Politics For Catholics

I want to make three points to my Catholic friends who have rejected Ron Paul in favor of Rick Santorum. I can only assume, that you have done this because Rick is "devoutly" Catholic.I don't want to get sidetracked by this clip from Santorum. However, I do want to say a couple of things. First, politics is not a "team sport." The foundation for political decisions should be rooted in first principles. Therefore, every vote is a vote manifesting your conscience and it matters not in the least what other republicans want, rather, what is true and good. What matters is what will most glorify God. Second, based on what he said, it is very unclear whether or not he would vote against his conscience again in an effort to "take one for the team." It seems he believes politics is a team sport, and has little to do with truth. Having said that. There are a lot of things about Rick Santorum that I liked. However, he seemed to have trouble willing what he believed to be true. That troubles me and frankly, it should trouble you.On to Dr. Paul. He is not Catholic. Inevitably he gets it wrong on contraception, which is a problem. It seems to me the reason, I find common ground with Dr. Paul, is that his positions frequently, correspond with Catholic teaching. Not only does what he says frequently correspond with Catholic teaching, but, even better, he acts on the things he says he believes. When a bill is presented which opposes his foundational principles. He does something novel. He opposes the bill. This is the test of consistency. A man who passes this test can be deemed trustworthy. Not something you can say about many politicians. There are many area which Dr. Paul's positions correspond with Catholic teaching. Here are just three, freedom, subsidiarity, the just war doctrine and the protection of life.FreedomCCC 1731 - "Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberated actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude." Dr. Paul has said in the past that the culture will be truly changed when people change. He has clearly stated that people must will be upright, moral, and ethical, if this culture is to revive itself. No amount of legislation will change people. After all, as we know it isn't the law that makes us holy. If it were we would still be under the old covenant. We are living the modern day version of scribes and pharisees. Enacting law after law, allowing, the government to tell us how to act though they themselves refuse to correspond with their own directives on "right" living, has been less than fruitful. Is there anyone that actually things the federal government is winning the war on drugs? Dr. Paul gets this. He lives it out in his own life and he has consistently talked about it on the campaign trail.SubsidiarityCCC 1883 - "....the principle of subsidiarity, according to which a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.." Does Dr. Paul oppose laws?  No, he opposes the federal government holding all central power and then as these days it likes to do, redistributing it, according to the prevailing ideology. Dr. Paul believes that the federal government has taken on to much power. It is moving away from the people, away from democracy, and toward centralized power and tyranny. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear, can see this. Dr. Paul simply believes that laws are best made by the people closest to the issues themselves. For example, education is best determined by families, not the federal government. Laws governing the people should be enacted by the people not federal bureaucrats who are completely removed from the situation. What is the fruit of this principle. People are more involved and as a result take greater responsibility for their community and the people around them. Dr. Paul is in favor of eliminating federal power and returning power to the states and local government entities closer to the problems.Just War and LifeCCC 2261 - "...Do not slay the innocent and the righteous (Ex 23: 7). The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere." Dr. Paul was an OBGYN. He believes that life begins at conception. But, more importantly he believes that all life is inherently valuable from conception until natural death. He is pro-life and he does not believe abortion is a legitimate practice. CCC 2270: "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception." Dr. Paul believes this and votes in accord with his belief.Not only does Dr. Paul understand that life begins at conception, but he also understands, that it doesn't lose it's dignity or right to be considered as a result of political ideology or interest. The interest of the government never supersedes the dignity of the human person. Does Dr. Paul believe in isolationism? No, he prefers to use the military for self-defense rather than the occupation and control of foreign lands. We are not Rome under Caesar, I think he gets that. When the military is used to dominate other people lives are put in jeopardy. Human dignity takes a backseat to political interest. This is not the teaching of the Church.CCC 2309 - Just WarThe strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;- there must be serious prospects of success;- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.Does anyone see pre-emptive strike on the list? No? Does anyone see harboring weapons of mass destruction on the list? Does anyone see thinking about producing one nuclear weapon on the list?  No you don't. And you would be hard pressed to justify military action with the criteria given. Yet, this is what Ron Paul believes. He does not believe we are the world police.  There are many other nations in the world. Why aren't they sending military to other countries to help "police" them. It is unreasonable for the United States to take on that responsibility. Ron Paul gets that and he gets that when we perpetuate war, innocent people die. If the military action is unjust in the first place, it is an offense against God. Can He Win?Frankly, I believe Ron Paul is the only person that can beat Barak Hussein Obama this year. I have been told voting for Ron Paul is a waste of my vote. Couldn't the same logic be used to argue witholding my vote for Romney?  First of all, I said at the very beginning of the process, not matter what the people want, we are going to get Mitt Romney. The GOP is in control, not you and I. When will people wake up and acknowledge that. It isn't a conspiracy theory.  When people achieve power, apart from truth. They do so apart from God. Therefore, the moral foundation of their leadership is thrown into question. As such, the only thing that matters to them is remaining in power. Power for power sake. Pride, not charity is the root of the platform. It isn't that big a stretch to think that those in power would like to remain there. Nor is it a big stretch to think that they are doing things to assure that they continue to. Having said all of that. We are getting Mitt Romney, if the question I must answer before I cast my vote can he win? I answer no. Therefore, a vote for Romney, by this logic is a wasted vote, in my opinion. Do you see the subjective nature of the silly question. Now you want to talk about the lesser of two evils? Here is the thing. We have been convinced that these lukewarm  or evil candidates are our only two options. Therefore, we must vote for "the lesser of two evils." It seems as time has gone by there is less and less noticeable difference between the two. Ron Paul can win, if we stop listening to the nonsense logic that we have been fed and vote for him. Do what you will. I am not here to tell you how to vote, but, if Ron Paul is not on the ballot, come election time, this kid is writing him in. For once, I would like to vote in go

Feed: 
Link: