TUESDAY
November 5, 2002
volume 13, no. 129

Is it Morally Permissible to Vote for the Pro-Choice Candidate?


It is not a matter of choosing the 'lesser of two evils' but what evils will occur if you do not vote according to your Catholic Faith.

    "Moreover, it is impossible for a true Catholic to be pro-choice; such a "Catholic" is ipso facto excommunicated because he or she is consciously aiding and abetting abortion and other particularly grave sins. Therefore it is likewise impossible for a pro-choice candidate to have any real understanding or support for what is truly Catholic, because the fiends either cannot comprehend these grave issues or they purposefully affront Catholic dogma. Any such person who promotes grave sin in this way, provides material shelter and comfort for the Evil One, by taking up his causes and giving homage to his wicked principles."

   Is it morally permissible to vote for the pro-choice political candidate in today's US election? Of course this is a loaded question, because the issue of being pro-choice currently is almost synonymous with the Democratic Party, and pro-life is nearly synonymous with the Republican Party. It was not always so, and there are certainly exceptions still. The old-time Democrats were pro-life because many were truly Roman Catholic. In those days it was good of us to vote for them. But that went out a long time ago, with President John F. Kennedy if not before, who said that he would not let his religion get in the way of his politics. It is the same with his brother Senator Ted Kennedy today and many other so-called "Catholic", Culture of Death politicians including Secretary Colin Powell, a Jamaican immigrant lauded by Planned Parenthood, who emphatically state the mantra that moral issues are nothing more than "A decision between a woman, her doctor, and her god". Although President George W. Bush clearly erred by choosing General Powell to be Secretary of State, we can say that frequently the President's decisions do promote the Culture of Life, but it is also difficult for him to implement them when he is restricted by liberal judges and legislators, most of whom are Democrats. Yet there are a few pro-life Democrats who are running for office, but the choice for the Catholic voter in such circumstances becomes difficult, because by voting for such, he or she will still be helping to maintain the Democrats in power, those who scandalously block the President's judicial nominations and other Culture of Life decisions, by the very fact of their being registered with that party. As most of us know, in the US the political party with the most members in Congress control the legislative chambers.

   Now many of us remember His Eminence Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, deceased Italian-American archbishop of Chicago. He espoused the idea of a "seamless garment". Stricken with cancer and dying some years ago, he is memorialized by many of the more liberal Catholics and others. The idea of "seamless garment" simply means that abortion should not be the preeminent issue that Roman Catholics need be concerned with in life and in the voting booth. That the idea of "human rights" and "social justice", favorite buzzwords fomented during the Vatican II Council, are of equal if not greater importance. That the idea, if I understand Cardinal Bernardin's thesis correctly, is that the condition of the human person, such as affordable housing and job placement, collectively outweigh grave moral considerations such as that of abortion and other pro-life issues. And that therefore, Catholics are morally justified in voting for pro-choice Democratic candidates that proclaim themselves to be champions of the poor and disadvantaged.

   The problem with this reasoning is that it would throw into a quandary much of Catholic dogma and doctrine, if such were possible. Hence I can tell you with certainty that there is no pro-choice candidate that is sincerely respectful of Catholicism. Moreover it is impossible for a true Catholic to be pro-choice; such a "Catholic" is ipso facto excommunicated because he or she is consciously aiding and abetting abortion and other particularly grave sins. Therefore it is likewise impossible for a pro-choice candidate to have any real understanding or support for what is truly Catholic, because the fiends either cannot comprehend these grave issues or they purposefully affront Catholic dogma. Any such person who promotes grave sin in this way, provides material shelter and comfort for the Evil One, by taking up his causes and giving homage to his wicked principles. And there is no comparison between a pro-choice "Catholic" politician, and a non-Catholic politician who is pro-life, the latter who, while not understanding our holy religion fully, still is in line with God on some very important issues. President Bush is an example of such, taking the godly position in some important ways. As a Methodist pastor once told me, knowing me to be Catholic: "I have more in common with a good Catholic than with a bad Methodist". Likewise Catholics can feel the same way, in reverse.

