Wed 16th Apr 2014 | Last updated: Wed 16th Apr 2014 at 19:02pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Catholics for Romney surely now has lift-off, with the announcement as his vice-presidential candidate of a faithful and pugnaciously pro-life Catholic

Paul Ryan, Romney pointedly announced, is ‘a faithful Catholic’ who ‘believes in the worth and dignity of every human life’

By on Monday, 13 August 2012

Mitt Romney and his vice presidential running mate, Paul Ryan (Photo: AP)

Mitt Romney and his vice presidential running mate, Paul Ryan (Photo: AP)

A bipartisan group of six former US ambassadors to the Holy See, it was reported two weeks ago, has joined together to support Mitt Romney as presidential candidate and is now calling on other Catholics to do the same.

The former ambassadors said that despite their own political differences, they all believe that Mitt Romney “can be a great force for good in this nation”. All Catholics, they said, are “called to advance the moral teachings of Christianity in the life of our country… Where the stakes are highest – in the defence of life, liberty, and human dignity – we have a duty to act that is greater and more urgent than allegiance to any political party … our concerns lie with fundamental rights, beginning with religious liberty.”

What they were saying, in effect, was that Catholics should vote for Romney because he is not Obama: the Obama administration, they said “has brought our first freedom under direct assault by imposing government mandates that completely disregard religious conscience”, because of the requirement imposed by “Obamacare” forcing employers to offer health insurance that covers contraception, sterilisation and abortifacient drugs.

Not only that: “the current administration”, they said, “has now put its weight on the side of those who propose to redefine the meaning of marriage itself.” Romney, however “stood firm in defending this sacred institution” during his time as governor of Massachusetts.

Now there is another reason for Catholics to vote for Romney: it’s not simply that he says he will reverse the most objectionable features of Obamacare: he appears, in his choice of vice-presidential candidate — the outspoken pro-life Catholic Rep Paul Ryan of Wisconsin — to be making it clear that when he says he is pro-life, he actually means it. Not only that: he wants Catholic votes. He introduced Rep Ryan pointedly as “a faithful Catholic” who “believes in the worth and dignity of every human life”. Unlike Governor Romney, the liberal media seems to be de-emphasising Ryan’s Catholicism: according to one of these, the BBC, “correspondents say the selection of Mr Ryan appears to have reinvigorated the Republican campaign. But they caution that Mr Ryan is known for radical proposals to reform government social spending, including on health care programmes, that could prove deeply unpopular among some American voters”. Traditionally, Catholics tend to vote for Democratic candidates: so Obama and his supporters will want to keep away from Catholic issues. But mainstream Catholics (I say nothing of the Pelosi tendency) will surely not only remember these issues, but consider them as central.

Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, and Cathy Ruse, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, are reported as saying: “Governor Romney could not have chosen a better person to run with than Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Ryan is not only 100 per cent pro-life, he is a full spectrum conservative and thoroughly unafraid in expressing conservative and pro-life views. We cannot wait to see him debate Vice-President Biden.”

Me, too: Biden, of course, is one of the dodgy Catholics who are 100 per cent behind Obamacare with all its blatant disrespect for religious independence. He supports Roe v Wade and unhesitatingly backs gay marriage (at one time, the White House even told him to downplay this). In sharp contrast, Ryan is, as the Ruses put it, “a Catholic who takes his faith seriously”: he is, they say, “perfectly situated” to defend religious freedom “in this season of easy anti-Catholicism”.

The choice of Representative Ryan is also, incidentally, a neat way of sidelining the issue of Romney’s Mormonism. Personally, I find Mormonism a creepy religion, and can’t imagine why anyone would believe it. But then, that’s what lots of people think about Catholicism. Cardinal Dolan had already dealt with the issue, when he said during a meeting of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League a couple of months ago that Catholics wouldn’t have a problem voting for a Mormon in the White House; and nobody seems to have questioned that since he said it. The simple fact is that Catholics need someone to vote for who rejects the attack on religious independence implicit in the Obamacare legislation. Romney does; end of problem.

