Thomas A. Droleskey
Another election day has come and gone here in the United States of America. This election year is known in political science jargon as an "off-off" election year. That is, it is an election year that features neither a presidential election or the election of the entire membership of the United States House of Representatives and the usual third of the United States Senate that voters choose in an "off year" election. Next year, 2010, is an "off-year" election in that it is the intervening election year for Congressional and many statewide offices that occurs halfway through a presidential term. The "off-year" elections after that will be held in the year 2014.
Two states, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of New Jersey, elected governors two days ago, that is, on Tuesday, November 3, 2009. Elections were held for local offices in many states, including my own native State of New York, where we happened to find ourselves during our current state of displacement from our motor home. An unexpectedly close race for the office of County Executive of Nassau County, New York, sees incumbent Catholic pro-abort Thomas Suozzi, who was first elected in 2001, leading challenger Edward Mangano, a longtime member of the Nassau County Legislature, by 237 votes with another 12,000 to 16,000 absentee and affidavit votes to be counted. And the pro-abortion Mayor of the City of New York, the egregiously sanctimonious billionaire named Michael Bloomberg, had an unexpectedly close race against challenger William Thompson, the Comptroller of the City of New York, despite spending ninety million dollars of his own money. It was a bad year for incumbents in many places.
Mind you, even though I have staked out what I believe to be a reasonable and defensible position with respect to the futility of voting in presidential elections (see
When Lesser is Greater), a position that I have been very careful to note as a noninfallible prudential judgment that is not received from the hand of God and is based on an understanding of the nature of our political system and the farce that is electoral politics at the presidential level, I have noted that there might be instances at the state and local level when it would be warranted to support a candidate who is completely opposed to all abortions and who would be willing to use his public office as a means of articulating the fact that even the rebuilding of a state's economy and its physical infrastructure depends upon the due submission of men, both individually and collectively in their institutions of civil governance, to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the eternal safekeeping and infallible explication of the Catholic Church. God will never permit any country to be "blessed" by a bounteous material prosperity and/or the structural integrity of its physical infrastructure if the integrity of the souls of men is compromised by the gradual acceptance of various moral evils under cover of the civil law as alleged "irreversible," "regrettable" facts of life about which very little can or should be done.
As the blood of the innocent continues to be shed every day in the United States of America, it is sad to note that a new generation of allegedly "pro-life" public officials has learned to put a new "spin" on the old "I'm personally opposed to abortion" canard that has been used by one Catholic after another to justify their support for the slaughter of the innocent preborn, both by chemical and surgical means, to take place under the cover of the civil law despite the fact this shallow, intellectually dishonest and hypocritical position (would any of these clowns say that they were "personally opposed" to, say, racism or anti-Semitism but that they could not "impose" "their" "morality" upon society) was condemned very prophetically by Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:
Hence, lest concord be broken by rash charges, let this be understood by all, that the integrity of Catholic faith cannot be reconciled with opinions verging on naturalism or rationalism, the essence of which is utterly to do away with Christian institutions and to install in society the supremacy of man to the exclusion of God. Further, it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point nor in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue.
The new "spin" on the old "I'm personally opposed to abortion" canard has been spun by the victorious Catholic candidates for the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey. Both Robert McDonnell, the Governor-election of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Christopher Christie, the Governor-elect of the State of New Jersey, has as much as said: "I am personally opposed to abortion but there is little I can do about it as governor. I must concentrate on the economy and the infrastructure."
Take a look for yourselves:
Mr. Christie, 47, the former United States attorney for New Jersey, became the first governor in New Jersey to oppose abortion since the Roe v. Wade decision. But as he did during the campaign, he signaled on Wednesday that his focus would be on bread-and-butter fiscal issues. (Christie Pledges Fight to on Taxes and Business Rules)
He [Robert McDonnell] built his political career as a social conservative and abortion opponent but focused his campaign on employment and closing the budget gap without raising taxes.
"We need somebody to actually think and be conservative about our spending in the state," said Steve Robinson, 56, an auto mechanic from the Washington, D.C., suburbs who went to the polls with his wife and daughter. All voted for McDonnell.
Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va. and the No. 2 Republican in the House, told NBC's "Today" show Wednesday that independent voters were drawn to McDonnell because the party had a unified message focused on jobs and the economy. (Economy is big issue in Va. GOP governor's victory - Yahoo! News)
There will be many who say that this is not fair, that Governors-elect Christie and McDonnell "had" to de-emphasize "social issues" in order to get elected, that they will most assuredly sign legislation to limit the evils of abortion once they are in office. Time will tell whether what I consider to be an iron-clad law of American politics in the past two decades holds true with these two men, one of whom, Governor-elect McDonnell, was an outspoken defender of the right to life prior to his campaign for the Virginia governorship: Those who fail to articulate eternal truths when campaigning for office will fail to do so once in office. This will almost certainly be the case for Governor-elect Christie, who is not, unlike Governor-elect McDonnell, limited by one term in office. Governor-elect McDonnell, however, may have higher offices in mind, and the state of the organized crime family of the naturalist "right" that is the Republican Party is such that McDonnell will be counseled to go "easy" on "social issues" as campaigns Vice Presidency or the Presidency beckons in the future. Once one learns to be silent, my good and few readers, it is almost never the case that one learns how to speak up in defense of what one knows to be true as even one concession to "strategic considerations" when it comes to the eternal good of souls and thus of the common temporal good of states and nations makes it far easier to keep making concessions in light of the "next election" or the "next office" down the road.
