There is a presidential election in the United States on November 7th.  This should not be news even for those living in other countries around the world.  The United States plays a prime and influential role in the events of the whole world.  All men have a stake in this election, and as Catholics we are far from helpless.  The scriptural idea that "faith can move mountains" is not something given us for poetical reasons.  The prayers of a Catholic, in the state of grace, is a unique and powerful means to effect change for good in the world - without casting a vote or even knowing specifically what changes to pray for.  Indeed, the health of the world is merely a reflection of the condition of the clergy and faithful of the Catholic Church.  At this point we would like to pass on a notice we have received by email that is intended to be spread far and wide before election night:

    Although this was intended for nationwide distribution, the originator of this plan failed to see the benefit of spreading this to Catholics world-wide.  We do so now, and ask that you pass the news of this plan on to whomever you can.

    The following article pertains to the U.S. election specifically, but also applies Christian principle and thought to the general subject of voting in our age. If you find the following article worthwhile, you are free to distribute it also.

VIRTUE OF PATRIOTISM ATTACKED

    In this day, many Catholics have unknowingly been influenced by liberal thought in some degree such that they "feel" annoyed when another Catholic brings up the subject of politics; as if religion and the affairs of the state should not be mixed!  We can use the words of Pope St. Pius X, "as if everything that benefited the Church did not benefit the whole human race!  A curious reversal of notions!"

    The attitude is not a Catholic one. It is a liberal mentality that stems from the liberal principle of the "separation of church and state".  The generations during the past two centuries have had this false principle drilled into them such that people act as if it were as basic a principle as gravity itself. But it is false, and opposed to Catholic teaching. The reference book "A Catholic Dictionary", (1954) can give us some insight into this for us:

"The LAY STATE. An expression indicating an ideal of the 19th century expressed in the phrase "a free church in a free state."  Such a conception of the relation between church and state is not in accordance with Catholic teaching,..."

"CHURCH AND STATE. ....because of the nobler end of the Church -the glory of God and the salvation of souls- the state is bound to further that end by refraining from all interference with the Church's legitimate authority and by aiding her positively. It is not enough for the state to hold aloof from the Church,..."

    Yes, politics and religion should and do mix. Separating them leads to disaster, as we see today. Our attitude as Catholics should lead produce words and actions that will bring us to the day when the state is working hand-in-hand with the true religion, the Catholic Church, "aiding her positively" in promoting her moral doctrines in the laws of our states.

"CIVIL ALLEGIANCE.  That duty of love, reverence and obedience which every man owes to the state of which he is a member."

"PATRIOTISM. The love of one's country. This is enjoined by the natural law;....Patriotism is brotherhood among fellow citizens, that is, a special love for some men, not an opposition to other men ("foreigners"), an extension of human love, not a limitation of it."

    You can see the liberal mentality today also attacks patriotism. The world leads you to think that if you have a special love for your own country, you are somehow, by that very fact, probably bigoted, prejudiced or even hateful towards people in other countries. The world tries to make you feel guilty for being patriotic and loving your own country with this special love. This is a confusion between "patriotism" and its abuse, which exists in a form of "nationalism."  Based upon this confusion, you will find that the liberals can go so far as to associate you with Hitler because you have a "special love for your country". Indeed, Hitler had a special love for his country, but it was an abusive form of nationalism that disliked particular foreigners and hated Catholicism is general. It is a common error to condemn a thing altogether because of an abuse!

WHAT THE ATTACK LENDS ITSELF TO

    This liberal mentality is quite conducive in working towards a "global economy" and "international socialism" which is nothing more than the goals of communism.  It is no mere coincidence that since the early 90's (just after the alleged "fall of communism" in Russia), never before have we seen more images of globes in advertisements or heard of the "global economy".  Never before has the communist-inspired "United Nations" been more active and talked about.  Did you ever realize that communism was called the "International Commune"?  Well, since the alleged fall of communism in Russia, a new phrase is used throughout the world as though it were something existing and beneficial.  On a major Internet search  engine (as of this writing) the phrase came up over 53,000 times.  The phrase is "World Community". What did "international commune" mean to you?

    So somehow we are supposed to believe that since the "former Soviet Union" killed millions more people than did Hitler, gained more land around the world through war and bloodshed, it somehow is a mere coincidence that they just give up and say "it didn't work" and then join a "world community" after working so hard for an "international commune"?  And, we now invite Gorbachev to state dinners while we still hunt soldiers, now over 70 years old, who were once members of the Nazi Party.  Furthermore China, which still professes to be communist, is granted normal trade relations!  Is there something wrong here?

