Mitt Romney Fiddled While His Campaign Burned

This blog, contrary to all appearances, is not permanently abandoned.  However, posts have become non-existent.  This is because I am spending my writing hours working on a book articulating Catholic Populism.  Once I finish, I expect to go back to blogging regularly.  Until then, this may be the last post in a long while.

However, I feel the need to comment on the incompetent campaign performance of Mitt Romney in the 2012 elections.  Opponents of free will love to claim that something was inevitable after it has occurred.  These people will say that given the state of the American populace and the candidacies of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, Mitt Romney could not have won.  His roots in Wall Street made it inevitable that he would be opposed by the American people as an out-of-touch plutocrat, they say.  Others will say that the only hope would have been to nominate someone more moderate (Giuliani is the only such person who comes to mind) or more conservative (such as Gingrich).  All of that is a load of crap.

Mitt Romney could have won but instead did not.

Why?

Mitt Romney ran an elitist campaign and Barack Obama ran a populist campaign.  That is why it has been evident for months who would win this race.

The person running the populist campaign has won every election for decades.

What is a populist campaign and what is an elitist campaign?

The populist campaign is one that makes the argument that the election is about a moral choice.  It defines the ideologies of the two candidates and the direction that they want to change the country as diametrically opposed.  It portrays the election as dramatic.  It trusts the people to understand the issues enough to understand the direction they wish to take the country through their selection of the candidates.  It seeks polarizing and divisive contrasts between the candidate policies.  It attacks or minimizes the all-important resume of the elitist campaign’s candidate.  It de-emphasizes bipartisanship in favor of arguing that the American people need a fierce advocate to stand up to evil special interests.  And it tends to focus on moral issues, since they are most clearly about fundamental principles.  Its primary accusation is that the opposing candidate is immoral.  Its advertisements tend to be filled with contrasts, accusations, warnings, and policy differences.

The elitist campaign claims that both of the opposed campaigns want the same result but that the candidate supported by the elitist campaign is more competent at delivering that result.  It presumes the most important difference in the campaign is the kind of expertise each candidate has.  It assumes that instead of deciding which direction the country ought to go, the people are merely competent to decide which kind of expert they want.  The campaign runs primarily on the resume and expertise of the candidate.  It attacks the other campaign for being too partisan.  It typically claims to be above partisanship and proclaims the ability to reach across the aisle.  It often accuses the other campaign of being melodramatic.  Its primary accusation is that the opposing candidate is incompetent. Its advertisements tend to be filled with statistics, promises of bipartisanship, and experts.

It is a case of the polarizer vs. the pragmatist, the ideologue vs. the moderate, the man with the plan vs. the man with the resume, the the moral agenda vs. the pragmatic agenda.

Another election a lot like this one (a populist incumbent campaign against an elitist challenger) was Bush v. Kerry.  Bush declared he was fighting evil Islamists.  Kerry scolded him for having been melodramatic on the possibility of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Kerry touted his resume as a war hero and member of the foreigns relations committee as key to the expertise Bush lacked.  The Bush campaign organized Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of veterans who had known Kerry and argued that his valor in combat was radically over-hyped.  Kerry claimed to be more pragmatic and moderate in working with allies in the war on terror.  Bush accused Kerry of being too cowardly to stand up to evil men abroad.  Bush also attacked Kerry for supporting same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion.  Kerry refused to engage on issues but had facts arguing that Bush was weak on foreign policy.  Kerry accused Bush of presiding over a polarizing partisanship.

In this election, Obama claimed he was fighting for economic fairness against entrenched special interests.  Romney said Obama was melodramatically fighting the very people who created jobs.  Romney touted his business experience at Bain Capital and Governor of Massachusetts.  Obama attacked Romney’s Bain Capital tenure as greedy and immoral.  Obama ran ads on issues like abortion and taxes.  Romney refused to engage on those issues but continually cited statistics illustrating Obama’s poor performance on the economy.  Romney accused Obama of being unable to reach across the aisle.

This script happens every single election.  The pragmatic moderate has never won.  Ever.

To win, a candidate must illustrate stark moral choices to the American populace.

Did Romney have an opportunity to run a populist campaign?

Mitt Romney had three opportunities to portray Obama in a polarizing way.  He could have argued that Barack Obama had attacked religious liberty through the HHS mandate.  This message would have resonated in fiscally liberal but religiously conservative Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio.  He took a pass on this opportunity in the first debate and ran no election-time ads on this.  Mitt Romney could have attacked the Obama Administration on Benghazi as an example of Obama’s unwillingness to listen to his own Ambassador warning about the ascendancy of Islamism in Libya, proving that he was too ideological to prepare for Militant Islam.  He passed on this issue in the third debate and never ran ads on it.  And he could have attacked ObamaCare and the individual mandate as unconstitutional.  But he never mentioned the word “Obamacare” in any of the ads for his campaign.

