We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel and the anti-Gospel. This confrontation lies within the plans of divine providence. It is a trial which the whole Church . . . must take up.

Perhaps the situation pro-life Americans currently face epitomizes what the Holy Father was telling us then. There are many reasons for believing that this confrontation has reached a critical point, but the most telling is that the vast majority of Christians have lost sight of the fact that, fundamentally, there is no respect for the dignity of human person - born or preborn. I don’t say this as a condemnatory judgment of the masses, but rather as a description of reality. If one honestly examines the attitudes and activities of political candidates who openly decry violence, one can see that there is a tragic disconnect between what is defined as violent and what is defined as something else - be it abortion, euthanasia, contraception, infanticide, human embryonic stem cell research or human cloning.

When we hear or read about violence in today’s media, we are never reminded of the despicable acts I have just mentioned to you. No, quite the contrary, we hear that war is violent, the death penalty is violent or that crime in the streets is violent. And of course, each of these is violent, but the root cause of escalating brutality is rarely put into perspective.

Let me take a few moments to explain what I mean.

If I ask the average Christian how many Americans have died in major wars since our first war casualties were recorded, I could be told that the death toll is as high as 1,007,986. This is a figure most recently confirmed by Department of Defense statistics used by the Congressional Research Service.

Please compare this to the more than 3,000 preborn children who die daily (approximately 1.2 million yearly) in America from surgical abortion procedures alone. As you can see, in less than a single year, the violence waged in the wombs of mothers in this nation exceeds that of all the war dead combined.This is a perfect example of the difference in perspective between the Church and the anti-Church, or to put it differently, between truth and half-truth.

Moving on, if I were to ask the average Christian how many Americans have died because they have received the death sentence after being properly tried by a judge and jury in the U.S., possibly I would be told that the number is around 5,000. We know for a fact that between 1930, the first year for which statistics were provided, until the end of 1999, 4,457 people were executed. Estimating the additional nine years based on these numbers leads me to believe that we are indeed looking at approximately 5,000 deaths.

This number is very troubling, of course, but balance it against a single week, in which approximately 3,000 preborn children die daily. Can you contemplate the fact that 21,000 preborn children were sliced and diced to death by surgical abortion during that period in this nation? Is it really that difficult to see where the root of all violence is?

It is impossible to imagine how those with eyes to see and ears to hear can be so totally devoid of concern for the facts I have just related to you. But on the other hand, it is not so difficult to conceive it at all. We live in a time where right is wrong, where good is frequently defined as evil and where truth is denied as nothing more than a religious belief.

The offensive we are thus called to wage in this war of words, ideas and misrepresentations has to be based on faith, hope and a sincere love for life. It requires a deep understanding of the stakes and a willingness to serve, without counting the cost. But most of all, it requires confidence that, armed with the truth, nothing can stop us from forcing back the evil that has blinded so many and left our nation stained with the blood of millions.

The signs of hope in the midst of this confrontation are glowing brightly. It could be that now is the time when many people will awaken to reality, and not only hear it and see it, but act on it. For example, a former Philadelphia Eagle, the Reverend Herb H. Lusk II, opened the HOPE Center through his People for People community outreach organization  to counteract the decline in the numbers of the African-American population. He said:

I’ve always been pro-life, but I’ve been passive about it. When I began to consider that the African-American population alone has declined in the past three years across the nation, I realized that we’re not procreating our own race; and that is a direct result of abortion in our communities. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Health, 50 percent of black pregnancies end in abortion in Philadelphia. And between 1973 and 1999, there were over 13 million African-American abortions nationwide. It breaks my heart to hear that; it makes me cry. We can do better than that.

Here’s another ray of hope inTomball, Texas, where the following remarkable story hit the papers last week: After earning several honors and awards during an extensive career in the U.S. Navy, retired Rear Admiral Al Kelln can soon add a new accomplishment to his list: opening a pregnancy counseling center:

To many, it seemed an unusual choice for the man who has worked in several positions in Naval headquarters, founded the Naval Submarine League and provided his submarine and intelligence expertise to Washington, D.C. clients. “I really don’t like anyone telling me ‘no’ or ‘it can’t be done,’” he said. “There isn’t anything that can’t be done if you pray and believe.”