Many evangelicals still have problems with Romney’s Mormonism. But even they, it seems, are beginning to see they have nowhere else to go. As Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, puts it: “One should never underestimate President Obama’s unique ability to rally people behind his opponent. Whatever lingering doubts some evangelicals may have about Romney, or discomfort about his Mormon faith, they pale compared with their fears of a second Obama administration”.

One final thought from across the pond: I envy American Catholics for being able to vote for someone who, if elected, will give them the possibility to opt out of funding a healthcare system which provides abortion and contraception. For all that I am, like most other English conservatives, a supporter of our own National Health Service — which many Americans think quite wrongly is a form of Communism, despite the fact that state-funded healthcare has never existed in any Communist country — I am painfully aware that my taxes (for our so-called National Insurance is nothing other than a form of general taxation) fund a system which provides, on demand, both contraception and abortion, even to underage girls, whose parents they do not inform.

That is an abomination, the possibility of which conservative Americans (unlike conservative Englishmen) still have a chance to vote against within their political system. In a democracy, we all have to take the rough with the smooth, of course. Most have a choice of two or at most three viable political parties within which a spectrum of sometimes opposing views exist (in England, at the next election, it will be down to two again; the Lib Dems will be wiped out, and good riddance).

There is a real dilemma for us. What is one to do, in this country, now? Both viable political parties believe in gay marriage, and abortion virtually on demand. What is one to do? Does one simply remove from the electoral equation issues on which there is cross-party agreement, and vote on the rest? I have always believed that one has an absolute moral obligation to exercise one’s vote: but for whom, here, now? That’s a non-rhetorical question; I am open to guidance.

Meanwhile, let us praise the land of the free, where such issues may still be voted on, and where a Catholic must now, surely, vote for Mitt Romney (who is, incidentally, a descendant of the great and splendid English portrait painter George Romney; that gets my vote, Mormon or not).

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1797982123 Stephen Montoya

    “get back to simply opposing American war policies – which both parties advocate.”  I see a variation of that comment posted by Brits everywhere.  Yet, it was BP and China National Petroleum Corp. who together were the first oil major to secure a lucrative long-term oil contract in Iraq for the Rumaila oil field.  The average Brit seems quite naive or willfully ignorant when it comes to the UK, geopolitics, and the ongoing resource wars.

  • JabbaPapa

    Not to be a pedant but an ‘argument’ by definition is debatable!

    I’d quibble extensively with that statement, if I believed that any extra lashings of pedantry were needed in here :-)

  • JabbaPapa

    Non sequitur

  • JabbaPapa

    The US Catholic Church is NOT protesting in any way against the existence itself of so-called “Obamacare” — it’s protesting against one very specific question, of quite limited scope and meaning within that body of legislation.

    It is a matter for the normal processes of democracy whether the US Government can or should provide this form of more generally available health care ; which in general is not a religious question.

    The issue is that the abolishing of an existing power of exemption for religious reasons against the financing by religious organisations of abortion and contraception specifically would appear to be perhaps unconstitutional in itself, as well as constituting a clear restriction upon the religious freedoms of these organisations and their owners and the religious groups that they are a part of.

  • W Oddie

    Two comments. 
    1) You would have a better chance of having your posts actually read if you were briefer.
    2) Ryan has changed his mind: people do that, as they mature. I used to be a militant atheist. This is Ryan’s present position on Ayn Rand (this is from an interview he gave to the National Review:

    “I, like millions of young people in America, read Rand’s novels when I was young. I enjoyed them,” Ryan says. “They spurred an interest in economics, in the Chicago School and Milton Friedman,” a subject he eventually studied as an undergraduate at Miami University in Ohio. “But it’s a big stretch to suggest that a person is therefore an Objectivist.”“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.

  • W Oddie

    “I reject her philosophy” is Ryan’s present position on Ayn Rand. see above.

  • Bellarmine

     Done. And my comments still stand. Can you explain how the comments about Jesus and the Bible are puerile? I am a theologian.

  • Jonathan West

    If you believe that, you will believe anything. It’s a politically prudent trimming of sails now that he’s more in the spotlight. Go by what he has done rather than what he says, you know politicians can easily change what they say.

    And what he has done is propose a budget what would radically reduce help to the vulnerable in society to the benefit of those that already have plenty. I really think you should read “Atlas Shrugged”.

  • W Oddie

    You believe THAT, simply because you want to. If says he now rejects her philosophy because it’s atheistical, it seems to me more likely that he is a truthful man than that you are a wise one.

  • Stephen

    First, Pres. Obama has demonstrated unequivocally that he serves the wealthiest families in the world not the poor and needy.  Please research this…in less than ten minutes you will discover who prospered under Pres. Obama’s watch and also who withered on the vine (i.e. the poor and needy).  You’re a theologian?!  Is that a joke?  It’s obvious that you have no sense that life is a precious gift from God, that the body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit nor a sense of sin/holiness with regards to modesty, purity, chastity. Before you read the following, please pray the Holy Spirit remove the scales from your eyes and grant you the grace of an illumination of conscience.  The truth of the scriptures are revealed to you by God not through the lens of mankind’s sinful nature or intellectual pride. 1 Cor 6:19-20 – “ Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God: and you are not your own. For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body”.; Psalm 127:3 – “behold the inheritance of the Lord are children:  the reward, the fruit of the womb.”; Rom 6:12 – “Let no sin therefore reign in your mortal body, so as to obey the lusts thereof”; Rev 21:7-8 – “He that shall overcome shall possess these things, and I will be his God; and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and sexually immoral, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone…”; Rev 22:14-15 – ” Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city.  Outside the city are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and liars.”

  • Jonathan West

    Her philosophy has always been atheistical and even explicitly anti-religious, and yet he has followed it for a great many years, all the while claiming also to follow the Catholic faith. in a supreme irony, he has handed out copies of “Atlas Shrugged” as Christmas presents, and he has proselytised for the philosophy by attempting to ensure all his interns read the book.

    It’s impossible for Ryan to be a faithful follower of Catholic social teaching and at the same time to be a follower of Rand’s philosophy. So in at least one of those claims he has been lying all his public life. So it’s not a matter of belief to conclude that he is a liar. The only question is whether his original attachment to Rand’s philosophy is a lie, or his subsequent renunciation.

    On that point, you have two choices. One is to decide to believe what you want to believe about it, whatever suits your own purposes. The other is to examine the evidence and decide accordingly.

    The evidence is that that Ryan throughout his public life has shown every sign of following Rand’s philosophy assiduously and wholeheartedly, and moreover he has acted accordingly, not least in the most recent budget proposal he has produced, and he has all the while claimed that the actions are motivated by his Catholic faith.

    His subsequent recantation of the philosophy has not extended as far as renouncing any of his practical applications of it. It shows every sign of being a PR gesture only.

    There is a simple test by which I can be shown to be wrong. Between now and the election, see if he renounces any significant part of his budget proposal and the principles on which it is based. My prediction is that he will not. What do you predict?

  • W Oddie

    I observe that there is so far no response to this. Is it because it is unanswerable?

  • W Oddie

    Have you actually read the National Review interview? If the answer is that you have, are you simply saying, a very serious charge indeed, that in it Ryan is simply lying? If you ARE making this accusation, let us hear it. 

    My suspicion is that you know nothing about Paul Ryan at all, and that this is simply one of your by now wearisomely familiar attacks on faithful (by which I mean faithful to the Magisterium) Catholicism.

  • Stephen

    Lets put this discussion in context so you get a sense of where I’m coming from.  The USA’s national debt is $16 trillion–an amount that, many argue, is mathematically impossible to pay back.  The Catholic Church in the USA has paid over $2.1 billion in sexual abuse-related costs.  You can’t go to any nation in the world without finding the youth enthralled with the “pop culture” exported by the USA (i.e. much of it being grave sin, blasphemy, and mindless diversions away from God & holiness–all packaged and sold as “entertainment”).  Now Romney has recently emerged from the swamp of “conservatism” in the USA as a front runner for the presidency. From a biblical perspective the USA’s sinful rebellion against God has put it on a knife-edge.  So what is the response of the USA’s highest ranking Cardinal and Prince of the Church in the face of this dire crisis in America?  At a time when the Catholic Church in the USA needs the boldness and fidelity to Christ of say a St Paul, St John the Baptist, or a St Joan of Arc.  Cardinal Dolan chooses to be a walking billboard of “sensitivity training” and being “politically correct” and says in glaring headlines everywhere: “Catholics can vote Mormon.”  Now Romney has made it absolutely clear that he strongly believes children should be put in the hands of known sodomites and lesbians and he will advance that agenda if he’s put in office.  And Cardinal Dolan thinks the most prudent thing to do is make a generic statement like “Catholics can vote Mormon”?!  I pray, hope, and expect better from our commanding general in the field of battle against “principalities and powers, against rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.”