However, Mitt Romney could never have levied any of those attacks without acknowledging that Barack Obama wanted to take the country in a different direction.  He would have had to argue that Benghazi was not a lack of leadership but a systematic Administrative-wide denial of the ongoing dangers of Islamism.  He would have had to argue that ObamaCare was not only bad for pragmatic budgetary reasons but also due to its invasive deprivation of American liberty.  And Romney would have had to argue that Obama was hostile to religious liberty, an issue on which the challenger refused to engage.

The reality is that despite his populist rhetoric and campaign style, President Barack Obama does not have a populist policy agenda.  The only issue where he seems to be more populist than Mitt Romney is immigration (though Obama destroyed immigration reform in 2007 and probably cannot be trusted on the issue).  Immigration hurt Mitt Romney badly by making Latinos the only portion of the electorate where he did worse than McCain.  Romney also hurt himself by failing to exploit the joint weakness of both Obama and Bush, who both pushed a regressive, elitist, easy money monetary policy.

Although the President’s policies push the boundaries of acceptable elitism in US politics, Obama’s campaign style is so populist that swing voters — who are less political — can be forgiven for thinking that Romney is more elitist than Obama.  Barack Obama made a moral argument for the policies of the Left.  And Romney insisted that he and Obama wanted the same pragmatic solutions but that his own resume was better for that outcome.

Game.  Set.  Match.  And so predictable …

Cardinal Zen seeks a Thomas-a-Becket Moment in China

Henry II of England nominated Thomas-a-Becket to be Archbishop of Canterbury because he firmly believed that Thomas would be loyal first to the State and second to Rome.

We know how that turned out.

After bitterly fighting with the formerly easy-going Thomas, Henry growled to his advisers: “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”

Someone did.  Thomas, chosen to be a tool of the State, grew a backbone and became a martyr for the Faith.

During Mao’s “Cultural Revolution” Catholicism was made illegal.  The millions of Catholics in the country were put into labor camps.  Mao put about 60 million citizens to death.

After the Cultural Revolution was completed, Catholicism in China went underground.  However, the Communist government decided that it preferred the devil that it could see to the devil that it could not.  The Communist government created the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, an allegedly “Catholic” organization managed by the Chinese government that repudiated allegiance to “foreign powers” such as the Pope.

The Communists rounded up priests and Catholics and tried to register them with the Communist regime as part of the Patriotic Association.  Many Catholics risked torture, brutality, and martyrdom by instead staying “underground.”  These Catholics were ministered to by the Vatican Congregation for Evangelization, which handled the underground Church as a mission Church operating under historic persecution.

The Vatican Secretary of State, however, attempted to work with the Communist regime.  The Communist government and the Catholic Church  sought to find candidates acceptable to both.  The Communists viewed these CCPA Bishops as primarily loyal to the Communist Party.  The Vatican viewed these CCPA Bishops as primarily loyal to the Vatican.

In order to agree only to suitable candidates, the Vatican worked in consultation with the “underground” Catholic Bishops to give canonical jurisdiction to some candidates who were often first appointed by Bishops from the CCPA.  Until 2000, the Vatican process for reviewing candidates was very thorough.  In 2000, according to Cardinal Zen, the leading Catholic critic of the Chinese government, the Vatican became too accommodating to the Communists — allowing unsuitably weak candidates to become Bishops.  Now, the truth is that some CCPA Bishops are more loyal to Rome.  Others are more cronies of the Communist regime.  However, in the last year, the Vatican has grown a stronger backbone, insisting that Bishops can only be appointed with the approval of Rome.

The Communists have responded by upping the ante — appointing schismatic Bishops, an action that incurs canonical automatic excommunication for the Bishop ordained and those participating in the ceremony (as occurred also with SSPX).  The matter is complicated by the fact that Bishops are often pressured into participating in illicit ordinations.  This confrontation between Rome and Beijing is forcing CCPA Bishops to choose sides.  Some CCPA Bishops are finding their inner Thomas-a-Beckett and refusing to participate.  If Beijing continues to force this confrontation with Rome, they will increasingly force the Bishops more loyal to the CCPA into formal schism.  This heavy-handed strategy may not work as the Communists plan.  The more schismatic and excommunicated the CCPA becomes, the less influence the Communists may have on authentic Catholicism.

Currently, about 8 million Catholics are “underground” — ready to suffer martyrdom if apprehended.  And this number is swiftly growing.

About 5 million Catholics attend Mass with the CCPA.

There is some mingling between CCPA Catholics and “underground” Catholics.  And many CCPA Catholics are truly loyal to Rome in their hearts.

In other words, Catholics represent about 1% of China’s population.

Cardinal Zen has been aggressive about speaking up about this confrontation and the danger and opportunity it presents.  Authentic Christianity, following Christ to the end — even, if necessary, to death — is the calling of every Catholic.

As the Communists force the CCPA increasingly into schism and excommunication, we must pray that Chinese Catholics associated with the CCPA — particularly the Bishops under the watchful eyes of the Communist regime — find the courage to find their inner Thomas-a-Becket and remain unfailingly loyal to Rome.

