Voting and the Moral Act

When we say "voting is a moral act," we have to define our terms. The "moral act" means different things depending on what philosophy you espouse and how you define morals. Notice that "morality" is not the same as "ethics." Morality is a divinely revealed code of conduct. Ethics is a humanly agreed upon code of conduct. There is overlap between the two, but the two are not identical. I can do something that is moral, but unethical, and I can do something that is ethical, but immoral.

Take the example of the doctor who sleeps with his patient. Immoral? Unethical? Both? Neither? We can't tell from just the example. If the doctor's patient is his wife, then the act is perfectly moral, but it might be unethical if his particular specialty (for example, surgery) requires that doctors not accept close relatives as patients. On the other hand, if the patient is NOT his wife, the act is certainly immoral, but might be ethical because his particular specialty (for example, podiatry) lays no specific prohibitions on doctors having emotional relationships with patients.

So, if we accept that morality is a divinely revealed code of conduct, then the moral act, at least in Christian tradition, is made up of three elements: circumstances, intention and the act itself. Notice that the outcome is most definitely NOT part of the moral act. Again, in Christian tradition, God is the one who brings about the outcome, not man. Man proposes, God disposes. We do our best, but our best is not expected to be good enough to always accomplish our intention.

And so it is with voting. When we vote, we are not responsible for the outcome. Whether the person for whom we vote wins or loses is not our concern. We vote (act) for the candidates who fulfill the legal requirements of office (circumstance) with the intention of placing them in office. Whether they actually make it into the office, or even have a chance to make it into office, is not relevant to the morality of the act, which is my vote. As long as I vote with the intention that my vote helps this person get into office, I have provided the third element of the moral act.

In order for a vote to be a morally good act, all three elements have to be good, or at least morally neutral. For example, I have no right to intend to put an unqualified person into office. An unqualified person is not just someone who doesn't satisfy the laws of the state concerning the office. After all, a person may fit the secular qualifications (correct age, mental capacity, etc.), but still be unfit because that person is known to be morally unqualified. Perhaps he abuses power, perhaps he regularly and without remorse uses power to injure and/or kill others. Such a person is not worthy of my vote.

Now, I am aware that my vote is one out of hundreds of millions cast. There is simply no reasonable probability that my vote alone will actually put anyone into office or prevent anyone from taking office. Given the number of votes cast, my vote has essentially zero effect on the outcome of any election. In fact, as we have seen, even if it were otherwise, even if I were reasonably certain that my vote would accomplish my intention, the placement of a specific person into a specific office as a result of my vote would be an outcome, and outcome isn't part of the moral equation.

So, when I vote, I don't vote in order THAT someone may win. Rather, I vote in order to express the idea that this person is someone I know well enough and I trust well enough to act correctly while they are in office (whether they get that office or not). My vote is a statement about how much I trust another person, a statement that asserts the office-seeker's values are close enough to my own that I have good reason to believe he will serve others well while in office.

It is only in THAT sense that my vote is a moral act. My vote is a short-hand letter of reference. I don't look at the office-seeker and say "Well, he's not as bad as the others, and someone has to do the job, so I suppose he will have to do." Rather, I look at the office seeker on his own, without reference to the other office-seekers. Based on the assessment I make of this seeker alone, I determine if I know him well enough and trust him well enough to endow him with the power of the office.

This is the important part: If none of the office seekers are trustworthy enough, then none of them get my vote.

If voting is a moral act, then my vote is my personal moral statement.
That is all it is - it can be no more.
But neither can it be any less.

As a Catholic, I have a duty to make publicly clear that I am Catholic. If I can do that by voting for a particular candidate, thereby declaring that this candidate's values match true, substantial Catholic values, then I am bound to vote for the candidate. I cannot not vote for him. However, if I cannot find a candidate whose values are substantially Catholic, if I see all the candidates have values that substantially violate Catholic faith, then I am duty-bound not to vote, I am duty-bound NOT to endorse them with my vote. I am duty-bound NOT to contribute to handing them the power of office.

I do not have to choose between Lenin and Stalin, between Pol Pot and Mao tse Tung, between Goehring and Hitler. If these are the choices, then the Catholic thing to do is to imitate St. Thomas More, retire to my estate and refuse to make any public endorsement of anyone.

If I predicate my vote on what the outcome will be, I am playing God. I have, at that moment, become a consequentialist, a modernist, a fool. I am representing to myself that I have control over outcomes that I do not, in fact, have any control over at all. By the very fact that I already know my vote will not, and never can, be the single deciding vote in an election involving 330 million people, then pretending my vote is necessary for a specific outcome is farce. It is just me trying to convince myself that a dreamworld is reality, that my vote means more than it actually does. I represent myself as having more power than I could ever, even in the wildest reality, actually wield.