  • JabbaPapa

    This is a generally good post — but, concerning the $16 trillion ; have you ever heard of hyperinflation, depression, and wheelbarrows full of paper money for the groceries ?

  • JabbaPapa

    it seems to me more likely that he is a truthful man than that you are a wise one

    ouch !!

    good jab with the right hook there !!! :-)

  • JabbaPapa

    It’s because they have no familiarity whatsoever with Aquinas.

  • JabbaPapa

    Well, that’s a pretty uncalled-for ad hominem !!!!

  • JabbaPapa

    I am a theologian

    Just out of interest — which specialty/ies ? Which school of theology ? :-)

  • David Lindsay

    Moreover, you take the responsibility for the corporal works of mercy from the Church and Catholics and foist it on the government.

    Or Catholic Social Teaching, as it is otherwise known.

    You, on the other hand, are away with John Courtney Murray and his desire to canonise American republicanism as taught to schoolchildren. Mercifully, Vatican II never actually did that, no matter how much Courtney Murray wanted it to have done, and indeed managed to convince a lot of people that it had done.

    But in Christian Democratic Europe, and in similar circles in Britain and the Old Commonwealth (things like the Democratic Labor Party of Australia), life carried on untroubled until his followers, figures such as George Weigel and the late Richard John Neuhaus, became part of the global menace that was the Bush Administration.

  • Jonathan West

    Politicians do lie from time to time. There’s nothing terribly new or unusual about that. what I have provided is a means by which you will be able to tell over the next few months whether he really is (both in words and actions) a Catholic faithful to the magisterium. As you know even better than I do, this is not supposed to rest on the single issue of abortion. 

    I think he is not, you believe he is. Let’s revisit the question in November and see which of us is right.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1797982123 Stephen Montoya

    “you…desire to canonise American republicanism as taught to schoolchildren”
    You’re far from the mark with that assertion.  The more the US, UK or any other government strives to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, visit and care for the sick/prisoners, bury the dead etc. the more that government reflects God’s mercy–so, of course, I’m all for it.  However, the Church Hierarchy and lay persons cannot absolve themselves of their duty by delegating most of this responsibility to government.  Why would a Catholic rely on a secular government/political party/politician to manifest God’s mercy?  Due to the Church abdicating it’s proper, God-given role and transferring it to government, secular values have spread like a plague in Western culture and have made great inroads into the Church itself:  Greed, materialism, contraception, abortion, sexual immorality, idolatry etc. as a way of life, even for Catholics!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1797982123 Stephen Montoya

    I sure have.  I’m praying and making reparation in hopes the U.S. will repent and be healed before it comes to that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1797982123 Stephen Montoya

    no attack intended.  just striving for truth and clarity amidst all the shades of grey eroding Catholic identity.

  • W Oddie

    ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.  Have you actually read the National Review interview? And is he lying in it? WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?

  • David Lindsay

    Well, a lot more than  Oddie has, let me assure you. He is one of those pseudo-Tories who have mistaken the American New Right for the British Old Right, and the one of those pseudo-Catholics who have mistaken it for the Faith. The latter was the basis of his conversion, which therefore ought not to have been permitted to proceed. No wonder that he managed to work under Mabel Thompson. And no wonder that he likes Ayn Ryan so much.

  • George S. W.

    ” Ah, but Mitt is only a polytheist who believes that  Elohim (sort of God
    the Father) is an “exalted man” who had coitus with Mary, who is one of
    his wives, in order to produce Jesus the husband of Mary Magdalene
    & other women.”