   It brings us to the conundrum of issues concerning "social justice" and "human rights", which when you think about it, can mean just about anything to anyone. To the radical feminist they might mean the establishment of fornicative and abortion rights for pubescent children. To the sodomite it might mean support for lesbigay marriages and adoptions. To the animal rights activist, it might mean equal or greater protection for animals as compared with the human condition. To the "International Criminal Court" judge, it could mean that all politically conservative leaders should be jailed or executed or both. To the left-wing immigrant activist it may mean to give, at US taxpayers' expense, citizenship, welfare, social security, and free schooling and scholarships to the 10-20 million illegal aliens that are currently residing in the US. My friends, these examples should give us pause before we proclaim with the secularists that we support social justice and human rights. I will tell anyone who will listen that I do not support these issues in the secular sense. What we Roman Catholics do support is Catholic works of mercy like helping the poor and needy. It is something that we must do, and we can help the poor, as Jesus tells us, "Any time we want", because "The poor you will always have with you."

   But someone may ask: How far should we go in helping the world's poor and downtrodden? Should not the US and other Western countries who are relatively well-off financially bring in every citizen of the world who wishes to emigrate? Well then, get ready to welcome about a billion new humans into the US from non-Western countries, if not more. As a possible alternative, as UN General Secretary Kofi Annan tells us, should not the richer countries be taxed to help the poorer countries? And if a foreign tax is imposed, how much is enough? Should 10% of our income go to a foreign tax? First of all let us state that it is against the US Constitution to be controlled or taxed by a foreign power, and the Republican President and Republican legislators know this, though there are many simpletons who don't know it or don't wish to hear it. But consider that 10% is eventually taken from us involuntarily, does that mean for example that we no longer need to tithe to the Church? Perhaps the world tax will replace the Church? And for that matter why stop at 10% - why not equalize things and take 50% of the income from Western countries? Any of us who have a little bit of common sense know that it would be complete foolery to invite everyone in who asks, because it would lead to the destabilization of our Western countries. The system of government, our culture, our transportation system and other infrastructure, our material resources, our entire way of life would be destroyed. In fact they are destabilizing already in some instances. For example, there was the 911 incident and the sniper incident, which are sensation examples, and more of these are to come. But some examples are more subtle. My colleague, who is from California and is not even a conservative, laments that it is not California anymore. This state on the West Coast of the US now has a population which is 33% of Mexican origin, and as a result the state of Ronald Reagan has become far-left and pro-abortion. California Democrats will sweep the state elections on November 5 as a result! The same is true in New York, where there are huge numbers of recent Third-World immigrants in the urban areas. Two of the most liberal and sinister of senators, Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer, both of whom vote 100% of the time for the Culture of Death, were put there mostly by new Latino voters and other immigrants and victim groups. These are undeniable facts. Texas too, which was very conservative decades ago, is becoming the same way, in part due to huge helps from the Catholic diocesan chancelleries, which establish major offices and devote huge numbers of Catholic dollars to aid and abet the thousands of illegals crossing our borders each year (for example of what they are doing see the site of Mexican Bishop Ochoa of El Paso, Texas). Everything Catholic hangs in the balance of what the electorate does, and the results so far point to the coming great devastation, and this, as a result of a level of sinning which cries to Heaven for vengeance.

   Now some may say that we must focus on God and not concern ourselves with politics. But it is our moral duty to uphold our holy religion and the Roman Catholic way of life. In fact it is the primary reason we were given life: God desires a holy people who will praise and worship Him. The Almighty is certainly not pleased when 1.5 million little ones are put to death each year by abortion in the US alone. And as a result He sends foreigners to take the place of the aborted. He is not pleased that 75% of Catholics don't make the Sunday obligation, let alone that of Holy Days, a grave sin. And as a result he makes them forget their religion. Our Lord is not pleased by sodomy; in an earlier time He sent fire and sulfur on the sodomite cities, and turned those who looked back longingly into pillars of salt. Remember Lot's wife! Our Father in Heaven is also not pleased when we allow our culture to be destroyed by welcoming of millions of muslims (their population has doubled from 2 million to 4 million in the US during the past few years). The result, as we have seen in the US, Europe, and Australia, is killings and destruction, rape of white teenage girls, and generalized terror.