The choice in 2016 is between Lenin and Stalin, between Pol Pot and Mao tse Tung, between Goehring and Hitler. Thus, for the time being, I retire.

Just A Mild Case of Pneumonia?!

On Sunday, 68-year old Hillary Clinton collapsed from what her handlers claim was a case of pneumonia that was diagnosed on Friday. Despite video which clearly shows her essentially unconscious as she is being dragged into her van, she was not taken to a hospital.

Instead, 90 minutes after she was taken to her daughter's apartment (!), she was out on the sidewalk, bending over and greeting a small child. This is amazing, given that pneumonia causes low oxygen saturation in the blood, increases the probability of dizziness while standing or bending over, and therefore increases the risks of falls.

An elderly patient who has just collapsed from pneumonia will not be bending over to greet a small child. This sequence of events does not comport with pneumonia. Below are some medical website quotes about pneumonia in the >65 crowd. Links are at the beginning of the paragraphs:

A number of studies have confirmed that there is a high rate of morbidity and mortality associated with pneumonia in the elderly (Fig. 1).[1-5] These high rates have continued to impede the efforts of healthcare professionals, despite significant improvements in therapeutic options and public health practices. One-sixth of the six million pneumonia cases that are reported each year occur primarily in those individuals 65 years and older requiring hospitalization for pneumonia.[6] Over 90% of all deaths from pneumonia occur in this older population.

Community-acquired pneumonia is one of the most common reasons for admission to a general intensive care unit (ICU). Up to 22% of patients hospitalized with pneumonia are admitted to the ICU,[3–5] approximately 18–56% of whom will die during hospitalization. Appropriate delivery of critical care services for patients with pneumonia is particularly topical and important given how common community-acquired pneumonia is in elderly patients, with approximately one million cases per year in those ≥65 yrs in the United States.

Older people have higher risk of getting pneumonia, and are more likely to die from it if they do. For US seniors, hospitalization for pneumonia has a greater risk of death compared to any of the other top 10 reasons for hospitalization.

While successful pneumonia treatment often leads to full recovery, it can have longer term consequences. Children who survive pneumonia have increased risk for chronic lung diseases. Adults who survive pneumonia may have worsened exercise ability, Cardiovascular disease, cognitive decline, and quality of life for months or years. (emphasis added)

The pneumonia and influenza mortality rate is much higher for those aged 65 years and older compared to younger age groups. About 85 percent of all pneumonia and influenza deaths occur in this age group, and it represents the seventh leading cause of death in this age group.

Her people didn't seem to be very upset about her "pneumonia", nor did they treat it with very much concern. They certainly did not exhibit the level of concern that would be warranted if this were a recently diagnosed condition that had just rendered their candidate unconscious. And how does someone recover in 90 minutes from that level of incapacitation, especially if it were induced by pneumonia? How does a 68-year old woman manage that? Receiving no apparent medical care during or after the episode? Seriously?
Whatever Hillary has, it is:

• deeply debilitating (obvious from the first video)
• rapid onset with "halo" (victim can feel upcoming episode, thus she made it to the van)
• transient (obvious from the second video)

There are a lot of things that can do that.
Pneumonia isn't one of them.

Aquinas and the Immaculate Conception

It is often said that Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception, the fact that Mary was conceived without sin. This is incorrect.

Thomas built a theory of sanctification that assumed an underlying scientific understanding of conception and ensoulment that happened to be in error, but was common throughout all the centuries preceding his own.

No one knew that women produced eggs, and this knowledge would not, in fact, be confirmed until the early 1800s. Since all things are created in, by and for Christ, the operations of the natural world are properly a subject of theology. Further, since God took flesh and walked in the natural world, the operations of the natural world are also part of the necessary foundation to Christian theology.

Unfortunately for Thomas, none of the Christian theologians had a detailed or complete understanding of how conception worked. Thomas assumed that conception happened first, and the rational soul was infused at some later point. This was an error. Despite this error he pointed out an incontrovertible fact:

"The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons. First, because the sanctification of which we are speaking, is nothing but the cleansing from original sin: for sanctification is a "perfect cleansing," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified.

Secondly, because, since the rational creature alone can be the subject of sin; before the infusion of the rational soul, the offspring conceived is not liable to sin. And thus, in whatever manner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin..."  (emphasis added)

All he said was, the Blessed Virgin HAD to have been saved from original sin or Christ would not be universal saviour - a perfectly correct statement:

"If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place."

And he even admitted that celebrating the Feast of the Immaculate Conception was not a problem:

"Although the Church of Rome does not celebrate the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, yet it tolerates the custom of certain churches that do keep that feast, wherefore this is not to be entirely reprobated. Nevertheless the celebration of this feast does not give us to understand that she was holy in her conception. But since it is not known when she was sanctified, the feast of her Sanctification, rather than the feast of her Conception, is kept on the day of her conception." (emphasis added)

So, he essentially admits that if his understanding of how ensoulment works is wrong, then the Immaculate Conception was properly a feast. He even admitted that his theory could be wrong when he agreed that the Feast of the Immaculate Conception could be licitly celebrated, since no one knew exactly when she had been sanctified. The reason no one knew was because no one knew exactly when the rational soul was infused.

