Bernardin in 1984, and says that everything is connected, as are the threads in a single piece of cloth. This is, of course, true, and the idea of the seamless garment was to ground other issues, such as concern for the poor, peace, human rights, into a right relationship, all based on the fundamental rights mentioned above (aka non-negotiables). The problem is that it has been inverted by some Catholics to claim that  all issues are morally equivalent because they are interrelated. This gives some Christians the notion that issues like immigration or the death penalty, for instance, are as important as abortion or euthanasia.

Of course, that is not what the seamless garment is about, but I thought it would be interesting to look at voting issues in terms of both the correct seamless garment theory and the distorted popular misconception of the seamless garment theory. Where do the parties stand? Is there a reason to vote Democrat under the seamless garment misconception?

Abortion

The Democratic party and the Biden/Harris ticket are not only in favor of legalized abortion, they want to support and increase it, both in number of abortions and in type of abortions. Making Roe v. Wade law, using tax payer funding to pay for abortions, making abortion part of foreign aid and coercing foreign countries to relax their own abortion restrictions will all increase the numbers of abortions. They have also called for eliminating all restrictions on late term abortions, allowing abortions for any reason and at any stage in pregnancy, even up to (and possibly after) birth and denying health care to already born babies who are not "wanted." No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.

Transgender

Pope Francis, when asked what the preeminent issues for voting were, replied that abortion was preeminent, but it wasn't the only serious issue - he mentioned "transgender" as another extremely important issue. The Democrats and Biden/Harris have called for expansion of transgender "rights" by saying that transgender people must be allowed to choose to compete in any gender's sports leagues, shower and change in and gender's rooms, and force individuals and businesses to recognize the gender they choose. Biden has called for children as young as eight to choose their own gender without anybody being able to deny them. No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.

Religious Liberty/Conscience Rights

Democrats have called for an end to religious "exceptions" and a repeal of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Biden has said he plans to prosecute the Little Sisters of the Poor over their refusal to pay for abortifacients. No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.

Other non-negotiables

To keep this short, let's just say that on fetal tissue research, same sex marriage, school choice, parental rights, etc., no matter which criteria you use, these are all reasons not to vote Democrat.

Racism

The Democratic party is the party of racism. From the KKK to segregation, the Democratic party has opposed every piece of civil rights legislation. Harris aggressively prosecuted minorities, and even withheld information that might have freed inmates. Harris' family owned slaves. Biden authored a crime bill which gave lengthy prison sentences to minorities who committed minor offenses. Biden has made numerous disparaging comments about blacks. Many of the parties policies are racist, or support racist organizations, like Planned Parenthood, which was created to reduce the population of minorities, and still does through aggressive advertising aimed at them, and by placing abortuaries mainly in minority populated areas. No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.

Immigration

The Democratic party favors open borders and non-enforcement of immigration laws in the US. This policy has been disastrous for immigrants,  exposing them to criminals and sacrificing their safety. A recent study showed that 80% of all women who entered the US illegally were sexually assaulted in the process. In addition, human trafficking (aka slave trading), drug trafficking, and weapons trafficking are all enabled by the Democrats' policies. It was Democrats who "invented" separating children from parents and keeping them in cages at the border. No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.

Climate

The Democratic party favors shutting down the US fossil fuel industry. This ensures that all the fossil fuels used will be environmentally dirty, and extracted without benefit of US environmental protections. In addition, they want to mandate solar and wind power. Both of these technologies are destructive of the environment, and not sustainable. Because they are intermittent, they do not reduce the need to have fossil fue powered backup plants. Because they are diffuse, the amount of land that would need to be stripped to supply the energy needs of the US is four times the total land area of the US. The energy used to make a solar panel is close to the total amount of energy it will produce, and the materials used are toxic, and will eventually seep into ground water. No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.

War

Despite lip service to peace, Democrats have not followed through. The Obama administration (of which Biden was a part) made unprecedented use of drone strikes, killing 3,500 people, including American citizens, without due process of law, or a congressional declaration of war. He ramped up military activity and broke agreements with our allies. Billions in cash were clandestinely delivered to enemies of the US. On the flip side, President Trump has been nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering peace in the Middle east, in Europe and Africa. The war in Afghanistan is finally coming to an end under President Trump. No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.