   Whereas the holy Popes of centuries ago stopped the muslim onslaught into Europe, which pleased God greatly so that Europe prospered at the time. And I can tell you that God does not like multiculturalism. Why? Because allowing our countries to be overrun by other foreign peoples who do not share our culture points to the End Times, when there will be the One-World Government, and a One-World culture. Nationalism and national boundaries will be no more. Yet it is a God-given right that people do things as they see fit in their own lands, and to be ruled by local politicians, the first example was Israel, and ideally since Christ walked the earth the rulers were Catholic kings and queens, who were anointed based on their standing before God. Does this mean that we should abuse and exploit the poor peoples of non-Western nations? Of course not! And the salvation of those who do is in jeopardy. It is our duty before God to help the poor peoples and give them a leg up in developing their countries and improving conditions for their citizens.

   Now when Antichrist comes, he will not be selected by God but rather he has already been chosen by the devil, who was kindred with him even before our time. Antichrist will be born, it is said in the Text of La Salette, of a Hebrew nun, born of supernatural means, his foster father being a bishop. The Man of Lawlessness will have great power and wealth, and will do wondrous signs by magic, even lifting himself into the clouds. Antichrist will rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, and he will bring together in harmony many foolish peoples, who do not have their lamp stands lit and ready for the Lord's return. If it were possible he would even fool the elect. This Man of Perdition will rule the One World Government. He will be the greatest secular humanist the world has ever known, and will seek to establish a paradise on earth, and to make man immortal, not dependent on God in Heaven, but rather on Satan in Hell. What is ugly will be called beautiful, and what is beautiful will be called ugly. Antichrist will be the greatest and most tireless worker in establishing the kingdom of Satan on earth, and he will expect the same of us. He will be the finest priest, prophet, and king of Lucifer, and those who wish to prosper materially will follow his example. Good things will be punishable by imprisonment or death, whilst bad things will be praised and glorified. Everything is symmetric; therefore whatever Antichrist is, Christ is not, and vice versa. As Christ is all good and truth, Antichrist is all wicked and lies. When he appears, Antichrist will praise much that transpires in the world today, which is in line with his plans for world domination and the glorification of evil. The sleaziness, infant-immolation, wicked thoughts, bad fashion, fornication, greed and thefts, establishment of world institutions based on humanism, worship of worthless idols, renouncing of Christ in spirit if not in words, all this and much more will please him greatly. He will say: "Well done, my worthy disciples!"

   Therefore as when we enter the voting booths on Tuesday, we must ask ourselves whether our action will hasten Antichrist's coming and further satan's power and reach in the World, or will it rather please Christ. We cannot serve two masters, and nowhere is this more evident than in a place like the voting booth where we can only pull one lever. And let us not even think of abstaining from our right of citizenship to vote, which would be wishy-washy and lukewarm. Such people do not please Christ, who expects our Faith to be an active one. To be sure, sometimes there are hard choices. For example in New Jersey, the Republican candidate is pro-choice in some circumstances. However, by establishing a Republican majority, President Bush can successfully nominate judges to reestablish the Culture of Life in our lands. Yet is it right to support a "lesser of two evils"? The phrase is a misnomer in this case. All people are composed of a little evil and a little good. No one is all good, except for God alone. And the decisions of people, even great saints, are not always good, though during the time in their lives when they are saintly, the great saints do much more good and much less evil than the most of us. We should rather ask: "The election of which candidate, both of whom are partly good and partly evil, will generate the most good?"