He did not deny the Immaculate Conception, he only denied that Mary could have been sanctified before the infusion of her rational soul - a perfectly reasonable theological position. We don't baptize dogs because dogs don't have rational souls. We don't sacramentally anoint chairs or tables because they don't have souls at all.

If Thomas had known the infusion of the rational soul took place at conception - which is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception implies - he would have instantly agreed that the Immaculate Conception was a reasonable teaching:

Since he merely proposed a theory of sanctification, and since he agreed that the liturgy of the Church was of more importance than his theory, he did not teach error regarding the Immaculate Conception. Instead, he showed the proper humility towards the Magisterium which is so often lacking in Christians today.

Catholic Truth in Other Religions

For reasons beyond my ken, the memes and quotes below have been popping up in my newsfeed. These quotes do not mean what many Catholics think they mean.

“Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them.” ~ Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Notre Charge Apostolique, 1910:

The Magisterium cannot be broken. Whether we are discussing papal decrees, conciliar decrees or Scripture, we need to spend a long time thinking about how to reconcile all the different statements of the Magisterium so they do not contradict one another.

While composing the Summa Theologica, the greatest non-Scriptural work the Church has ever produced, St. Thomas Aquinas reportedly spent hours in contemplation before the Blessed Sacrament, sometimes beating his head against the floor in frustration as he tried to work out how to reconcile all the different statements in the Magisterium.

If this were easy, If the Catholic Faith could be meme'd this way, if statements could be taken at face value without any deeper contemplation, we wouldn't need Fathers or Doctors of the Church. As it is, we do.

Every religion is attractive to men ONLY because every religion has some seed of truth. Since God is Truth, insofar as any system has some seed of truth, that seed of truth is a reflection of God's glory and therefore must be respected to at least that degree.

That is a fact.
None of the facts represented in this article are in contradiction.
All of the facts in this article must be read in such a way that they do not contradict.
Only when you have succeeded in doing that can you say that you have arrived at Catholic Truth.

What Went Wrong At Baltimore?

Traditionalist Catholics who don't know very much about Catholic faith (such as this man) tend to set great store by the Baltimore Catechism (BC). The more ignorant the traditionalist, the greater their love of the BC. Oddly enough, the Baltimore Catechism is arguably a prime example of how American Catholics, raised in the TLM tradition, never really understood the Faith. It is a shining example of the pre-Vatican II rot that the council was trying to repair.

To understand just how bad the Baltimore Catechism truly is, consider the issue of "mixed marriages", that is, marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics. The Bible minces no words on the subject:

Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, (1 Peter 3:1)

For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (1 Corinthians 7:14)

The early Church had no fear of the pagans. Every Catholic knew the Faith so well that each believer was expected to convert his or her unbelieving spouse. But how things change in just a couple of millennia! This is the BC's fear-filled command:

Q. 1327. Which are the chief commandments of the Church?
A. The chief commandments of the Church are six:
      ......
      ......
6. Not to marry persons who are not Catholics...  (Baltimore Catechism)

By the time the American Catholic bishops approached the problem, they recognized that they had stunk so badly at catechizing the faithful, and the faithful had stunk so badly at being catechized, that neither the ordained clergy nor their flock could risk associating themselves with non-Catholics, even via sacramental bonds. That is, the American bishops and their flocks didn't think even the saving graces of the sacrament of marriage, image of Christ's bond with the Church, would be sufficient to protect the Catholic from apostasy, much less convert the unbeliever.

Yes, in a battle in which the salvific graces of the Bridegroom contest with the pagan heresies of the unbeliever, the gates of Heaven could not be trusted to prevail. That's the Baltimore Catechism for you.

Now, anyone who has spent any time at all studying the precepts of the Church know that those precepts have changed wildly depending on geography and time period.

The Church in her supreme authority has defined nothing regarding the form and number of the Commandments of the Church (emphasis added). The Council of Trent while recommending in a general way in its twenty-fifth session the observance of these precepts says nothing regarding them as a particular body of laws. Neither is any specific mention made of them in the "Catechismus ad parochos" published by order of the council and known as the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" or "Roman Catechism". We have seen that St. Antoninus of Florence enumerates ten such commandments while Martin Aspilcueta mentions only five. This last number is that given by St. Peter Canisius. According to this author the precepts of the Church are: To observe the feast days appointed by the Church; to hear Mass reverently on these feast days; to observe the fasts on the days during the seasons appointed; to confess to one's pastor annually; to receive Holy Communion at least once a year and that around the feast of Easter. 