And may Christ lead them along the path to Greatness.

Father Daniel Lord, SJ, drafted the code that managed Hollywood morals for decades

Somewhere out in the realm of art, there is a line.

Where it is, how it should be treated, and what it applies to are hotly debated subjects.

This line divides authentic art from escapism.

What is authentic art?

Human beings are beset by two sets of desires.  Human beings have the shallow desire to give in to their baser passions — Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Laziness, Anger, Envy,  and Pride.  These desires call us to make our god some lesser aspect of creation, reject discipline, ignore the pursuit of truth, and hide from the one, true God.  But human beings have a deeper set of desires.  We desire Greatness, Holiness, and Excellence.  Humans desire to build habits of Chastity, Temperance, Charity, Diligence, Patience, Kindness, and Humility.  We desire to be all that God created us to be and unite with Him at the end of the journey.

The drama from great art arises from the tension between these two desires.  The tension runs largely in between people, creating villains and heroes.  But it also runs right down the middle of every human heart.  Some of the greatest writers to address these high matters in the English language are William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, and J.R.R. Tolkien.

What then is escapism?

Escapism rewrites the rules of reality to de-emphasize the true drama of human life.  People might, for example, pursue “coolness” rather than Excellence.  The cool people are often deeply flawed people who habitually give in to baser temptations.  However, their “coolness” nevertheless acts as a substitute for authentic virtue, carrying these people to sympathy in the minds of their audience and also delivering them success in their endeavors.  Oftentimes, the “cool girls” are successful, stunning-looking specimens who flit in and out of sexual relationships without an emotional scar or a single case of conception.  The “cool guys” often dashingly break the law, administer vigilante justice, and personally bring to a bloody end hundreds of their enemies without suffering so much as a stubbed toe.  Modern escapism promotes “coolness” as an alternative to Virtue and Greatness.

Why is that escapism?  Can’t reality work that way?

Escapism soothes a struggling conscience.  The heroes are not real heroes.  The only difference between us and them is that when they do something sinful and wrong, they get away with it and typically benefit from it.  In Pretty Woman, a story is told of a young 20-something hooker (played by Julia Roberts) who sleeps with a rich guy and ends up happily married to him in an explosion of romance.  Sadly, the reality is not so rosy.  Hookers are typically under the dominion of a tyrannical pimp.  And the average life expectancy of such a person is 21 years old.  That’s right.  Dead by 21.  The idea that either a selfish, lustful rich man or a hooker have the virtues necessary for marriage is also a fable.  In Boondock Saints, prosecutors of vigilante justice make bloody piles of their enemies.  There are oceans of men in the federal penitentiary that operate under the delusion that they attempted some sort of glorious vigilante justice.  James Bond sails through life with minimal virtue and rarely a scratch surrounded by large-breasted women who he whips through without any true emotional damages or conceptions.

That is not art.  That is escapism.  And that is what Hollywood largely peddles these days.

One of the cleverest deceptions of the cultural Left has been the promotion of “coolness” as a substitute for Greatness.  Virgins or people who believe in Chastity are portrayed as clueless losers who can’t score a one-night stand.  The sad truth is that those people who develop habits of one-night stands are going to end up struggling with child support payments, sexually transmitted diseases, single motherhood, or abortion weighing on their lives and hearts.  It is those who develop habits of Excellence that go on to accomplish great things personally and professionally.

Hollywood still bitterly complains about the Legion of Decency and the Production Code written by Father Daniel Lord, SJ, and enforced by the Motion Picture Association of America (the industry trade association) which censored Hollywood from 1934 to 1968:

1. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it.  Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, or sin.
2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.
3. Law, human and Natural, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.

This, Hollywood elites claimed, stifled their inner creativity by subjecting them to the misguided morals of the oft-boycotting Catholic populace.  Sadly, since MPAA has ceased censorship and gone to the ratings system in 1968, Hollywood has embarassed itself by producing primarily escapist garbage that promotes destructive habits as a positive good.  They then flatter each other at the Academy Awards about each other’s “art.”

It seems that having the morals of the American populace was the exact ingredient that Hollywood needed to succeed in producing the movies of the Golden Age of Hollywood.

The International Planned Parenthood Federation-produced advertisement  pasted below (made for Great Britain) has disturbing and somewhat graphic images.

It shows with limited visual discretion a number of various sexual encounters that include fetishes that result in bloodiness being incorporated into the sexual act, including sodomy.  The implication is that these people are spreading the HIV disease amongst each other.  One partner is knowingly spreading HIV to an unknowing partner.

The haggard-looking people in the video seem miserable but the International Planned Parenthood Federation is trying to make them seem sympathetic.  That is because, amazingly, the Criminalize Hate Not HIV campaign is based on the idea that people who intentionally spread HIV & AIDs without telling their consensual partner should be granted legal immunity from prosecution.  IPPF is seeking to pass a statute that criminalizes “hate” or judging people’s morals in an allegedly bigoted way.  And it seeks to come to the rescue of individuals who are consciously spreading the HIV-AIDs virus.

