Blog Break

From now until after Thanksgiving, I'm taking a blog break... I must devote some time to a few research projects and some out-of-town family needs. I will rejoin you in Advent.

Upcoming elections

Dear Readers,

This is not a political blog. I make no attempts to pass myself off as some kind of expert of any kind in any field related to the political, social, and economic sciences. I'm a wife, mother, and continual student of theology, despite a Masters degree in the subject. Despite an undergraduate degree in Communications, I am not a journalist.

I am, however, a Catholic. And a reader and a writer. And, as a Catholic, my faith influences my reason, and therefore, my faith enters into all decision-making and matters of conscience. In previous centuries, theology was called "the Queen" of all sciences because theology was the vehicle for encountering, learning, and understanding TRUTH. Naturally, I continue to support that point of view today. As a reader and a writer, I must encourage you to be as informed as you can be on the subject matter of the upcoming elections, particularly in our choosing of the next American President. We must look for the TRUTH that is foundational in all issues, all circumstances. We must not ignore it. We must elect leaders that most closely align themselves with TRUTH, not relativism, as it pertains to the issues at stake.

No candidate will perfectly fit such a criteria, but we must strive to vote for someone who best aligns with a Catholic worldview and its values on the broadest range of issues.

Watch this short 3 minute video from CatholicVote.com.

With that said, I want share a few links to important articles on the subject matter of this election. Please consider carefully your right to vote, importance of your choices, and the lasting effects it will have on all Americans, both now and in future generations.

~~~~~~~

From Father Richard John Neuhaus on "Why This Election is About Freedom of Religion":

James Madison wrote: “It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.” The last line bears repeating: This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. That is the truth that the Religion Clause is intended to protect from the overweening ambitions of the modern state.

The great problem today is not the threat that religion poses to public life, but the threat that the state, presuming to embody public life in its entirety, poses to religion. The entire order of freedom, including all the other freedoms specified in the Bill of Rights, is premised upon what Madison calls the precedent duty that is signaled and sustained by religion. When the American people can no longer publicly express and give public effect to their obligations to the Creator, it is to be feared that they will no longer acknowledge their obligations to one another—nor to the Constitution in which the obligations of freedom are enshrined.

~~~~~~~

Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia speaks out in this article found at Catholic Online:

At this moment in our country’s history, defense of innocent human life is a moral responsibility for all of us. The same God who thundered from Mount Sinai: “Thou shalt not kill,” thunders still. When life in the womb is destroyed, God thunders: “This is a child!” When by the most barbaric means, unworthy of any civilized people, the brain of a child is sucked out of his or her head by a vacuum, God thunders: “This is a child!” When a baby is left to die of exposure on a shelf because of a failed abortion, and this is considered a “right” by any leader, God, the Source of all law and authority, thunders: “This is a child!” When we are faced with every modern means of education and communication, in addition to the law placed in our hearts at creation, no one, and most especially, no Catholic, can ever say: “I did not know.”

The human dignity that we proclaim works two ways: it affords us a great privilege but it also demands a responsibility. The feeble defense “I did not know” cannot be used by any responsible person in our time when confronted with the reality of abortion. We do know. We know because we can reason and think and see. Along with this position, which is confirmed by modern science, comes a command: “Thou shalt not kill.” It is not a question of politics but a question of the gravest of intrinsic evils; and just as the reality of what it is cannot be explained away, neither can our responsibility.

Throughout our history, Catholics have earned their right to call themselves patriotic Americans. Faithful citizenship not only includes dying for one’s country or working towards its prosperity, it also includes being faithful to a law which is higher than the expediency of the moment with the same generosity of body and heart, and the same courage that is given on the battlefield and in the workplace. We remind ourselves of this as we continue to be called to faithful citizenship and respect for life in the “earthly city” without forgetting that we are ultimately called to live as citizens of heaven forever.

~~~~~~~

Cardinal O'Malley issued this statement in The Boston Globe:

In defending the cause of life, we are not only fulfilling our vocation as Catholics, but we are also defending the vision of democracy that is embodied in the Declaration of Independence that states 'We hold these truths to be self evident,' namely, that we are all created equal and are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, the first of which is the right to life. Today, this most fundamental human right is threatened. As the bishops of the United States have said in our document 'Living the Gospel of Life': 'As we tinker with the beginning, the end, and even the intimate cell structure of life, we tinker with our own identity as a free nation dedicated to the dignity of the human person.'

If we ask ourselves what is the leading cause of death in the United States, we usually think of heart disease, cancer, and other serious illnesses. Actually the leading cause of death in the United States is abortion. The architects of the proabortion movement in the United States thought that within a year or so the opposition would go away or die off. More than 30 years later the issue is still alive because people care about life, and an ever-increasing number of young people are making it known that they, too, are committed to upholding respect for life.

~~~~~~~

Robert George on "Obama's Abortion Extremism":

Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.

The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people - Thomas Jefferson was one - reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.

Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as "pro-choice"? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were "personally opposed" to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were "unnecessary," or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said "Against slavery? Don't own one." We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.

~~~~~~~

Catholic Exchange posted two articles that apply to deciding on presidential candidates.