 It will be readily observed that the omission by French writers of the Commandment to pay tithes was owing to local conditions. In a "Catechism of Christian Doctrine" approved by Cardinal Vaughan and the bishops of England, six Commandments of the Church are enumerated. These are:

• to keep the Sundays and Holy Days of obligation holy, by hearing Mass and resting from servile work;
• to keep the days of fasting and abstinence appointed by the Church;
• to go to confession at least once a year;
• to receive the Blessed Sacrament at least once a year and that at Easter or thereabouts;
• to contribute to the support of our pastors;
• not to marry within a certain degree of kindred nor to solemnize marriage at the forbidden times.

This list is the same (????) as that which the Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1886) prescribed for the United States. (question marks and emphasis added)

Read that last precept, as presented by the Catholic Encyclopedia, again. Notice what is missing. Notice how the encyclopedia's version of the precept doesn't say a word about not marrying the unbeliever. In fact, you can read the entire encyclopedia article and you would search in vain for the BC's "mixed marriage" precept in ANY of the provided lists, all written by saints and Doctors of the Church. This all the more striking when one considers how little love the Catholic Encyclopedia's own article on mixed marriage exhibits.

Now, one could argue that this entire article is but an argument from silence. But that is precisely the point. The precepts of the Church have never been put under double-secret probation. The whole purpose of the precepts are to make quite clear and quite well-known bedrock ecclesial principles. If something is not listed as a precept of the Church in any list by any father, Doctor, saint or council of the Church, then it isn't a precept of the Church, no matter how much some random lay person, priest or even individual bishop might wish it to be.

So, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Baltimore Catechism did not just back away from the idea that Catholics should evangelize everyone concerning the Faith, even their own spouses. It would be bad enough if this were true, but it is worse. Instead, again, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Baltimore Catechism actively misrepresented the Third Plenary Council's summary of the Church's precepts. 

The Baltimore Catechism has many faults.

• It is not logically structured, it does not begin with the Trinity as Aquinas did, but is instead structured almost haphazardly. 
• It is a question-answer catechism that consciously imitates Protestant catechetical methods (few today realize that Martin Luther's 1529 Small Catechism was the first question-answer catechism in history). 
• It is a catechism that teaches the sacraments in the wrong order, placing Confirmation after First Eucharist when all Magisterial documents clearly show the order of sacramental initiation is baptism, confirmation, Eucharist. 
• It is a catechism that is meant to teach only small children, but continues to be sought out by adults who have clearly never gotten beyond a child's understanding of the Faith.

But even if all of those grievous errors were ignored, we now have evidence that the Baltimore Catechism actively mis-represents the Faith.  And even if it did none of those things, the Baltimore Catechism would not constitute a useful tool for adults.

I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. (1 Cor 3:2)

When it comes to adult evangelization, the Baltimore Catechism is a hot mess. Due to its defects, it is really not any great shakes at teaching children either.

"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child.  (1 Cor 13:11)

It is time for Catholic adults to become adults in the Faith. Adults learn by reading the Fathers of the Church, the saints of the Church, the councils of the Church. Adults put away childish toys like the Baltimore Catechism. Indeed, given what we have seen here, adults would be better off teaching our children directly from the writings of the saints and the Fathers, and ignoring the Baltimore Catechism entirely.

Ratzinger's Liturgical Commentary

Despite saying this as cardinal, once he was consecrated as Pope Benedict XVI, he NEVER offered the traditional Latin Mass.

That is quite telling.

America's Culture of Death

On the Rosary

The Rosary is a great private devotion that has received praise from many Popes. It is a prayer currently enriched with an indulgence, and historically has had many indulgences attached to it.

However, all that being said and acknowledged, the Rosary is not a necessary prayer.
Liturgy is a necessary prayer - every sacrament is wrapped up in liturgy, and we cannot attain heaven without the grace of the sacraments. But the Rosary is not liturgy, nor is the Rosary a sacrament. The Rosary is not necessary to attain heaven.

Not one of the Fathers of the Church prayed the Rosary.
Very few of the Doctors of the Church prayed the Rosary.

In fact, St. Thérèse of Lisieux, Doctor of the Church who was dubbed the “greatest saint of modern times” by St. Pius X, had this to say about the Rosary:

“I feel then that the fervor of my Sisters makes up for my lack of fervor; but when alone (I am ashamed to admit it) the recitation of the rosary is more difficult for me than the wearing of an instrument of penance. I feel I have said this so poorly! I force myself in vain to meditate on the mysteries of the rosary; I don’t succeed in fixing my mind on them.