    Actually, it is highly doubtful he believes much of any of that since most of it are gross misstatements of what the Mormon Church actually teaches and believes. If you really want to know what Mormons really believe, just go to their website, http://www.lds.org. There you will find all their scriptures, all their magazines, all their lesson manuals and teaching materials, and all their General Conference talks dating back over a hundred years. It even makes available their manual of instructions on how to run local churches, their modes of worship, church discipline, etc. It’s all there.

    Or you can go to their enemies to find out what they believe. Personally, I always ask Catholics what Catholics believe, Jews what Jews believe, Mormons what Mormons believe, Muslims what Muslims believe, etc. Even then I usually take it with a grain of salt since most lay members of any church are not fully grounded in their respective church’s doctrine. If I took the first Catholic I met off the street and asked him/her probing questions on Catholic doctrine, would you wish to vouch for their veracity? I doubt it. I surely wouldn’t.

    For example, your assertion that Mormons believe that Jesus was married. Some Mormons do firmly believe that. They have told me so in no uncertain terms. Others have told me just the opposite, and they are just as firm about it as the first group. They both declare their viewpoint to be their church’s doctrine. Yet if you research the topic, their Church actually does not take a stand on the topic.

    Such a situation is a fertile ground for their enemies both within and without their church to misrepresent what Mormon doctrine is. So it behooves us to take what we hear about Mormon or any other faith’s doctrine with a grain of salt when espoused by people not friendly to that given church.

  • Jonathan West

    Of course I’ve read the National Review interview. And (unlike you, or so I strongly suspect) I have researched many of his other previous sayings as well.

    Take a look here for some audio of him praising Ayn Rand’s philosophy to the skies.

    http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2012/04/30/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rands-ideas-hot-seat-again 

    So, his claim in the National Review that his attachment to Ayn Rand’s philosophy is “an urban myth” is undoubtedly a lie.

    But I suspect it is a “dog-whistle” lie, not intended to be believed by other followers of Ayn Rand, and intended to be accepted as true by Catholics such as you and independent voters who don’t want to believe he would gut government spending as much as he says he would.

    It is an important talent of politicians to be able to say things in such a way that different groups of people are able to interpret him in ways that suit their existing beliefs and who don’t know (or are prepared to forget) his previous words.

    Ed Miliband managed the same trick recently with talk about his Jewish heritage, which fooled Fr Alexander Lucie Smith into thinking that “Ed Miliband is religious in a meaningful way” when Miliband in fact is as atheist as I am.

  • Bellarmine

    There is a little passagein the New Testament  about the mote in the neighbour’s eye and the plank in your own. And the Sermon on the Mount. And the washing of the feet, and the commandment to love one another…

  • Bellarmine

     A Thomist, actually. Specialty: Ascetical and mystical theology, specialising in retreats.

  • Bellarmine

    You really come across as arrogant, Mr Oddie. What is wrong with a civilised debate?

  • JabbaPapa

    uh huh OK — Western European or Middle Eastern mysticism, or both ?

    Interesting, heady stuff anyway !!! :-)

  • W Oddie

    An arrogant remark, surely?

  • W Oddie

    As I thought: he has no answer. That’s why he has no alternative but to to descend to vulgar abuse. A pretty pathetic performance surely

  • W Oddie

    As I thought. In the future, I won’t bother. How about finding some other blog to throw your litter into?

  • Jonathan West

    Ah, the tacticsthat commonly followed by somebody who is wrong but can’t admit it. Claim victoryand change the subject as quickly as possible.

  • Jonathan West

    In the National Review interview, Ryan didn’t just say that he had ceased to agree with Ayn Rand’s philosophy. That statement might be true or false, and he would be entitled to the benefit of the doubt on it.

    The problem is that he also claimed that his past liking for Rand’s ideas was an urban myth (i.e. is without foundation). This, as amply demonstrated by the many quotes David Lindsay collated for you, is clearly and obviously a lie.

    It seems to me that you are cherry-picking the bits of evidence that support your thesis and are carefully ignoring all the rest in the hope that it will go away. This is not a terribly reliable way of discerning the truth about a subject.