I hope, of course, that this assessment is proved incorrect. The fact remains, however, that the professional naturalists in the Republican Party are convinced now more than ever before that the sort of campaigns run by Governors-elect Christie and McDonnell, both of whom profited from a depressed voter turnout among blocs of voters who had supported Caesar Obamus last year in overwhelming numbers (particularly among younger voters), are the sort of "smart" campaigns that must be run by Republicans in order to "win." What good is "winning" unless those who are elected have in mind the pursuit of the common temporal good undertaken in light of man's Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God, the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity?
The professional naturalists in the Republican Party have been emboldened in their view that "social issues" are "losing issues" by the results in the special election for seat in the Twenty-third Congressional District in the State of New York. An avowed "conservative," Doug Hoffman, the nominee of the Conservative Party of the State of New York who ran on the "social issues," was defeated by the Democrat Party candidate, Bill Owens, after the Republican nominee, Diedre Scozzafava, a supporter of baby-killing and perversity (see Pinning The Tail On The Next Bob Dole), suspended her campaign and threw her support to Owens. Hoffman's defeat, despite his being endorsed by "conservative" icons Sarah Heath Palin, Tim Pawlenty, the Governor of the State of Minnesota, and naturalistic commentator Rush Limbaugh, among others. Mr. Hoffman's defeat--and the fact that Christopher Christie and Robert McDonnell downplayed the "social" issues are "proof" to the professional thugs in the organized crime family of the naturalist "right" that the path to "victory" in 2010 and 2012 rests in finding "fiscally conservative" candidates whose "private" views are acceptable to a "conservative" base that is eager to "win" without realizing that the allegedly "lesser" evil represented by silence about baby-killing simply emboldens those who support unrestricted baby-killing to advance their agenda with absolute electoral impunity.
A "victory" premised upon silence about the killing of the preborn during an election--and inaction about the American genocide after an election--is a victory only for the forces of the devil even though a lot of people may "feel good" after one of the allegedly "good guys" defeats odious malefactors such as the hideous soon-to-be former Governor of New Jersey, Jon Corzine. Feeling "good" about an election does not help the babies if the "good guy" elected is content to assuage himself with the false belief that he is "powerless" to do anything to retard the killing of the preborn and/or if he believes that it is electorally imprudent to do so. No "victory" that is built upon an acceptance of baby-killing as a regrettable and/or irreversible fact of American life and public law is a "victory" at all.
No, it's not fun to be the "ant" at the picnic most of the time. It is important, however, to provide a sober analysis of the facts as they are.
Remember, a lot of people thought that the off-off year elections of 1993 meant that then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was destined to be a one-termer. Republican Catholic pro-abort Richard Riordan won the Mayoralty of the City of Los Angeles, California. Republican Catholic pro-abort Rudolph William Giuliani won the Mayoralty of the City of New York, New York. And the Presbyterian pro-abort Christine Todd Whitman won the Governorship of the State of New Jersey. Yes, these elections did presage the Republican take-over of both Houses of the Congress of the United States of America the next year, 1994, for the first time since retired General Dwight David Eisenhower and United States Senator Richard Milhous Nixon swept the electoral map in 1952. By 1996, however, Bill Clinton was riding tall again, defeating the hapless, mercurial and ever-inarticulate thirty-third degree Mason named Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., pretty handily. Anyone who believes that the results of the off-off year election two days means that Barack Hussein Obama is a "goner" in 2012 ought to take a deep breath and come to recognize the fact that the voter blocs that did not turn out this year and may not turn out next year will certainly be back in force in 2012.
And thus it must ever go in our system of naturalism wherein both sets of alleged political "opposites" are joined at the hip in their false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian views that result in the institutionalization and acceptance of one moral evil after another over the passage of time.
Those who adhere to naturalism must perforce reject the simple truth that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, that it is only the Social Reign of Christ the King as it must be exercised by the Catholic Church, the one and only true Church founded by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ upon the rock of Peter, the Pope, that can serve as a check, albeit imperfect, on the unjust and immoral increase in the size and the scope and the power of any level of government, including central governments. To reject the Social Reign of Christ the King is set one's nation on the path to destruction as the civil state becomes the true "secular church" whose policies become dogmas from which no one may dissent legitimately without being considered a "disloyal" citizen.
Pope Pius IX put the matter this way in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864, nearly 145 years ago now:
But, although we have not omitted often to proscribe and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to us by God, and the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions, which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested, because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be impeded and (even) removed, which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise even to the end of the world -- not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for religious and civil interests.
For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling." (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1964.)
What is done in one election can be undone in the next. Nothing is stable, nothing is secular in a land built on the lies of the pluralist paradigm with which the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, starting with Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, have made their "reconciliation" so very enthusiastically. The lords of Modernity and the lords of Modernism are as one in rejecting the patrimony of the Catholic Church, expressed succinctly by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order:
Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Naturalism cannot be opposed with naturalism. Naturalism and all of its attendant evils can be opposed only with Catholicism.
While elections will come and go and believing Catholics will participate or not as their consciences dictate, we must concentrate first and foremost on the planting of the seeds for the conversion of the United States of America to the true Faith, accepting the crosses of the present moment with joy and gratitude as we give whatever merit we earn from bearing them well to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, conscious that each of our sins has wounded the Church Militant on earth and thus the world-at-large.
When are we going to learn this simple lesson as we lift high the Holy Cross and pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit?
Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.