   Now at one time in the US we were ruled by three branches of government: 1. Executive (president), 2. legislative (congressmen) and 3. judicial (judges). The Founding Fathers intended the legislative branch to have the most power, because these were voted on locally by the people, and they could readily be voted out of office if the electorate was not pleased with their actions. And this is by and large how we were ruled during the 1800's, but gradually during the last century the power of the legislature has been diminished. On the other hand the power of the chief executive, the President, has increased in the sense that he can write special acts, executive decisions, that give him widespread power. For example in the case of civil disaster he can declare our normal civil liberties to be suspended. Of course this can be abused. Even more frightening is the fact that the courts, the judicial branch, has become the most powerful branch of American government in most each and every area. For example, family judges can take away children from their parents, and split up families on a whim, and they often do. Higher judges bias things toward the Democratic party, as happened in NJ when the senate candidate resigned because of a scandal and it was allowed, against state law, for him to be replaced by another. Supreme Court judges made abortion the law of the land, and have reinforced it even recently. All of these robed masters now control most every aspect of our lives, they are answerable to no one, and they are often not elected and remain in power for life. Do we want more of the same?

   The choice is clear dear friends, and it will not go well with us at the end if we use "seamless garment" theology to vote for a liberal pro-choice candidate. We are only fooling ourselves. I think in fact that the Democrats will remain in power in the US Senate, and woe to us, our nation, and the World because of it! We are all responsible for not doing more, and for not reestablishing a Culture of Life society. Let us face it: the Culture of Death rules, it has been enthroned since 1965, and it will be more of the same whilst liberal Democrats are in power. And I can tell you what will happen. For one thing there will be a further weakening of societal structures which uphold the moral law. Sodomy will become well-accepted and there will even be sodomite marriages and adoptions throughout all of the Western countries. People will even obtain the right to marry animals and will attain to all forms of perversion. The laws against sexual relations for children will be further weakened or abolished. Illegal aliens in the US and Europe will be granted citizenship, and the borders will become wide open, further embedding a multicultural flavor to our nations. As a result, the concept of nationhood will cease to exist and there will thereby be the establishment of a One-World Government. The rights of citizens of a country will be superceded by the "rights" determined by an International Court composed of far-left characters who seek to impose satan's will. For one thing abortion and fornication will become legal rights in all lands, from childhood. For another, religion as we know it, and the Bible, will be outlawed as "hate speech". The only religion allowed will be the worship of satan, which will be judged by the ruling elite to be non-harmful. And this, we speak of inclusive of the more subtle sense of worship of satan in such things as cars and jewelry and Self. The concept of family will be entirely destroyed. Children will eventually be raised in state-run facilities with special humanistic overseers. The children will even be factory-produced there by genetic manipulation, once science generates an artificial womb on a commercial level. It will give the World Government the excuse to sterilize everyone save the elite rulers. And it will be said that this measure is a further liberation of the reproductive freedom of the female. Genomic experiments in the mixing of man and animal DNA will become commonplace. Eventually, there will be hybrid creatures who are part human and part animal. To be sure, some such creatures have already been produced, but they will become more prevalent and more fantastical. As a result, the concept of human versus animal will be blurred. What to call these hybrid creatures? Do they have a soul? Can they enter Heaven or hell? It will be a time of vast confusion, and at a certain point there will be no turning back. This point, the point of no return, will lead directly to the reign of Antichrist.

   Dear friends, despite the sad state of political affairs currently, we are not quite yet at the point of no return. Each of us has a vote, and a single vote, as we have seen recently, can decide the outcome of entire elections and even of the fate of the whole world. Will it be a vote for good or evil? We each must decide, and then await our inheritance at the end of all things, to be thereafter with God or with satan evermore.

    Accipe, quæsumus, Dómine, hóstias quas tibi offérimus
    Accept, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the sacrifices we offer Thee


TUESDAY
November 5, 2002
volume 13, no. 129

FEED MY SHEEP
www.DailyCatholic.org