For a long time I was desolate about this lack of devotion which astonished me, for I love the Blessed Virgin so much that it should be easy for me to recite in her honor prayers which are so pleasing to her. Now I am less desolate; I think that the Queen of heaven, since she is my mother, must see my good will and she is satisfied with it. Sometimes when my mind is in such aridity that it is impossible to draw forth one single thought to unite me with God, I very slowly recite an “Our Father” and then the “Hail Mary”; then these prayers give me great delight; they nourish my soul much more than if I had recited them precipitately a hundred times.”

Eastern Catholics use the Akathist Hymn, not the Rosary. They get to heaven just fine. The Church got along just fine for over a thousand years without the Rosary. The Rosary is a good personal devotion, but it is not necessary for salvation.

The Liturgy of the Hours, precisely because it is liturgy, is infinitely more valuable than the Rosary. The Liturgy of the Hours actually extends the grace of the Mass through the day. The Rosary, because it is not liturgy, does not do this. It does not matter what any private revelation, such as Fatima, Lourdes, etc., has to say on this point. Private revelations might recommend private devotions to private individuals. Private devotions are never, under any circumstances, greater than the liturgy, even if the recommendation to use that private devotion comes from a private revelation. Liturgy is always greater than private devotion. Period. The Rosary is a private devotion.

"Catholic" means "universal." Catholics can have different personal devotional practices. That's why we have different religious orders: Jesuits practice different personal devotions than Franciscans who practice different personal devotions than Carmelites. There is nothing wrong with deciding that a specific personal devotion is not for you. The Rosary is a specific personal devotion. It is quite possible to be a faithful Catholic with a deeply Marian bent and yet not pray the Rosary. Despite what many Catholics will tell you, there is nothing wrong with this.

As a Catholic, I can recommend my spiritual devotions to another Catholic. However, as a Catholic, I cannot deprecate other Catholics who decide my personal spiritual devotions are not helpful to them. My personal devotions are for me, their personal devotions are for them. Perhaps they find the Rosary helpful, perhaps they don't. Either way is fine. Either way is fully Catholic. That's between them and God. I have no business in that conversation.

Separation of Church and State

Pope Pius X: "That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error... Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State." (Vehementer Nos #3, Feb. 11, 1906)

Separation of Church and state is a heresy.
The two can be distinguished, but never separated.

Man is made in the image and likeness of God. For this reason, man will always try to replicate his relationship to God in his dealings with other men. Thus, no man can actually succeed in separating his theology from his politics. It isn't possible.

In a democracy, where politicians are selected and elected, politics is necessarily a reflection of the theology that dominates the electorate. When a Protestant Congress outlawed contraceptives, that political body was merely reflecting 2000 years of Christian tradition. From the 1930s onward, when judges began to overturn the Comstock laws, we saw the United States move away from its Christian roots towards a eugenically-minded agnosticism.

Today, with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the representatives of our major political parties, we see an inchoate paganism. It is not the paganism of the Norse, the ancient Greeks or the ancient Romans, all societies which celebrated martial values and delighted in constant war. Rather, it is a paganism that denigrates warfare but delights in sensuality.

Our desires have become our god, and now that god drives our politics.
Our theology will always be reflected in our politics - it cannot be avoided.

With this election, many of us are shocked to discover that Obama is correct - we are no longer a Christian nation.

Why Ted Cruz Supported Trump

Cruz supported Trump. He didn't formally endorse Trump, but then, he never promised to formally endorse Trump.

But Cruz's support for Trump was a lot greater than anyone could have expected.
Ted Cruz told everyone to vote for the principled conservative who supports the constitution.

We deserve leaders who stand for principle. Unite us all behind shared values. Cast aside anger for love. That is the standard we should expect, from everybody.

And to those listening, please, don't stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.

That perfectly describes Trump, right?

Wait... what?!?!

Trumpkins argue it does NOT describe Trump?

Oh....

Oh... Wow.....

Madame President

Before Trump ran for President, he pulled a Loretta Lynch and asked Bill Clinton's permission to run against Hillary. His own staffers admit Trump never intended to be President, he just wanted free publicity. During the campaign itself, Trump reneged on his promise to support the eventual GOP nominee. Last month, June 2016, Trump hinted that he had no intention of being President. As for electoral support, Trump has no coat-tails  and provides no support for down-ticket candidates - the only candidate he has endorsed has been a pro-abort who lost by 30 points.

And then there are the polls. Notice how George W. Bush beat Kerry? George was frequently in the lead, in the run-up to July, and dominated the election from September onward.

McCain was ahead of Obama at least a few times prior to July, but was not able to beat Obama at all in the polls between April and July. He got a short-lived bounce only because of his Palin pick for VP, but predictably ended up losing.

Romney didn't even do as well as McCain. Apart from a couple of very short-lived blips immediately prior to the election, Romney NEVER beat Obama in the year of polling leading up to the conventions. Not once.

Like Romney, Trump has NEVER beaten Clinton in the polling. Not once. Not ever. Trump is doing worse against Clinton than McCain did against Obama. Trump is arguably doing at least as badly or worse against Clinton than Romney did against Obama.