    Imagine now, O.J. Simpson coming forth, claiming that, although he did not kill his former wife, he paid someone to do it, and he is sorry.  Should he then expect to live a normal life and be invited to the same state dinner that Gorbachev is invited to, even though the latter has far worse crimes under his belt? Unthinkable.  Something IS wrong here.

WHICH PARTY TO VOTE FOR?

    Catholics today tend to have a difficult time choosing what candidate to vote for. In the US it has become quite a common question to be asked, "Are you a Republican or a Democrat?" More often than not, there tends to be two "major" candidates to choose from. In the United States, however, this was not the original way it was intended.

    Originally, many men could all run for election and did not need to be a member of a "party".  Just a "man" with ideas, that he considered "beneficial" to the state, were needed.  The people would have to experience the men speak (or write) their ideas to judge whether they considered him qualified and beneficial to the state.  As time went on it naturally became clearer that it was rather difficult to properly inform all the necessary citizens of a candidate's ideas.  And the more candidates there were, the less likely the ordinary citizen would have the time to sufficiently inform himself of all the candidates, and all the issues.  As a result, men naturally started to think of ways to quickly inform the average citizen without starting "at step one" each campaign year to make the people feel comfortable with their ideas, and with them personally.  As a practical measure, a political "party" was formed.  Like a "flag" instantly signifies certain things in the people's minds when they see the symbol waving, the political party gives itself a name hoping, in a word, to signify in people's minds a platform of ideas they can subscribe to, and each campaign year instantly align themselves to, with a feeling of security from the previous years.

    It seems to be a good invention, but with convenient inventions there is always the chance of abuse.  We all know that historically, the enemy could take up the flag of his opponent and fly it order to deceive them by appearing to be what they are not!  The convenience of a flag, or a party, still requires us to be responsible and on our toes.

    Incidentally, another noticeable benefit of creating a political party tended to make people feel a part of a group.  The social character of man tends to form groups as they tend to form larger societies.  God created man as a social being to co-operate and depend on each other.  The forming of a group facilitated the cooperation toward a common goal of ideas.

    Along with the natural way in which men tend to form groups, or parties, to make things easier, it also was somewhat of a burden to have too many candidates, or parties, to choose from.  The busy lives of the people often could not sufficiently find the time to sort through too many candidates.  Historically we see in the United States how the Republican and the Democratic Parties gradually grew to become the two major parties to choose from, such that people of more recent generations often mistakenly think this virtual "two party system" is the way it is supposed to be.  And, that other, very small, independent parties that may exist somehow are doing something radical and extraordinary!  It is so easy to jump on the bandwagon; fallen human nature tends to unreasonably choose what is a majority and "commonly accepted".  This is a serious defect opposed to the common good.

INTERESTING REFLECTION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS TWO-PARTY SYSTEM

    An interesting thought underlies the gradual evolution of this virtual "two party system" in the United States.  Originally both the Republican and Democratic parties had somewhat of a common "moral code" since the Founding Fathers of the U.S. were mostly Protestants.  What these parties differed in was not so noticeably in ethics, but primarily in that which there was room or opinion, such as in how to organize or implement their ideas to help society. (Yes, often opinions have some bearing on morals, but the differences in morals was not a major issue at that time.)  As the years rolled on, campaign after campaign, president after president, we can notice an interesting development with this "two-party system".  The pattern corresponds strikingly to what Catholics know to be the meaning of life - the struggle of good and evil.  This over-simplification is NOT to imply that one of these parties is on the side of good, and the other evil!  No.  Rather, the development reflects the pattern of man's basic struggle to obey his conscience throughout life, choosing good and avoiding evil.

    Those non-Catholic people who successfully follow conscience, and obey the promptings of actual grace, inevitably join the true religion on earth as fellow Catholics.  Those who do not have the true religion live in much confusion and darkness.  Logically, those non-Catholics who do a better job at obeying their consciences and loving the truth, gradually side more and more with Christian principles.  Those who choose evil, and disobey conscience, go in the opposite direction.  We can see in the past two centuries how the platforms of each major party have transformed and moved in opposing directions in regard to morals

    Gradually over time, one party's platform conformed more and more to Christian principles while the other became more opposed to Christian principles.  As Christ said, "He that is not with me, is against me."  This reveals that basic struggle of mankind.  Those who are evil wish to have an influential party platform to impose their evil upon society, and they side with the party that looks to be more in their favor.  The "more successful followers of conscience and reason", likewise wish to have an influential political party to transform society against what they consider evil.