    Leaving aside his lie about his past agreement with Rand’s ideas, we can easily test his statement that he no longer agrees with her and your claim that he is a Catholic faithful to the teaching of the Magisterium by his actions over the next three months. Let us see whether he repudiates his budget proposals which the American Catholic bishops have condemned as being incompatible with Catholic social teachings.

  • W Oddie

    the end.
    Good bye for ever

  • Bellarmine

     Methinks the man is a tad cholericc!

  • Mjmorani@yahoo.co.uk

    Looks like the US is the new nazi Germany.Shame.

  • Jonathan West

    No answer Mr Oddie?

    Not capable of refuting the evidence provided, both by me and in the quotes provided by David Lindsay? 

    They do very clearly demonstrate not that Ryan has had a change of heart, but rather – from the evidence of his own words – that he is lying about his past and hoping you will not notice.But I and others have noticed, and we have brought it to your notice as well, and your only response was to refuse to address the evidence, to refuse to answer those who brought the evidence to you.Does that represent the courage of the Catholic Church? Do you represent the extent of the Church’s attachment to Truth? Does God expect you to hide from the truth, to lie in His service? If not, why do you not answer?

  • Stephen

    We may either cause or share the guilt of another’s sin in nine ways: a.) by counsel; b.) by consent in sin; c.) by praise & flattery d.) By being a partner e.) by silence f.) By command g.) by provocation h.) by concealment I.) by defending the I’ll done. A gentle reminder for you and others who encourage people to join in all the “fashionable” sins of our day.

  • Stephen

    you resemble this remark.  you seek to silence or discredit the voice you don’t want heard by name calling and labeling.  A technique the nazis perfected.

  • Stephen

    It’s quite telling that so many of the comments posted on Catholic websites are from atheists, pagans, heretics, and apostates–perpetuating noise and confusion inside and outside the Church as is done in the mainstream media.  Where are the evangelists and defenders of the Faith?

  • Jonathan West

    And why don’t they answer me?

  • Bellarmine

     Pray, how do I encourage people to join in all the fashionable sins of our day?I merely encourage them to do some Lectio Divina on key Bible passages, and be challenged by them Love is the fulfillment of the Law.

  • Bellarmine

    Brother, I have to tell you that I find your presumptions of guilt and desire to harm and mislead very offensive and uncharitable. Noone appointed you my judge, nor am I yours. Try acting like Jesus, with love and compassion, and you might get your point across better.

  • Stephen

     ”Jesus never once mentioned sex”     ”(in the Bible) birth control is not mentioned”                                      1.) Global prostitution industry:  $108 billion; 2.) Global porn industry (25% is child porn): $97 billion (96% of teens in west have Internet access, and 55.4% reported viewing porn); 3.) Global human sex trafficking industry: $54 billion; 4.) Sodomy, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgenderism are celebrated and on the rise and traditional marriage & family (cornerstone of civilization for millennia) are in retreat 5.) “ Carl Djerassi, an Austrian chemist, who led to the invention of the birth control pill says he regrets the catastrophe that has resulted from contraception. He wrote an opinion piece in the Austrian newspaper Der Standard lamenting the way the pill has been used and urges Western nations to formulate policy designed to counteract the effects of widespread contraception before the population commits “national suicide.”The pill gave incredible license to everything from adultery and affairs to premarital sex and within marriage to a separation of the sex act and procreation destroying sexual morality on a grand scale across the globe.  Moreover, in Austria and in several Western nations the population now includes more people over age 65 than under 15, and Djerassi said the country soon will face an “impossible situation” as the working class becomes too small to support the needs of senior citizens. The fall in the birth rate in European countries and North America, he said, is an epidemic far worse than obesity, but it receives less attention.”   6.)  Purportedly 98% of Catholic women use contraception and this “stat” is used to help justify Obama’s Contraception Mandate (a direct assault on the Church and religious freedom) 7.) It’s no surprise there’s a sexually transmitted disease & AIDS HIV epidemic 8.) etc. etc. etc. 

  • Bellarmine

     God bless you and help you to be more Christ-like.

  • Bellarmine

     It must be wonderful to cast all those ugly names about, (you are not one of them, of course!), and label and box people so easily, so as to dispose of them and their insights! I am reminded of Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the Publican…