From the beginning, all the evidence tells us Trump intended to at least use the presidential run as a personal publicity campaign and at best divide the field by destroying the Republican's best candidate(s) while handing the election to his friends, the Clintons. Trump crowned his achievements by deliberately destroying Ted Cruz' convention speech, permanently undermining the natural Republican leader and thereby assuring downstream chaos among Republicans for years to come. In fact, Trump arguably and deliberately sabotaged the entire Republican convention.

Those who believe any of Donald Trump's lies, or who still believe Donald can win, have been Trumpwinked. A person is Trumpwinked when they believe a con man/politician, e.g., Donald Trump.

The facts are quite clear.
A vote for Trump has always been a vote for Hillary.
The destruction is complete.
Hillary Clinton is our next president.

UPDATE:
I finally found Nate Silver's forecasts for the Romney-Obama matchup:

Here's the current graph for Trump-Clinton

Modesty and Scandal, Part 2

There is a lot of evidence that women engage in "slut-shaming" much more than men. It isn't that women are concerned about modesty, rather, women don't like the competition. Women form groups to ostracize and bully "outsider" women, and "modesty shaming" is one way to accomplish that goal.

If traditionalist women were really interested in following ancient norms, then traditionalist women would encourage men to wrap their hands in clothes to avoid touching female skin. In fact, this was arguably one of the reasons both sexes wore gloves whenever they appeared in public during most of the Victorian era.

Despite the fact that gloves were, for centuries, considered an essential part of a public wardrobe, I have never heard a "modesty" warrior argue that glove-less women are dressed immodestly. Which makes me think this isn't about "modesty", it is actually about females using "virtue-signalling" to crush the female opponents in the competition for snagging and holding onto a mate. That is, the women are not actually interested in modesty, rather, they are interested in signalling how good they are, and how trashy their opponents are.

Do I need to point out that this is not  a Christian motivation?
Yes, I probably do.
Which is why this follow-up to my earlier post on the correct Christian attitude is necesssary.

On Modesty and Scandal

Truth in Religion

Fr. Michael Muller is quite, quite, quite wrong.

People only believe in other religions because every religion, to be believed, must contain some seed of truth. Insofar as any religion contains any truth, that truth is Christ.

So, to say "I respect every religion" is another way to say, "I see the kernel of truth that is Christ which shines forth in that religion."

True, every non-Catholic Faith has much which is not Christ, much of every religion is falsehood. Where there is falsehood, we see Truth twisted, Christ whipped, crucified and crowned with thorns within, and yet that seed of Christ's blood is what attracts them. And that much we not only CAN respect, but we MUST respect, for Christ is there, calling out through the blood and suffering which wraps every other religion like a shroud, His life lies within or no man would follow.

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Why The 2nd Amendment is Dead

This is where advocating for a citizen's right to own guns falls apart.

We have the right to bear arms - that is clear, it is in the Constitution, not just the 2nd Amendment, but also in Article 1, Section 8.

BUT, if we really have the right to bear weapons, if that right is truly given to us so, then we must have the right to overthrow the government. As the Declaration of Independence insists "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it," That means we will be shooting people and blowing up things.

But if the citizens have the right to overthrow the government, then the citizens at some point have the right to shoot cops and other government employees.

And therein lies the rub.

I am neither willing to personally shoot cops and other government employees, nor to have other people do it in my name. I've never met a gun's rights advocate who actually wanted to do it either. The NRA members always emphasize how law-abiding they are. That's good. But you can't say "I am law-abiding and I support our troops" while simultaneously saying "I own a gun in case I need to overthrow the government."

So, the 2nd Amendment is functionally a dead letter.

As long as guns' rights advocates hold the sentiment expressed in the meme above, buying a gun is like buying a Lotto ticket - it gives you the chance to dream that you are your own man, while you pretend to ignore the reality that you are really just still a cubicle worker for the Man.

What's Wrong With Panhandling?

So, I'm still not clear on where the problem lies.
What, exactly, is wrong with panhandling?  It's a sales job with constant exposure to the weather, pure commissions, no benefits. It's a tough job. Why do people look down on it?

 People get upset because a panhandler gets into his truck at the end of the day and drives home to a quarter million dollar house. So what? So, I am supposed to be upset about successful panhandlers? It's street theater. Actors get paid millions for pretending to be murderers, psychopaths, etc. They sell us on the idea that they actually ARE these things and we pay them handsomely.

Why can't street actors turn a few bucks? Some of these guys are better than Keanu Reeves... alright, ALL of them are better than Keanu Reeves. So, if I can live with Reeves having a million dollar house, why should I be upset if a panhandler has a quarter-million dollar house?

