BABIES ARE NOT A "CHOICE"

Babies are not a choice they have souls! And we have the opportunity to choose a canidate who will support the innocent or disregard them. This author says it better than I could!

The Passion of Politics

Posted By Patti Maguire Armstrong On September 30, 2008 @ 12:00 am

The yard signs are everywhere, commercials never ending, and the preachers talk morals rather than specific candidates trusting you will catch their drifts. It’s campaign time again!
The Lines are Drawn
But rather than the exciting aura of politics and anticipation, it has become a season of anxiety. In times of old, the hoopla centered on speeches, rallies, buttons and posters, and campaign promises. Yes, there is still all that, but in modern times (read post Roe v. Wade) there is an air of desperation. For pro-lifers, we hope and pray that candidates who respect and protect life will get elected. Those ferociously defending a mother’s “right” to abort her unborn baby, get downright angry at the thought of candidates minding someone else’s business — the business being the life of a baby.
One side is angry and the other depressed. The angry side lashes out at anyone trying to tell them what to do. The depressed side cries out for the unborn babies that are legally wiped out of existence every day. The fun and excitement have waned. It’s about life and death not just taxes and pet projects.
Yes, there are other issues. I suppose that explains in part how so many who say they are personally against abortion can still vote for candidates that are radically in favor of abortion rights. But anyone who is fully pro-life knows that all other issues combined amount to nothing. For nothing else in this world can equal the value of a soul. Some people believe we should separate our religious values from our political ones. That is why some Catholics holding office will claim (with a straight face) that they have a responsibility to support abortion rights: “I’m personally against abortion, but…” Those who wear their religion on their sleeves and vote accordingly, are called religious fanatics (and much worse if you should be caught praying in front of an abortion clinic.)
Bishop Fulton Sheen on Politics
Regarding religion and politics, I was recently taken aback while reading a book written by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen in 1947 titled: Characters of the Passion (Liguouri/Triumph). In it, he takes a look at the characters who played a role in the Passion of Jesus Christ and relates them to our modern world. Te lessons of the Passion held true in 1947 and still ring true today. In chapter 3, “Pilate: A Lesson on Political Power,” Sheen makes this observation regarding popular opinion as it relates to politics:
Those who have their finger on the pulse of contemporary civilization have probably noted that there are two contradictory charges against religions today. The first is that religion is not political enough; the other is that religion is too political. On the one hand, the Church is blamed for being too divine, and on the other, for not being divine enough. It is hated because it is too heavenly and hated because it is too earthly.
Same old, same old.
Sheen portrays the political/religious process as Jesus stood before the political Pilate and the religious Annas and Caiaphas. Christ was accused of being too religious before Anna and Caiaphas. Under the veil of mock indignation at the supposed insult to God’s majesty, Christ was declared too religious, too concerned with souls, too infallible and too Godly. After all, they cornered him into declaring Himself to be God. Sheen writes:
Because He was too religious, He was not political enough. The religious judges said that He had no concern for the fact that the Romans were their masters, and that they might take away their country (John 11:47-48). By talking about a spiritual kingdom, a higher moral law, and His divinity, and by becoming the leader of a spiritual crusade, He was accused of being indifferent to the needs of the people and nation’s well being.
Likewise, pro-lifers are accused of being too religious. Who are they to know the mind of God…to know when life really begins? We are accused of trying to force our religion on others, of being fanatics, of being downright dangerous to a free society. Pro-abortion advocates warn that if we are allowed much influence, the rights of women will be taken away.
Ultimately, Jesus was sent into the political arena, to Pilate. There, religious charges would have not prevailed. So instead, he was accused of being too political. Jesus is charged with meddling in national affairs; He was not patriotic enough. “We have found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he is Christ the king” (Luke 23:2).
Sheen explains:
And so throughout history, these two contradictory charges have been leveled against the Person of Christ in His Body the Church. His Church was accused of not being political enough when it condemned Nazism and Fascism; it is accused of being too political when it condemns Communism. It is the second charge that needs specific consideration, namely, that the Church is interfering in politics. Is this true? It all depends upon what you mean by politics. If by interference in politics is meant using influence to favor a particular regime, party, or system that respects the basic God-given rights and freedom of persons, the answer is emphatically No! The Church does not interfere in politics. If by interference in politics is meant judging or condemning a philosophy of life that makes the party or state, or the class, or the race, the source of all rights, and that usurps the soul and enthrones party over conscience and denies those basic rights for which the war was fought, then answer is emphatically Yes!
The Church does judge such a philosophy. But when it does this, it is not interfering with politics, for such politics is no longer politics but theology. When a state sets itself up as absolute as God, when it claims sovereignty over the soul, when it destroys freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, then the state has ceased to be political and has begun to be a counter-Church.
Counter-Religion Politics
In reality, the Church adapts itself to government, supporting authority. The Church teaches that the state is supreme in temporal matters. But when politics makes religious proclamations such as that women have the right to end the life of their unborn babies, politics enters into the religious realm and claims supremacy over the human soul. Voting and campaigning against candidates and issues that compete with religion, is not acting against politics but against a counter religion.
Preaching Christianity is sometimes labeled dangerous and incendiary. For instance, on the issue of homosexuality, the Christian Churches are increasingly coming under fire for teaching against a homosexual lifestyle. Never mind that the teaching advocates loving the sinner but hating the sin, politics claims that it’s not okay to hate the sin. Any teaching against this sin is more and more being labeled “hate” and is said to encourage “discrimination.” Christians are often not being allowed to express their moral stances if it could be viewed as “discriminating” against a “lifestyle.” Such a social straightjacket makes it impossible to teach right and wrong because it will offend the people engaging in the wrong.
As Sheen reminded his reader: “It was Jesus Christ Who suffered under Pontius Pilate; it was not Pontius Pilate who suffered under Jesus Christ. The grave danger today is not religion in politics but politics in religion.”
So when candidates preach a counter-religion message, making false dogmatic claims, our religious leaders and our consciences have no choice but to protest. Although the politically correct clamor against invasion of the secular realm by the spiritual, if our eyes are open we will see that the problem is just the opposite — the invasion of the spiritual by the political.
Christ was always and is forever our example. He did not deliver himself from the power of the state although He ultimately held all power: “You would have no power unless it were given to you from above,” (John 19:11). But he never stopped preaching and living the truth. The state is often indifferent to God’s moral laws. Still, we must never give in or give up. We must be willing to bear the marks of Christ as we follow Him.
Sheen equates God’s truths with true freedom:
But whatever be the reason for these trying days, of this we may be certain: The Christ Who suffered under Pontius Pilate signed Pilate’s death warrant; it was not Pilate who signed Christ’s. Christ’s Church will be attacked, scorned, and ridiculed, but it will never be destroyed…. The bold fact the enemies of God must face is that modern civilization has conquered the world, but in doing so has lost its soul. And in losing its soul it will lose the very world it gained. Even our own so-called liberal culture in the United States, which has tried to avoid complete secularization by leaving little zones of individual freedom, is in danger of forgetting that these zones were preserved only because religion was in their soul. And as religion fades so will freedom, for only where the spirit of God is, is there liberty.
The words of a recent homily by Fr. Christopher Roberts, associate pastor of Our Lady of Mt Carmel in Carmel Indiana, sums this up nicely.
In a participatory democracy, how we exercise our political power has something very significant to do with how we recognize Jesus in the least of our brothers and sisters. And according to the 25th chapter of Saint Matthew’s Gospel, our recognition of Jesus in others will be very important on Judgment Day. For a believer, our deepest convictions about what is right and wrong, good and evil, must inform our political life. Otherwise, we are just playing make believe when we come to Mass.
…My brothers and sisters in Christ, how we exercise our political power is very much a part of our relationship with God. Since many things that we believe as Catholics can also be known through human reason, we have the moral obligation to vote in a way that is consistent with these beliefs. And we can do so with the sure knowledge that we are not imposing our private beliefs on others.
Voting our conscience is an action tied to the well being of our souls. Rather than letting people label our vote as trying to impose our values on others, it would be better to think of it as allowing God to impose his values on us.