Law and Order

As a senator Biden pushed for a crime bill that directly led to the unconstitutional "stop and frisk" policy, and directly led to the current crisis of minorities in prison. He is (finally) under investigation for his "quid pro quo" deals with Ukrainian officials to get his son a job, and to interfere in criminal investigations into his dealings. Biden and Harris have refused to condemn burning and looting in our cities (in fact, Harris said that the looting "should continue"). There was the weaponization of the IRS under the Obama administration, the weaponization now of the media and social media, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, etc. Harris refused to look into credible evidence of trafficking in human organs by Planned Parenthood, and instead colluded with them, took money from them, and prosecuted the journalist who uncovered their crimes. She withheld evidence that could have cleared two black men on death row. No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.

Civility

One reason I have heard is that the Democrats are "civil" unlike President Trump. So let's look at how civil they are. Consider the Kavanaugh hearings, the Clarence Thomas hearings, etc. - they even invented a word "borking" for what the Democrats did to Supreme Court nominee Bork. They repeatedly called the president names, called him racist, despite a lack of evidence. In the first debate, Biden interrupted the president many times, calling him a "clown" and other names. Half of Americans have been called "deplorable" and "racist"...  I could go on, but I think it is clear that no matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.

Health Care

The Democrats favor a return to Obamacare. The problem is that Obamacare doesn't solve any problems, but rather, institutionalizes them in government bureaucracy. In other words, instead of making drugs cheaper to manufacture, or regulating drug profits, it merely forces everyone to share the cost. From a Catholic perspective this goes against the principle of subsidiarity, that problems are best solved locally, not in a one-size-fits-all approach. It also doesn't make sense from a purely secular perspective. Lastly, it is not economically feasible. Obamacare worked for a few years because parts of it had their costs deferred to future years. In the next few years, as those costs kick in, premiums will become even more astronomical. The problems that it claims to solve - uninsured people, preexisting conditions - were either not actual problems, or have already been solved in other (better) ways. Jesus calls us to care for the sick. He does not call on us to take money from our neighbors to pay for it. No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.

Voter Suppression

The Democratic party is the party of voter suppression, with a history that goes all the way back to Jim Crow laws, poll tests, etc. Today Democrats claim that voter ID laws are voter suppression, based on the racist theory that minorities aren't capable of getting government ID, yet they don't consider it suppression to require government ID to driver, receive government benefits, health care, etc. What they are pushing is lax election laws that encourage fraud. Voter fraud is voter suppression, since every "extra" vote cast nullifies the vote of a real voter who voted the other way. Given that minorities are minorities their votes are more easily nullified by voter fraud, so actually voter ID laws would help ensure minorities votes counted. No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.

Death Penalty

Yes, the party platform states that Democrats oppose the death penalty, which takes the lives of about 20 convicted criminals per year in the US. Republicans are split on this issue.

Conclusion

In short, there is no issue, other than perhaps the death penalty, where the Democratic party does not directly go against Catholic teaching or the good of society. Even if you say all these issues are equivalent in moral value, the death of 20 people does not add up to the rest of the issues. Abortion alone kills 75 million human beings every year.

 

Read More

Quarantine

As you may or may not know, we went to Florida a little while ago, to visit my in-laws, and so we are in our "voluntary quarantine" phase. So naturally I've been thinking about New Jersey's quarantine rules.

I understand the desire to quarantine people who have traveled in order to slow the spread of the virus. That's sound science. But NJ doesn't quarantine all travelers, only ones coming from certain states. And that I find puzzling.

If you quarantine people based on the distance they travel, that makes sense. By trying to localize contact points to spread the virus, you would keep outbreaks, if any occur, local.

If you quarantine people based on how they travel, that also makes sense. For instance, we traveled by air, and were exposed to TSA workers, people in the airport, the other people on the plane, the previous occupants of the plane, etc. - literally hundreds of contacts. If we had traveled by RV, we might only have been exposed when buying food and gas.

But New Jersey does neither of these, but quarantines based on state. Now at the time we were in Florida, the case rate and death rate for people in Florida was half of what it was in New Jersey during the same period. So we are less likely to have been bringing the virus from Florida than if we had visited Freehold. Where is the "science" behind that?

Read More

Who's life matters?

Over the past few weeks I have been excoriated by several friends (who have, for the most part, unfriended me over this issue) for not repeating the phrase "Black Lives Matter." To paraphrase the common argument (I'd quote it but I am blocked from being able to read what they wrote).

"You can't say 'all lives matter' when black lives are especially at risk. As long as black people are being killed we have to say 'black lives matter.'"