Like any good movie, pan-handlers sell emotions. They sell us feelings, about themselves and us. We get to feel superior to someone today. We get to have pity on someone today. We get to give them a five-dollar bill or a pizza and feel like we are good people. No matter what our boss says, our spouse says, that girl that dumped us says, we get a chance to feel better about ourselves. That's what they are selling, and they stand out in all kinds of weather to give us that chance.

 Panhandling takes hard work, skill, perseverance. They get rejected more in an hour than an office worker does in a week. So, again I ask: what's wrong with panhandling?

How Comey Saved the Oligarchy

Everyone is on about how Comey saved Hillary from prosecution, but everyone is missing the larger picture: by acting in this purely political fashion, Comey saved the entire entrenched oligarchy from prosecution.

Remember how the Trump University trial was originally scheduled to begin July 7, the same day the Republican convention was to start? Well, that changed in May. Trump used the existing rigged judicial system to get the trial date moved to November 28. Trump can't have an embarrassing trial take place at an economically or politically embarrassing time, now can he?  Trump is too big, too important, to be troubled by picayune little fraud trials. Better for all concerned if no little people stood in the way of his ambitions. So, in May, even as the trial judge is moving the trial date, Trump deflected attention to the way the system is rigged in his favor by ... wait for it... complaining that the system is rigged against him.

Now that Comey has declared Clinton off-limits to the law, now that the rigging of the system is on display for all to see, Trump has the complete deniability he has always claimed. By declaring Clinton off limits, Comey has declared every last one of the oligarchs safe.

You see, no matter who tries to bring Trump to trial, Trump can now say "It's all political! It's a rigged system! That's why they are after me! I'm pure as the New York slush!" By clearly showing the world exactly how rigged the system is, Comey has effectively denied the validity of every trial motion that could ever be brought against any of the oligarchs. Oligarchs can never again be convicted of anything.

Every powerful person can use the Trump-Clinton-Comey defense ("The system is rigged against me!") no matter what the situation may be. The oligarch's sycophants will then take up the chant and shout down whoever points out that the evidence of guilt is actually quite clear. Every trial can now be reduced to a political witch-hunt, every shred of evidence is just an irrelevant fact blown out of proportion by people out to get the oligarch, no reasonable prosecutor would ever use such tainted material, and if any prosecutor ever did, that person is, by definition, on a McCarthyite witch hunt.

By illuminating how rigged the system is, Comey has declared every oligarch with sycophants and a power base (which is all of them) off-limits.

What we saw done successfully as a one-off tactic with Ken Starr and Bill Clinton has now been turned into federal policy. We are officially a banana republic. Trump and Clinton couldn't be happier with how this has turned out. It's a win-win for the nation! We should be thanking Comey: he has finally made America safe for oligarchs.

Steve Skojec: More Catholic Than the Pope

I think this speaks for itself.

The Original Rad-Trads

"It is outrageous! The Vatican Council was so imprecise that anyone could use the conciliar documents to promote heresy if they wanted! And Pope Francis is even worse! I don't even want to read what he says anymore, because it doesn't make any sense!"

This is the mating call of the rad-trad. They use it to find dates, rally their families, and collect beer-drinking buddies on the back porch. It is an old call that goes all the way back to 325 AD.

Yes, if we use rad-trad principles, we can see that the first failed council was the Council of Nicaea, the first failed Pope was St. Sylvester I. Why? Well, we need look no farther than that dastardly word "homo- ousion".

In 300 AD, the "normalcy bias" for that word was that it stank of heresy, which it did. While the word had at first been used in a licit sense, Paul of Samosata had used it to argue that the Father and the Son are one Person, not two distinct Persons. He was condemned for the idea, and the word fell into ill odor as a direct result. In fact, the word was a touchstone for the Arian heresy, the heresy which built upon Paul of Samasota's error, and the very heresy which the Council was called to discuss. Yet, despite its bad reputation, this arguably imprecise, heretic-associated word was used in the Nicene Creed. Worse, to add injury to insult, not only was the word considered imprecise because of its heretical past, its use also constituted the first time a creed had ever used a non-Scriptural word. It was a complete mess.

But the council didn't stop there. It also dared to make changes to the ancient liturgy, laying its conciliar hands even upon the dating of the mother of all feasts, the date of the Easter celebration! What new craziness was this?  The Council of Nicaea ruled that all churches should follow a single rule for Easter, which should be computed independently of the Jewish calendar, as at Alexandria. However, in its typically imprecise way, the council did not make any explicit ruling about the details of the computation. It was several decades before the Alexandrine computations stabilized into their final form, and several centuries beyond that before they became normative throughout Christendom.

"Why did the Council even go there? Why did the Pope sign off on such foolishness? Why couldn't they have been precise, so there would be no confusion?"

The rad-trads of the 300s were the Coptic Christians. Their dislike of the documents and distrust of the Pope became so great that the Copts would schism off within less than a century, Although they eventually accepted the liturgical changes, they couldn't stand the - from their point of view - virtual heresy of the Christians who used this nonsense word in the liturgy and the creed.