The International Planned Parenthood Federation is based in London.

England has virtually no effective social conservative movement in the country.  This has several causes.  The official state Church — Anglicanism — served as the platform for the Left’s entrance into Christianity.  The very fact that the official Church is state-controlled leads to the Church adopting the Leftist beliefs of the government.  Additionally, a state-controlled Church decreases faith by creating unappealing Church-State collaboration.

There is no also separate Executive Branch (except, technically for the Queen).  The Executive Branch in the United States has to most thoroughly connect with the populace — campaigning, for example, for party nominations in such small states as Iowa and New Hampshire.  The Speaker of the House (in the United States) and the Prime Minister (in England), by contrast, win their seat by backroom deals, clout, and closed-door negotiation among elites.  The popular platform of the President tends to lend itself more to Populism while the elite deal-making tends to lend itself more to Elitism.  Elitist laws and an elitist Church have bred elitist culture that dominates England.

That is why it is interesting to see what Planned Parenthood keeps itself busy doing when is not reeling from the advance of the social conservative movement as it is in the US, where social conservative sentiment keeps the organization more cautious and defensive.

Why does this matter to citizens of the US?

It shows how radical Planned Parenthood would be if it got the chance.  Like most progressive organizations, it reveals its true intentions bit by bit.  In a country with as little political resistance as England, its ugly ideology is more laid bare.

Furthermore, the United States spends boatloads of its foreign aid on the International Planned Parenthood Federation — around $100 million from 2002 – 2009.  And much more than that has been spent domestically on the Planned Parenthood Federation of America — about $ 2 billion in the same time period.

The United States is spending billions attempting to stop the spread of HIV through George W. Bush’s PEPFAR program.

It is disturbing to know that we are also funding an organization so committed to an ideology that will self-evidently expiate the spread of the virus.

Their commitment to sex without boundaries or babies is leaving no frontier unexplored.

The New York Times has some serious rethinking to do on Vatican II

When someone justifies something by invoking “in the spirit of Vatican II,” orthodox Catholics tend to wince.  The phrase was ubiquitous in the ’70s and ’80s.

It could be associated with something as minor as deviations from the Liturgy or something as major as the ordination of female priests in violation of eternal Catholic doctrine.  Generally speaking, the phrase resulted from the kind of simplistic one-dimensional (but influential) thinking that dominates journalism in the US.  Allegedly, someone is either moderate, liberal, conservative, or “far-right,” a pejorative reserved for the majority of Americans who hold some social conservative beliefs.

No nuance.  Ideology can be found on a one-dimensional line.

There is no question that Vatican II was pastorally Populist.  It emphasized the critical importance of the renewal of a zealous and authentic Catholicism as practiced by the laity.  It restructured the Church to make it more pastorally suited to operate in a Populist world — emphasizing religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality.  Because a Populist State professes ignorance on advanced theological matters, the Church was in essence pastorally forswearing the temporal power that came with Christendom, where the State looked to the Church to define the boundaries of Revealed Law and Natural Law under which the State could operate.  The ability to define such boundaries of the State clearly comes with temporal power.  At the same time, collegiality and ecumenism armed the Church with the tools necessary to build as wide as possible a consensus on the truths of Natural Law.

How does this look to the New York Times Editorial Board?  (As the most influential and agenda-setting publication for the entire media industry, I will use them as a proxy).

Let’s imagine we were to operate under the assumption that ideology was a one-dimensional continuum between liberal and “far-right” as Progressives on the NYT Editorial Board simply love to assume.  The Church forswearing its temporal authority looks “liberal.”  The Catholic Church is seemingly taking steps to go from a “far right” theocracy (we are trying to be NYT-level simplistic here) towards something else.  Therefore, the Church must be taking steps to become more Leftist.  Accordingly, women priests, moderate proclamations on contraception must be merely a matter of time.  Sadly, this view did not confine itself to the NYT or even the media.

Catholics began to think so too.  Hence, various Leftist agenda items began to be classified as “the Spirit of Vatican II.”  In other words, operating under the assumption of the progressives (history progressing Leftwards), these Catholics were presciently being obedient to the upcoming Leftist Vatican III (but more safely referred to as the “Spirit of Vatican II”).  This is the essence of the Modernist heresy.  Truths of the faith change in accordance with the age and the Catholic Church had better catch up with the times!

Most of the proponents of the “Spirit of Vatican II” have, of course, never read the Council documents, which boldly proclaim the eternal truths of the Faith.

Ironically, the Populist Catholicism that is emerging is creating a vibrant ecumenical, pro-religious liberty, collegial Church has launched an unprecedentedly pro-life movement.  60% of Americans now believe abortion should be illegal except in the cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother.  86% oppose the abortion-on-demand of Roe v. Wade.  The majority of teenagers are breaking new barriers in a statistical Chastity Revolution.