    Those who are more inclined to evil have a worldly advantage over those who are inclined towards truth and goodness.  It is not really an advantage, but a second "option" that the other does not have, and that is - they can either tell the truth, OR purposely tell a lie, to get what they want.  However, those inclined towards the truth are straightforward and tend to say it one way, one option, the way they think.  Yes, it therefore is quite possible not only the two parties could be truly tending towards opposites, it is also possible for the party tending towards evil to eventually get a foothold in the other party but still make it APPEAR to remain the same.  This possibility is easily seen in the analogy of an enemy who flies his opponent's flag (or wears their uniform) to deceive.  It is also a fundamental analogy given to us in scripture, the "wolf in sheep's clothing".  Scripture warns us of it, and history is full of examples.  As mentioned above, we need to be on our toes and love the truth..

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF A TRANSFORMATION IN SOCIETY

    In the history of the United States there have been different periods of struggle noticed as these parties evolved and separated in matters of morals. Without going into details, here is a list of facts that reveals this transformation, especially of the concept of "democracy":

1.  The U.S. Constitution does not mention the word democracy.
2.  The constitutions of the individual states within the U.S. do not mention democracy.
3.  Other writings the Founding Father explicitly condemned a "democracy" as being an evil.
4.  A party called "Democratic" (started in Thomas Jefferson's day) did NOT promote a democracy.
5.  In 1848 Europe we see the infamous document, "Communist Manifesto", published specifically promoting a "democracy".
6.  In the latter half of 1800's - a major emigration of people from Europe to the U.S.
7.  By 1913 several planks of  the "Communist Manifesto" implemented in U.S. (including income tax, public schools and Federal Reserve.)
8.  The World War I (1914) slogan is created - "To make the world safe for democracy".
9.  End of WWI (1917). U.S. and England win, though striking gain is that Communism takes over and uses Russia as its base.
10.  Red Scare in early 20's in U.S. immediately following WWI.
11.  The 1930's Roosevelts "New Deal" implements many aspects of Socialism.  Roosevelt says Stalin is "A good Joe". Democratic platform closely resembles planks of "Communist Manifesto".
12.  1930's U.S. army manual still defines "democracy" as leading to socialism and tyranny, though public by now mistakenly thinks the U.S. is a "democracy".
13. WWII (1945). Allies win. Only major noticeable lasting gains - communism gains strength and territory worldwide.
14. United Nations created immediately after war through major work of communist agents in the U.S.
15. 1950's U.S. army manual changes definition of democracy as being something good.
16. 1950's Whittaker Chambers and Bella Dodd defect from Communist party in U.S. and relate that the U.S. government is infested with communist agents at all levels.  However, only the name Senator "McCarthy" stays in people's minds as being "crazy" for making the same accusations - thanks to the Mass Media.

    Many details can be added to these facts, but the purpose here is to show, in short, that there has been a transformation in the concept of democracy.  Initially it was condemned as an evil by the U.S. Founding Fathers, but by the mid-1800's in Europe it was promoted by the communists and socialists. The heavy immigration of foreigners to the U.S. seems to have increased socialistic activity, and the "democratic" party was an easy means to get their agenda in.  Especially by the 1960's, the Democratic Party has noticeably been in opposition, at least verbally, to the morality of the Republican Party platform.  People who consider themselves Christian tend to now vote Republican while those who are against Christianity tend
to side with the Democratic party.

PARTY SPEECH DIFFERENT; RESULTS ARE SAME

    We see today indications of this opposition between the Republican and Democratic parties as far as morality is concerned.  At least verbally.  Democrats have become known as promoting socialism, globalism, feminism, sodomy, abortion, euthanasia, infanticide.  Republicans still proclaim their opposition to all of these.  The record unfortunately shows that this choice is only on the surface.  Regardless of Republicans or Democrats in the Presidency in the United States over the past four decades, there has been no essential difference in the direction the country, and world, is heading.  Here is more of a visual list of which party had the presidency:

1961-1969 Democrat      9 years
1969-1977 Republican    8
1977-1981 Democrat      9
1981-1993 Republican    13
1993-2000 Democrat      8

Notice that the U.S., and world, have moved in one direction and have gotten worse and worse regardless of whether there was a Republican or Democrat in office.  George Wallace, in the late 1960's said, "There ain't a dime's worth of difference between the major parties".  Though the speech in the Republican Party has been greatly anti-communist and anti-abortion, ome of the greatest advances towards socialism and abortion have been made during 1981-1993.  The statistics show the truth of Wallace's judgment.  People who vote Republican vote themselves a candidate who makes their ears satisfied but leads the country and world down the same destructive path.  The statistics show that the enemy has been ultimately flying both the
Democratic and Republican flags.