And I get it. I really do. The reason I don't parrot the slogan is that it doesn't mean what it claims to mean. But the argument I was given got me to thinking. People are donating billions of dollars, holding demonstrations around the country, and wanting to make sweeping changes to our entire society to correct the issue of police killing blacks.

In 2019, the number of black killed by police was 259. That's sad. But in the same year, some 865,000 children were killed in abortions. An estimated 300,000 of those children were black.

So a black child is over 1000 times as likely to be killed by its mother in an abortion than to be killed by police. Where is "Black Lives Matter" over this? Where is the outrage? The billions in funding? The demonstrations? The only ones who care about these children are those in the pro-life movement. Their demonstrations are poorly funded and not even acknowledged by the media, until president Trump started attending.

If you want me to chant "Black Lives Matter" with you start caring about black lives, you hypocrites!

Read More

A Biden truth

In my post on Presidential Impeccability I discussed can a Catholic vote for Donald Trump. Now I'd like to tackle the flip side, can a Catholic vote for Joe Biden. Just as in the case of Donald Trump, the answer hinges on the three "non-negoatiables" (please see the post linked to above for the whole discussion on non-negotiables.

Many of my friends who plan to vote for Joe Biden tell me they're actually voting for Kamala Harris, because they don't feel Joe Biden will be able to serve all (or maybe any) of his term. With that in mind I'm writing this as "can a Catholic vote for Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, and will be presenting material regarding both candidates.

So without further ado, let's go through the list:

On the dignity of human life from conception to natural death Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are not acceptable. Joe Biden has a 100% abortion support rating from Planned Parenthood and Naral. In 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood was struck down, upholding and affirming Roe v. Wade, due to a single vote, by Justice David Souter, whom Joe Biden had helped approve for SCOTUS. On the day this happened, fellow senator Warren Rudman describes meeting Joe as follows:

“At first, I didn’t see Joe; then I spotted him waving at me from far down the platform,” Rudman later recorded in his memoirs, Combat: Twelve Years in the U.S. Senate. “Joe had agonized over his vote for David, and I knew how thrilled he must be. We started running through the crowd toward each other, and when we met, we embraced, laughing and crying.”

An ecstatic Biden wept tears of joy, telling Rudman over and over: “You were right about him [Souter]! ... You were right!”

The two men were so jubilant, so giddy—practically dancing—that Rudman said onlookers thought they were crazy: “[B]ut we just kept laughing and yelling and hugging each other because sometimes, there are happy endings.”

Joe Biden opposes the Hyde amendment, which forbids using federal dollars to pay for abortions. He has promised to repeal the Mexico City policy, which forbids using federal money to support expansion of abortion in foreign countries. Biden is ok with China's "one child" policy of force abortion and sterilizations. Biden said he was "proud" to support a euthanasia bill.

Kamala Harris also has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and Naral. She opposes the Pain Capable Child Protection Act, which would limit late term abortions. Harris co-sponsored the “Women’s Health Protection Act,” which calls for abortion without limits until birth. Harris announced that as president she would require states that have a history of passing pro-life laws to seek preclearance from the Justice Department before they could enact any laws that would impact abortion on demand. Under her plan, any new pro-life laws would be considered unenforceable without preclearance from the Justice Department.

As Attorney General of California, when presented with video evidence that Planned Parenthood was committing crimes by illegally selling body parts, Harris colluded with Planned Parenthood to charge the reporters with crimes. That case is still ongoing, and Planned Parenthood still has not been investigated. 

On the dignity of marriage and family, Joe Biden has performed a same sex marriage. stuff
The protection of the right of parents to educate their children. 

As A.G. of California Kamala Harris refused to defend Proposition 8, the ballot initiative where Californian voters declared marriage to be between a man and a woman. A direct result of that was the legalization of same sex marriage in California.

On the protection of the right of parents to educate their children, Joe Biden wants to eliminate charter schools and eliminate funding sources for private schools. Kamala Harris has not voiced an opinion on the matter, although her overt bias against religious freedom and Catholics in particular make it unlikely she is a friend of private schools.

So... in pretty much every non-negotiable bot Biden and Harris are unacceptable candidates for a Catholic.

...and yet so many Catholics, even ones who claim to follow the Magisterium, plan to vote for them. Here's why I think, not only are they wrong, but they are putting their immortal souls in danger. The Catechism says:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

 So, the question is, is voting for Biden/Harris considered grave matter? Certainly being involved in abortion is (performing one, have one performed, paying for one, enabling another person to have one). But what about voting for abortion? In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II writes:

Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops... I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. 

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church. 

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection...