So, like today's traditionalists, the Coptic Christians refused to trust the council and the Popes. As a direct result of their obstinate refusal to submit to ecclesial authority and use a little Christian charity in their dealings with Rome, they suffered some rather disturbing consequences. Within 300 years of their rejection of the council, they were overrun by Muslims and are, today, barely hanging onto Christian Faith in Egypt. More than one historian has argued that the Muslim takeover of North Africa was due in no small part to the immobilization of the Copts that resulted from their inability to deal with theological heresies following their split with Rome. Though they are closer to unity with Rome than any of our separated brethren, to this day they are still separated from the Church.

We have the world we live in today because the rad-trads of the 300s simply couldn't find a way to accept a new way of phrasing ancient truths. They refused to have faith in a Pope and a council who used language they weren't comfortable with.

It is normal for every council to have its "rad-trad" community. Let us hope that the 21st century group fares better than the Copts have.

Pope Francis is Crazy

This is crazy. Why is the Pope teaching standard Catholic doctrine instead of teaching my personal, biased, twisted version of Catholicism?

The Pope's antics are exactly why the Church is in crisis right now. He needs to resign and let me, or at least people who think the same way I do, take over.

Our Lady of Fatima said this would happen, which is why God created me. I am here to save the Catholic Church. If the Pope isn't willing to listen to me, he's a Freemason and the Anti-Christ.  Sure, Martin Luther taught that the Pope was the anti-Christ, and Luther was a heretic, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Either Catholics can start listening to me, or they will all go straight to hell. And don't think it won't happen - I have dozens of Magisterial documents that say what I am saying. If you just read the chain of out-of-context quotes I provide below, you will see that what I say is true.

It amazes me that the Pope seems completely unaware of Church documents. Instead, every time the Pope speaks, he contradicts what I think, and I'm getting pretty tired of it. This Pope is a complete disaster. To be fair, earlier popes were sometimes a little off, but they weren't able to access my thinking because there really wasn't any social media presence through which they could have learned what I think, so they aren't at fault. But this Pope... this Pope has no excuse. I've posted on Facebook, I've tweeted on Twitter, I've even put up Instagram photos and used hashtags. I've done it all. He really should know my thinking by this point. He has had endless opportunities to conform himself to the way my friends and I think, but he still refuses to comply.

It is so tiresome. He simply does not listen. Instead he goes off on these crazy rants on planes, in front of reporters, no less, pretending that he has greater authority than me and my absurd personal interpretations of various papal bulls, exhortations and conciliar documents. And let me be clear on this - as a lay person who has spent almost a dozen hours studying the entire Magisterium, I am absolutely a subject matter expert compared to this Pope, or, for that matter, compared to any bishop who has only a few lousy years of seminary and theology grad school. Apart from Masonic, demonic or similar influence, there is simply no explanation for why they don't pay more attention to what I have to say.

Make no mistake - this is all the fault of Freemasonry. And believe me, I know. I've read dozens of Freemason-inspired works that describe how the Freemasons have already taken over the Church. Why would the Freemasons lie about a thing like that? Now that the Freemasons have admitted it, I know the great truth: I can't trust the Pope. Why? Well, because the Freemasons have told me that the Pope himself is a Freemason. Again, I know it is true, because the Freemasons have no reason to lie about that. They infiltrated Vatican II, which is why the liturgy is no longer to my liking and is thereby proved to be false liturgy. They infiltrated the papacy, which is how they foisted their false liturgy onto me.

That is obviously why the Pope's teachings, why Vatican II's teachings, do not conform to my own understanding of the Catholic Faith. The Holy Spirit guides me into right understanding. The Holy Spirit does not guide the Pope, because I now know the Pope is a Freemason. It didn't guide the Council, because the Freemasons have made clear that they controlled the council.

Also, this is the end-times, and no one can trust the Pope during the end-times. How do I know? Well, because my personal interpretation of the private revelation of Our Lady of the Latest Apparition makes that perfectly clear. My rosary turned gold for a few minutes when I meditated on the Freemasonic takeover of the papacy and Vatican II.  All the signs are there.

That is why I have had it up to here with Pope Francis. It's time for the Pope to stop trying to foist his secret Masonic, New World Order, communistic socialism on good Catholics, by which I mean, me and those who think like me. It is time for him to read Church documents exactly the way I do. It is time for the Church to recognize that the Holy Spirit is in charge, as channeled through me.

Sigh.
It's not easy bringing the Church into conformance to God, but that's what I'm here for.
If they want to be saved, it will only be by following what I say. The Church has had bad popes before, She will survive, if only in the remnant that consists of me and my right-thinking friends. The rest of you will burn in hell. I will pray for you.