They Did What Was Right in Their Own Eyes

Abortion was  a more prominent topic in our recent Presidential election.  In the third debate the question of “partial birth abortion” was discussed between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.  Trump decried how a baby could be aborted just before birth, while Clinton praised a “woman’s choice.”  She did not defend her position favoring this procedure. Click here for more details on this.

In the election of 2008 my friend told me the story of how his neighbor, a fellow Catholic from his church, could support John Kerry  who was fiercely pro abortion.  His neighbor’s response was “there are many other issues.”  This response is very typical of liberal Catholics and Christians of all faiths who favor abortion.  Indeed, to my estimation, at least 50% of my fellow Catholics at my church favor abortion at any stage, contrary to what the Catholic Church emphatically teaches.

When it comes to elections, pro-life citizens of which I am one, believe that anyone who favors abortion is automatically disqualified for any elective position in our country.  Let me give an example:  Let’s say that there is a candidate who has all the positions that you hold, as well as your world view, and he/she would be ideal for the position, but this person favors the killing of babies even after they’re born, as Peter Singer does, the famous Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University.  Singer says that a baby is unaware of its own existence and therefore can be killed upon the decision of the parents within the first couple of months after birth.  Would you still vote for this person? How about a person who has all of your world view but favors the enslavement of a certain ethnic group, such as was the case prior to the Civil War?  Would this person not be disqualified for elective office?

Catholics will often tell you that they rely on their conscience to make moral decisions and they will further argue that this is supported by the Catholic Church.  Well, they’re partly right.  The Catholic Church does allow for conscience in some instances, but it must be an informed conscience, not just whatever your conscience tells you at any moment.  The Church, in no uncertain terms, condemns abortion. The Church further states that cooperation with abortion is a grave sin, meaning that if you vote for a pro-abortion politician, you are cooperating with abortion.  So if the Church emphatically states that abortion is evil and the killing of a human being, your conscience cannot overrule this. This is not an informed conscience.  If your conscience could overrule this, then why do you need a church to guide your morality, or the Bible for that matter.  All you would need is your conscience.

In the book of Judges in the Bible, the Israelites had fallen completely away from God and had given in to immorality.  By the time of the last judge of Israel, Samson, they had fallen so far from God that verse 6 of Judges 17 states: In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.  To support abortion or to cooperate in abortion by voting for a person who does is doing what is right in your own eye.


Obamacare and the Jihad on Religious Liberty

The so-called “contraceptive” issue recently exploded in the media when the Obama Administration brought a Georgetown law student, Sandra Fluke, to a Congressional hearing so she could explain the merits of the highly controversial HHS rule that religious institutions such as Catholic colleges must provide insurance coverage for contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients.  All of these go against church teaching and morals.  Before this ruling came down, President Obama met with Cardinal Dolan of New York and I’m sure the Cardinal explained to the President that this rule would be against church teaching and the church could not follow it.   Click here to hear the Cardinal explain it.  Within weeks of this meeting, the administration decided to go against the church and passed the rule.  All religious institutions would be forced to provide services that violated their conscience.  No exceptions, no waivers.  Big thanks for the 54% of Catholics who voted for President Obama in 2008.

The controversy continues to rage on. The media refers to this controversy as a fight about contraception, or “women’s health.”  They accuse those who oppose this as “waging war on women.”  This mischaracterization of the issue is the equivalent of speaking with a forked tongue.  The real issue is not contraception or “women’s health” but religious liberty.  If government can force religious institutions to do this, then government can force anyone to do anything, say, provide abortion services.  This should scare the living day lights out of everyone, liberals and conservatives.  If a liberal government can force you to do this, a conservative government can force you to do something that the liberal would consider abhorrent, such as not providing abortion services.  Image that!  What if a conservative government forced all hospitals to stop providing abortions?  Wow, the left would go nuts; riots would hit the streets.

Government should not force religious institutions to violate their conscience.  This is not a rule that government can make.  Government must be in the business of protecting us from the abrogation of these rights that come from our creator.  What government gives you, government can take away.  The Manhattan Declaration was initiated just for this purpose.  When government violates our God-given rights, we cannot and must not obey, for this is an unlawful law.  Here is a quote from the Manhattan Declaration:

Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel. In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required. There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself. Unjust laws degrade human beings. Inasmuch as they can claim no authority beyond sheer human will, they lack any power to bind in conscience. King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.

The year after the passing of Obamacare, there were over 500 waivers to Obamacare.  Of these the Washington Examiner reports that 40% were granted to unions.  Check out the list by clicking on this hyperlink.  These same unions gave the Obama campaign over $400 million dollars in campaign contributions.  I wonder if this has anything to do with them getting these waivers?    Just wondering.

Last week someone sent me this audio clip from a priest in Indiana that best describes what we’re dealing with here.  Click here to hear this short audio clip; it will knock your socks off and make you wish you had  priest like this in your parish.