VOTING IN THE "LESSER EVIL"

    There is the theory which says that Catholics (and conservatives) should vote Republican just because it is at least "the lesser evil", and against the more openly horrendous platform of the Democrats.  At first glance this "lesser evil" idea seems valid, but it is not because we have more choices than these two main parties.  To vote for the party with the more pleasant speech lulls the conservatives to sleep in fighting the evil.  At least with a Democrat in office the evil is not hidden by pleasant-sounding words.  Advocates of this theory also say it is useless to vote for a third party because it will never win in this election.  Such a thought as this only shows a lack of patience, and it implies that you should vote the same way in 2004, 2008 and 2012 regardless of the statistics which show it only leads in the same direction with the two main parties.  That is senseless. We must not expect to win the war with a vote in THIS election, but voting according to prudence and principles will win "a battle", and will lead to winning the war in the future.  We must not have impatience.  The enemy has shown more patience over the years with its gradualism, which slowly and deliberately subverts society against Christ.

THE VIRTUE OF PRUDENCE ENSURES INFORMED VOTING

    We must follow our consciences and make prudent decisions among candidates of all offices.  We are obliged to follow a well-formed conscience in our decisions of action.  The Church teaches that conscience is reason.  And, the definition of the virtue of prudence can help us understand how to have a well-formed conscience and to act upon it:

"PRUDENCE.  The right reason of doing or of behavior,...It is the first of the cardinal virtues, enabling the intellect to see what is virtuous and what is not, how to do the one and avoid the other, and prompting the will to act accordingly.  Prudence implies memory of the past, understanding of the present, docility, shrewdness, reasoning, foresight, circumspection and precaution..."

    This virtue takes into account many things past, present and future.  Those who vote only "Republican", for instance, just because their "family has always voted this way", are not voting with prudence.  Those who vote for a man because he "looks honest or sounds sincere" are not voting prudently.  Those who vote in only one party because of its past reputation for being "conservative" may be doing it the lazy way and not according to reason.  The "principles" involved are the primary concern in conscience, as well as the past statistical record which reveals the sincerity and/or ability of the candidate.

    Often we do have to choose a "lesser evil", but let us also consider a minority party even if we feel that it has no chance of winning in THIS election.  Besides the prayer that should always accompany our important decisions, we please God by carefully practicing the virtue of prudence and making a conscientious decision.  This will draw the graces of God in addition to the prayer.  Voting for a candidate that will not likely win also is very valuable besides simply doing our principled duty before God.  To give an example....

    A voter in the U.S. has the option of voting for Pat Buchanan, a Catholic.  Just the name "Catholic" should not alone make us vote for him unless we actually see his platform and know his past with approval.  This man appears to be in accord with Catholic principle and also has a very good record. In fact, a good sign that he is not in with "the establishment" can be seen by the reaction that was produced in the early 1990's when he won ONE SIMPLE PRIMARY in a small state.  The reaction of the Mass Media, and those especially of Jewish persuasion, were seething with fear at the prospect that this Catholic could have even done that well!   The name-calling and the libel was shocking. This is an excellent sign.

    How is this valuable?   Well, his party could also get a 5% vote which would ensure the security of his party for future elections.  Also importantly, a conscientious vote (even when we know he cannot win) gives a message to the world that the people are starting to get weary of being fooled by the main parties.  The statistical rise of votes gives a good example to other Catholics not only to vote more conscientiously in future elections, but will also serve to encourage more Catholics on a local level to run for lesser offices knowing they have more of a chance.  More Catholics in lower offices during the next four years can lead to great gains for the Presidency.

    Lastly, such a show of a rising vote for a Catholic candidate practices a patient and persevering determination to make change to counteract the perseverance of the evil officials who have been likewise working patiently over these many years to subvert the U.S. and the world.  They know it cannot be done immediately, and we must ALSO know that a prudent vote for individual candidates serves the future far better than an ignorant, senseless vote for a "Party" that statistically does not work.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Catholic Dispatch Internet Apostolate
Free articles delivered to your electronic doorstep!
http://www.catholic-dispatch.com
Original work and arrangements © 2000 CDIA
cdia@catholic-dispatch.com
Subscribe/Unsubscribe by e-mail or web site
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reprint our original work freely with above information