After a longstanding post-Vatican II decline, there is a Diocesan Seminarian Boom in the United States. The Catholic Diocesan Seminarians situation hit rock bottom in the 2004-2005 academic year after the sex-abuse scandal broke. We are now in an explosive V-shaped recovery with more Diocesan Seminarians than we have had since 1984 – 1985.

Populism entails a belief in democracy.

However, it rejects the idea that Natural Law can be put to the vote.  The vibrant lay-driven Catholicism emerging out of Vatican II has strengthened Populism.

The battle is far from over but the Left is reeling.

The one-dimensional Progressive thinkers of the New York Times Editorial Board must be bewildered.  The Church liberalized, didn’t it?

No.

The Church Populized.  And there is a very, very big difference.

Ecumenism has established a productive dialogue about the truths of the Natural Law resulting in Evangelical movements like Quiverfull

SSPX has for now rejected reunion with Rome, citing Ecumenism, Collegiality, and Religious Liberty as non-doctrinal compromises with modernity that trouble them.

Vatican II essentially endorsed Populism as a legitimate form of governance and one in which Catholics could participate and in which the Church could exist with a clear conscience.  There is no question that the modern Populist State envisioned by the Declaration of Independence forswears any theological expertise beyond its belief in a monotheistic God who bestows Natural Rights and Natural Laws.  Unlike Christendom, the State has no theological expertise with which, for example, they could prosecute heretics.

As a result, such a State must of necessity have Religious Liberty.  Furthermore, its self-proclaimed ignorance of theology forces the State to respect the Church as having a deeper understanding of those aspects of Natural Law which pertain to a man’s relationship with God.  However, the State undertakes to understand and comply with Natural Law as it relates to man’s relationship with man.  Natural Law teaches that every man must teach every other man as an end in himself.  Because the State views its own understanding of Natural Law as limited compared to that of the Church, the State within Populism naturally turns to the Church to gain deeper insight into matters of Natural Law.  The Populist State relies on having an accurate understanding of the Natural Law.

Until 1930, every Christian denomination in the United States had an unquestioned commitment to the Natural Law.  However, in 1930, at the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Church endorsed contraception as a moral option and thereby rejected the Natural Law.  This created a crisis in the Protestant Churches.  One by one, they all rejected the idea that sex requires unconditional love.  This rejection of the truth made them increasingly blind to the truths of the Natural Law.  By the 1970, virtually every Protestant denomination in the United States had endorsed legal abortion.

In 1971, the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest and most influential Evangelical denomination issued the following resolution:

“WHEREAS, Christians in the American society today are faced with difficult decisions about abortion; and

WHEREAS, Some advocate that there be no abortion legislation, thus making the decision a purely private matter between a woman and her doctor; and

WHEREAS, Others advocate no legal abortion, or would permit abortion only if the life of the mother is threatened;

Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Convention express the belief that society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”

The SBC, along with Evangelicals and Mainline Protestants across the nation, was lobbying for radical liberalization of abortion law.  If a mother can kill her unborn baby due to her emotional health, then abortion on demand is essentially the law of the land.

Although Protestant denominations are very decentralized and hard to pin down theologically, it is safe to say that in 1970, 5 years after Vatican II, Catholics were the only truly pro-life Christian denomination of any size or influence.

The pro-life movement was made up only of the Catholics true to the  their Faith.

Ecumenism served the purpose of reaching out and creating a dialogue with the two other significant branches of Christianity — Protestantism and Orthodoxy.  The Orthodox have a special emphasis on staying true to the ancient tenets of the faith.  As a result, they were less tempted by the idea that truths change over time and morality evolves with the age.  They have been stalwartly committed to the Natural Law espoused by early Christians.  In fact, it is very difficult due to their structure for them to hold any dialogue with the modern world because dogma-setting ecumenical councils have not been called since the fall of the Byzantine Empire.  Without an Emperor, they have had no Councils since 1351.

In dialoguing with the Catholic Church, Protestants became increasingly organized in their Theology.  Evangelicals internally began to seriously tackle the issue of Natural Law.  In 1980, the Southern Baptist Convention had passed a Resolution condemning legal abortion.

Since then, the Evangelical Movement has increasingly embraced Natural Law.  This is the role that the Catholic Church must play in the Populist State — wielding the influence necessary to lead faith denominations to jointly find a correct interpretation of Natural Law.  However, most Evangelicals still accept contraception as a moral decision.  However, Evangelicals increasingly are coming around on the issue of contraception.  The movement Quiverfull started in 1985 with Evangelicals who condemn contraception.

Since 1980, the pro-life movement has increasingly featured a Catholic-Evangelical alliance.  Together, Catholics (24%) and Evangelicals (26%) make up the majority of Americans.  The failure of Mainline Protestantism to dialogue with  the Natural Law has resulted in deterioriation (18%) in membership and a corresponding surge among religiously unaffiliated (16%).

