CATHOLICS FOR OBAMA?

Or

Another Contradiction in Terms?

Owing to its manifold distortions and selective concealments and rubrics for the November elections, I’ve ceased believing much of what is propagated by the so-called news media. It reports that a significant percentage, possible more than fifty, of Catholics voted for B.O. This is an individual, remember, that voted repeatedly to deny life support to wretched, defenseless babies that somehow had survived attempted clinical murder.

Catholics, indeed all Christians, as well as Jews, are bound by the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments, one of which says simply, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” In blatant, persistent, strident opposition to this canon, B.O. advocates the murder of unborn children.

In the twenty-first century, given what is evident in science, a person must be as mendacious or as ignorant as N. Pelosi or B. Boxer, among a plethora of the high-profile benighted, to claim that an unborn baby is not a living human being. Therefore, a reasonable question is how a person professing Catholicism can endorse a candidate that systematically and enthusiastically advocates a policy in stark opposition to a basic tenet of that faith? Does that not disqualify one from classification as a Catholic, or, in fact, any sect publishing that rule as one of its laws?

Consider certain other examples. Suppose a Catholic commits adultery. Is he disqualified from the faith? No. What if he robs a bank or kills a person? He can still call himself a Catholic, though, hopefully, he will confess the transgression, do penance, and amend his life. The difference between these examples and the contradiction in terms of a Catholic Obama-supporter is the latter’s fidelity to a policy that systematically denies and brazenly violates a commandment. Thus, such an individual does not believe in the foundations of Catholicism and, hence, cannot call himself a Catholic.

Whatever your faith, and even if you lack one, could you take comfort in having helped elect B.O.? Is it reassuring to know that, as a direct consequence of the votes of people like you, tens of thousands of others with immortal souls but poor, little mortal bodies, will be murdered? Christians are taught not to judge others, and, whereas I’m no exemplar, I try my best not to pronounce judgment, but, personally, I would not want to die bearing that responsibility.

At the same time, though, people are killed in wars, so does the individual endorsing a candidate that initiated or is pledged to prosecute a war guilty of the same trespass? This is the self-deception some so-called Catholics used to attempt to shield their consciences. I don’t believe it’s the case; the people to whom these laws were given appear to have spent a good deal of their time at war, and war was not forbidden them.

Should the Federal Government not have made war upon the Confederate States? Should the U.S. not have entered World War II? Should we not have helped preserve South Korea as a sovereign nation? Should we not have acted – and succeeded, as we easily could – to rescue South Vietnam? These were not sins; these were acts of enormous selflessness, national and personal sacrifice, chivalry, goodness, and necessity. The premeditated murder of human beings, especially babies, was not the U.S. objective in any of the wars cited above, nor, so far as I am aware, in any in which this country ever involved itself. The kinds of terrorist campaigns carried out by Ho Chi Minh and the sundry jihad maniacs, of course, are quite different; murdering people is/was the prime objective in those examples.

B.O and others, for instance every proponent of the insidious, euphemistically-named “Freedom of Choice Act,” are similarly waging a ruthless, bloody war on helpless individuals. That, friends, IS a sin, and any person supporting them has forfeited the right to the appellation, “Catholic.” In the opinion of Yves Chauvire, extrapolation to anyone professing adherence to that Commandment follows immediately.