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.

Please take the time to go read all of Evangelium Vitae. It is not a long read, and there is so much more there and the brief excerpts I have included above.

 

I would think that would settle things, but I have heard two arguments to "get around" this teaching and vote for Biden/Harris.

The first argument involves a note, that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote at the bottom of a fraternal letter to the US bishops:

 

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation with evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stance on abortion or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share the candidate’s stance in favor of abortion or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

 

From this some have concluded that as long as they say "I don't like abortion, but boy, that Joe Biden has a better plan for 'X' than Trump"  they can freely vote for whomever they please with a clean conscience. However, they ignore the phrase "can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons." What does "can be permitted" and what are proportionate reasons?

 

"Can be permitted" in the context of the letter means "still able to receive Holy Communion" - in other words, he's not saying it's fine, just that it's not a mortal sin.

As for proportionate means, what is "proportionate" to the brutal murder of close to a million completely innocent human lives every year? The answer is really only one thing - the brutal murder of even more completely innocent human lives. That is, if you were voting for a pro-abortion candidate because if you didn't a worse pro-abortion candidate would win. George Weigel explains it much better than I could in this article. The situation is not simple, but it is clearly not the case that this note is a "loophole" to let Catholics ignore 2,000 years of church teaching.

What about climate change? If the world ends in twelve years that kills more people than abortion. Could that be a proportionate reason? For this to be a proportionate reason, we would at least have to be as certain about those deaths as we are about the reality of abortion. That presupposes the following:

• Biden/Harris alone have the power to change the earth's climate (e.g. the president has the power necessary to unilaterally change things).
• Biden/Harris will change the climate as their top priority (e.g. it's not a campaign promise).
• There is no other way to change the climate (e.g. we cannot work with any other lawmakers to address the problem)

There are problems right away with those assumptions. Although Biden has said he will eliminate fossil fuels by 2050 he has not proposed how that can be done (hint: it can't). Also, given that it was a priority for Obama/Biden for eight years, and there were no significant steps taken, it is unlikely that Biden/Harris can/will make such changes in half that time.

 

It is also unclear whether the methods the Democrats have proposed will even have a positive impact on climate. For instance, many of the initiatives put in place during the Obama/Biden administration, such as electric vehicles and solar power, simply moved environmentally dirty operations off to China and other countries with lax environmental laws and emissions exceptions in the Paris agreement. The current administrations' insistence on manufacturing things in the US has actually cleaned up some industries and reduced pollution, and Trump's Affordable Clean Energy Act is projected to reduce CO2 emissions by 35% by 2050. It is not at all a black and white issue.

In short, it is not a proportionate reason.

The second argument is that voting for a candidate is not the same as voting in favor of the policy. To me this seems a bit of a stretch because the only reason to vote for a candidate is because you want them to implement the policies you approve of. I suppose you could say "I don't care what the candidate's policies are, I just vote straight Democrat" but why vote Democrat unless you like the policies of the Democratic party (which are also extremely pro-abortion).

Another way to look at this is to use an analogy. Could a southerner in the  Civil Ware era say "I support Jefferson Davis and the south, but that's not related to supporting slavery?" As any honest person will tell you "A vote for Jeff Davis is a vote to preserve our southern institutions" (aka slavery). Likewise a vote for Biden is a vote to expand "women's healthcare" (aka abortion). When something is as integral to a person's platform as abortion is to Biden/Harris it is disingenuous to claim that your vote will not be an approval for them to go ahead with their support of abortion.

 

Ironically enough, this very same argument was used by Planned Parenthood to skirt the law against performing partial birth abortions.

 

“The federal abortion ban is a law, and laws are up to interpretation. So there are some people who interpret it as, it’s intent. So if I say on day one, ‘I do not intend to do this,’ what ultimately happens doesn’t matter.” (emphasis added)

For these reasons, I believe if you as a Catholic vote for Biden/Harris with full knowledge (knowing what has been discussed in this post) and consent, you are at risk of committing a mortal sin. I know people will excoriate me for pushing an agenda, and I am pushing an agenda, but my agenda is not political, it's spiritual. I don't want you, dear reader, to be in sin. Even if it is not mortal.

 

My other agenda is that we have, for the first time since 1973, a real chance to reduce the number of abortions in the US. Under president Trump abortions are already at the lowest level on over a decade. Having a president who promotes a pro-life cause, appoints pro-life judges, and allows pro-lifers to have a voice in government and the public square is already starting to change minds and hearts.

Read More