The Populist State needs to understand Natural Law.  Before Vatican II, Catholics engaged in no dialogue with Protestants or Orthodox.  As a result, the Left established increasing influence over the Protestant denominations via the Anglican Church.  Now, the influence of the Left over Christianity is deteriorating within Christianity.

The pro-life movement is ascendant thanks largely to Ecumenism.

With diligence and determination, victory may be close at hand.

SSPX Superior General Bernard Fellay has rejected the Doctrinal Preamble on Vatican II

Yesterday the news agency of the Society of Saint Pius X, the schismatic traditionalist group released an interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay well worth reading  The group is (unjustly) best known for the incendiary remarks of one Bishop — Richard Williamson — to the effect that there were no gas chambers in the Holocaust, 9/11 was an inside job, and modern Jews suffer a peculiar collective guilt for the death of Christ.  Bishop Fellay, the Superior General of SSPX has since placed Bishop Williamson under a virtual gag order.

A few months ago, the Vatican proffered a yet-unpublished Doctrinal Preamble that helped to define those aspects of Vatican II (which contains much objectionable to traditionalists) that must be accepted to be in communion with Rome.  The interview revealed that SSPX rejects the Doctrinal Preamble but is planning a doctrinal counter-offer to the Vatican.

Vatican II was the first Council ever that did not issue doctrinal pronunciation (as, for example, the Council of Nicea did in promulgating the Nicene Creed as a set of beliefs that must be fully adopted in order to be Catholic) but was instead strictly a pastoral council.

What is the significance of a pastoral Council rather than a doctrinal one?

Pastoral issues are concerned with promoting prudent and moral courses of action.

If Vatican II was simply a pastoral Council, it has no real teaching authority, does it?

This is radically false.  A pastoral action teaches people how to apply Catholic doctrine.

Pastoral action can be restrictive, declaring a certain course of action immoral and a violation of the teaching of the Catholic Church.  An example would be Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, a document published in 2003 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by then-Cardinal Ratzinger.  This document reiterated Catholic dogma on same-sex relations and explained that any legal recognition was a violation of the correct application of that dogma.  It proclaimed endorsement of same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriage as not Catholic.

Pastoral action can also be expansive.  Vatican II essentially admitted Populist modernity and Christendom as two different but morally acceptable applications of Catholic dogma.

Within Christendom, the State conflated Natural Law with the Revealed Law of the Catholic Church.  Catholics, no matter what era of history they live in, are required to believe that Natural Law and Revealed Law are one and the same.  In Christendom, the State itself recognized this and could (and did) prosecute people for heresy.  The State, although committed to Revealed Law, did not make every immoral action illegal.

Within Populism, the State has a self-limiting level of insight into Natural Law.  Natural Law calls for mankind to reach their teleological end in God.  However, the State forswears any theological expertise and merely builds its law within the boundaries set by the demands that Natural Law places on man’s relationship with man — namely that every human being must treat every other human being as an end in themselves.  As in Christendom, the State does not seek to make every violation of the Natural Law illegal.  It also grounds its governance philosophy on protecting mankind’s God-given Natural Rights.

The Populist State does base its existence on a monotheistic God who grants Natural Law and Natural Rights to mankind.  However, by forswearing any additional theological expertise, such a State necessarily has Religious Liberty.  By acknowledging only a limited level of Natural Law expertise, the State inherently defers to the expertise of the various Churches.  However, only its Catholic citizens recognize the Catholic Church as the authority on Natural Law.  Therefore, the Catholic Church has a duty to practice Ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue to make sure that authentic Natural Law is defended by the various faiths permitted by religious liberty.  In order to effectively manage to shape the understanding of and the respect for Natural Law in the public square, it is necessary for the Bishops to practice Collegiality with each other.  From this collegiality springs the USCCB, the state Catholic Conferences, and so forth.

But hearken to Bishop Fellay’s quote:

“When people renounce their errors and join the Catholic Church, are they now required to profess their faith in religious liberty, ecumenism or collegiality?  As for us, the spiritual sons of Archbishop Lefebvre, who always refrained from setting up a parallel Church and always intended to be faithful to Eternal Rome, we have no difficulty in adhering fully to all the articles of the Creed.”

And that is the crux of the matter.  It is the pastoral endorsement of Populism along with the tools that the Church has granted to allow Catholics to work within Populism that SSPX rejects.  The Church believes that Catholics can believe either in Christendom or Populism.

SSPX sees loyalty to Christendom as the only authentic Catholicism and mistakenly views Populism as a form of heretical Modernism, rejecting the Church’s ability to embrace both simultaneously.

It is hard to imagine a bridge to span this gulf.

The Pro-Life and the 'Same-Sex Marriage' Movements Battle to the be Heir to MLK

The Civil Rights Movement — like the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the Suffragette Movement before it — fought for the US to live up to the timeless ideals proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr won the last great victory for the Natural Law-Natural Rights principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.

In his famous, “I Have a Dream Speech” in 1963, Dr. King said:

“In a sense we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

He said: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

And Dr. King won, ending the “manacles of segregation.”

Two flagship organizations have subsequently adopted Declaration of Independence-type names and declared themselves to be engaging in the next great battle for Civil Rights.

They are the National Right to Life Committee and the Human Rights Campaign.

So the question is, what is the great civil rights battle of our time?

The fact that in many states same-sex couples cannot marry?

Or the fact that every day legal abortion takes the lives of more human beings than were lost in the September 11 attack upon the World Trade Center in New York?

It is easy to argue for “Gay Rights.”

“If two people love each other, then why should they be banned from getting married?”

There are two accurate counterarguments from the Declaration of Independence Natural Law-Natural Rights perspective:

The Natural Law answer: “The Natural Law forbids one person from using another person to fulfill some lesser desire.  Sexual love is intimate and must therefore be unconditional.  Accordingly, sexual love should incorporate free will (no outside pressure), understanding (no profound ignorance or deception), full self-gift (no polygamy or prenuptial agreement), permanence (no temporary love), and openness to life (no deliberately sterile love).  Any other form of sexual love is in some sense using the other person for some reason while holding back from the full power of the sexual act — whether for pleasure, for money, for societal status, or for some other reason.  Same-sex relations are inherently and deliberately sterile.  Therefore, no institution (such as ‘same-sex marriage’) can be built around endorsing it.  Human law should not be in violation to Natural Law.”

The Natural Rights answer: “Government is charged specifically with protecting Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness — in that order.  No lesser Right can trump a greater Right.  In the Natural Order, children are begotten and raised by their biological parents by virtue of their parents’ psychological, spiritual, and biological complementary called conjugality.  In the Natural Order, this conjugality bears fruit at conception in the child’s Life and at the raising of the child in the Natural launching pad for the child’s pursuit of Happiness.  Therefore, being raised by their biological parents is part of the child’s Right to the pursuit of Happiness.  The governmental recognition of voluntary conjugal marriage protects the child’s right to the pursuit of Happiness without infringing on the parents’ more fundamental right to Liberty.  Marriage is exclusively designed to protect the Natural Rights of children to be conceived and raised by their biological parents.  The government has no authority under Natural Rights theory to proactively recognize or endorse any other form of marriage, including but not limited to ‘same-sex marriage.’”

There is no question that most people find the articulation of such positions daunting.

Fortunately for social conservatives, the pro-life position is much easier:

“Why shouldn’t a woman be allowed to do what she wants with her own body and the parasitical fetus attached to it?”

Natural Law: “Thou shalt not kill.”

Natural Rights: “The unborn baby from the moment of conception is, biologically speaking, a human being, with a right to Life that cannot be infringed even in the name of Liberty.”

As a result, most social conservatives are more confident about arguing against legal abortion than against legal same-sex marriage.  Many of these social conservatives express optimism about the abortion debate and pessimism about the same-sex marriage debate.

The Left’s predictions of inevitable victory on LGBT issues are rattling social conservatives now just as those same predictions on abortion rattled social conservatives in the 70s.

This is misguided and dangerous.

There is only one question that needs to be resolved in the mind of the American public:

Who is the heir of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Declaration of Independence?

The Human Rights Campaign or the National Right to Life Committee?

Both social conservative issues will live or die as the result of the answer to this question.

At Cairo, President Obama first unleashed anti-religious liberty rhetoric

The Health and Human Services mandate that contraceptives be covered by health insurance plan with no copay or deductible is anti-Populist, violating the Natural Law-Natural Rights principles of the Declaration of Independence.  It also is particularly anti-Catholic since the Catholic Church has a deep and beautiful understanding of the beauty of the sexual act that is violated by contraception and the Church also stands as the preeminent defender of the Natural Law principles upon which this nation was founded.

The mandate had a shockingly narrow conscience exemption that only excluded Churches theologically committed to opposing contraception.  This is a direct attack on the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as it relates to the free practice of religion.  It says, in essence, “You can have your belief in Natural Law but you better keep it shut up inside the Church building where it is out of everyone’s way.”

The free practice of religion has never meant in the United States that you need to shut up your faith within the boundaries of the Church.  When you walk out of the Church, the ability to freely practice your religion is still protected by the First Amendment.

What does the free exercise of religion consist of?

Religion (of any kind) is a profound conviction about the truths of reality that calls its followers to a pursuit of the Natural Law and the moral life and acts of charity and evangelization.  People craft their entire lives around their deepest convictions.

In Populism, freedom of religion has a particularly preeminent pride of place.  Unlike in Christendom, where the state was considered competent to make theological judgments (like heresy convictions), the Populist State is demoted from making such judgments.  The Populist state operates within the Natural Law as it relates to how people treat each other.  But it declares its own ignorance and lack of expertise on deeper matters of Natural Law such as man’s relationship with God.  This demotion necessitates a rich Church operating autonomously from the State in American political and cultural life.

It would be easy to assume that President Obama has not thought through these issues.

Not true.

In President Obama’s speech at Cairo, he first began to replace the term freedom of religion with freedom of worship.  He has been using this term ever since.  Apparently, he literally believes that the free exercise of religion really should be shut up within the walls of the worship building.  Evangelization, moral conviction, and the other aspects of freedom of religion are shut down by this phraseology out of the public square.

Now, the New York Times Editorial Board (that flagship of the Left) has condemned the possibility that the Obama Administration may broaden the exemption to include specifically Catholic nonprofits — Catholic Hospitals, Catholic Charities, Catholic Universities, etc.  The Administration is likely to make such a declaration to defend the mandate from being declared unconstitutional and removing standing from Belmont Abbey College, which has brought a precedent-setting First Amendment a lawsuit in court.

This (if it even transpires) is not a move to protect Catholics from persecution for being true to the tenets of their faith.  It will exclusively protect religious nonprofits, not individuals.  It says that one can only take a moral stand for one’s faith if working for a faith-based nonprofit.  This conviction cannot apply to everyday life in the marketplace.

It is a cynical move to protect the mandate as an ongoing tool that will, whatever the Administration says, lead to the persecution of Catholics.

If I am a Catholic business owner and I believe that abortifacient drugs (like Ella), contraception, and sterilization are inherently evil and I refuse to cover them, then I will be subjected to business-crippling fines.

That is persecution.

But it is not only Catholics that are threatened.  Every single person who believes in the Natural Law; every single person who truly believes in the Declaration of Independence; every single person who believes that human beings should never treat each other as a means to another end such as pleasure; every person that adheres to the Christian faith as it has been taught from time immemorial until the Lambeth Conference in 1930; every single person who is devoted to the Truth is threatened.

How prophetic this paragraph from Humanae Vitae sounds:

“Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.”

Do not be deceived.  Even if the exemptions are broadened, the mandate remains anti-Natural Law, anti-Declaration of Independence, anti-religious liberty, and anti-Catholic.

Clarence Thomas Has an Originalist Populist Philosophy

3-1.

Three were wrong.  One was right.

Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas either view themselves or have been interpreted as Originalists.

That means that they view the Constitution to varying degrees through the lens of the original intent of the framers.

But how to interpret the intent of the framers?

Clarence Thomas has most consistently supported the view of the founders that the Constitution was viewed by the founders as a compromised document whereby they made a compromise with the founding sin of the US — slavery — in order to form a union.

This was made, according to Clarence Thomas (and Abraham Lincoln) by creating an America armed with the tools of putting slavery and other violations of Natural Rights on the path to extinction.  In other words, the framers viewed the Constitution as a binding document that served as a bridge on the path towards creating a Union that implemented the principles of the Declaration.  This has many implications, the most important of which is that the Constitution should be viewed through the lens of the Declaration.

Unlike Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia has often drifted into strict constructionism, a constitutional philosophy that ignores founding intent and the original meaning of the words of the Constitution itself.  Justice Scalia calls this “soft originalism.”

In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, a California Law that banned the sale of violent video games to minors without parental consent was struck down as unconstitutional.  The majority decision was written by Antonin Scalia and joined by Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.  A more cautious concurrence was written by Samuel Alito and joined by John Roberts.

Stephen Breyer wrote an uninteresting dissent that was not at all Originalist.  Clarence Thomas wrote a truly Originalist dissent well worth reading.

In it, Justice Thomas defends the idea of parental sovereignty — an idea that has its roots in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” cited in the Declaration of Independence.

Natural Law philosophy, the dominant philosophy of the Puritans so frequently cited by Thomas in his dissent, believed that parents were responsible for the moral upbringing of their children.  Anything that hinges on morality — such as violent video games — would fall first and foremost into the domain of the parents who had brought the children into the world and thereby inherited the moral responsibility for raising them.

The fact that the federal government is striking down laws designed to empower parents with the authority they need to raise their children would be shocking to the founders.

The First Amendment’s protection of free speech hinged on the way that the Founders understand the word free which they frequently contrasted with licentious.  Freedom or Liberty is the ability to good not the license to do moral evil.  Whether a particular video game had moral issues or not is certainly not for the government to decide.  However, the fact is that California was seeking to put more tools into the hands of parents.  If parents do not have the authority to raise their own children, the free exercise of religion is not real.  Any free exercise of religion entails the ability to evangelize.  And while evangelization can occur in the public sphere or in the church, it occurs first and foremost in the home with the evangelization and moral upbringing of one’s own children.

And the federal government struck it down, saying that the state and parents in this collaboration are violating the free speech of children.  Such speech is not necessarily free.  It may, in certain instances, be licentious.  In such instances, it is not protected by the First Amendment.  Thomas is absolutely right and Scalia is utterly misguided.

Parents should have the leeway to manage the moral upbringing of their children.  Period.

Parental sovereignty is fundamental to the free exercise of religion.