So, in the midst of the cultural meltdown we see all around us, there is yet hope and the courage required of each of us as we move forward. I don’t think it is an accident that the likes of Lusk and Kelln have chosen now as the right time to heed God’s call and act positively to thwart the violent scourge gripping our nation for almost 36 years. In fact, I view it as a sign that there are men and women of faith who will confront the very trial to which the Holy Father referred to and emerge victorious, God willing.

Being part of the solution always results in joy, even in such perilous times. Let us not be overcome with despair, but rather energized by the One with whom we serve.

The IPPF declaration defines sexual rights as “an evolving concept that encompasses sexual activity, gender identities, sexual orientation, eroticism, pleasure, intimacy and reproduction.” IPPF differentiates “sexual rights” from “reproductive rights,” a term that it equates with abortion, specifying that “sexual rights encompass more than entitlements related to health” and that “many expressions of sexuality are non-reproductive.”

The IPPF declaration is broken down into a series of ten articles, each of which lists a series of demands. Under the article on the “right to life, liberty and security of the person and bodily integrity,” IPPF includes a right to abortion, stipulating that “no woman shall be condemned to forced maternity as a result of having exercised her sexuality” and that all women have a right to the safe abortion services “independently of the objection of health service providers”  — in other words, gutting conscientious objector rights.

Other articles include a host of other stipulations, including demands for all persons in custody “to have regular conjugal visits,” all individuals to have their self-defined gender identity reflected on government documents “including but not limited to birth certificates and passports,” and “the right to explore their sexuality and fantasies free from fear, shame, guilt, false beliefs and other impediments to the free expression of their desires.”

The IPPF declaration concludes its list of demands with an article on the “right to accountability and redress.”  IPPF insists that states establish accountability mechanisms to ensure that “sexual rights” are “fully upheld.” According to IPPF, this includes “the ability to monitor the implementation of sexual rights and to access remedies for violations of sexual rights, including access to full redress through restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, guarantee of non-repetition.”

The declaration links “sexual rights” to long-established human rights, such as the rights to life, equality, non-discrimination, privacy, freedom of thought, education, and to marry and found a family. IPPF asserts that states have a legal obligation to “respect, protect and fulfill sexual rights” and that governments are required “to adopt appropriate legislative, administrative, budgetary, judicial, promotional and other measures toward the full realization of the right.”

The term “sexual rights” has never been included in any binding United Nations (UN) document. Proponents tried to get it included in the Platform for Action of the Beijing Women’s Conference (1995) but 65 governments objected and it was removed. It was tried again at the Hague Forum leading into the five-year review of the Cairo Conference and was rejected there, too. No matter what governments decide, however, advocates of radical social policy ignore them. For instance, UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya Obaid uses the term regularly in her public speeches.
 
IPPF has already declared that it will do everything it can to safeguard “sexual rights” at future UN conferences.  IPPF president Jacqueline Sharpe stated that “the Declaration will enable members of the sexual and reproductive health and human rights communities to create change and build on the momentum that has already begun around sexual rights in preparation for the next International Conference on Population and Development in 2015.”

All the cases reported to have failed were dismissed due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing, without the court actually investigating the complaint. 

However, as Keyes was on the November ballot as the American Independent Party presidential candidate, his is the first case in which the plaintiff is a candidate who lost the presidency, perhaps illegitimately, to Obama.  This may mean that Keyes’ case will be the first in which the plaintiff is deemed to have sufficient standing, leading the court to investigate the complaint instead of dismissing it.

“Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that an usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal,” Keyes wrote to the Sacramento Supreme Court.

“An unprecedented and looming constitutional crisis awaits if a President elected by the popular vote and the electoral vote does not constitutionally qualify to serve in that capacity,” the court document continued.

In response to questions about why the suit was being filed, Keyes commented, “I and others are concerned that this issue be properly investigated and decided before Senator Obama takes office.  Otherwise there will be a serious doubt as to the legitimacy of his tenure.

“I hope the issue can be quickly clarified so that the new President can take office under no shadow of doubt,” concluded Keyes. “This will be good for him and for the nation.”

According to the United States Constitution, only a natural-born American citizen is eligible for the office of the presidency.  Questions and rumors about President-elect Obama’s birthplace and legal citizenship gained steam in the weeks leading up to the election, and continue to fly as Obama refuses to release his original birth certificate and medical records to the media (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102712.html). 

The Obama camp dismisses the charges as “garbage.”  But without the demanded proof, purported evidence that Obama was born in Kenya or else lost his natural-born citizenship in Indonesia continue to gain notoriety on the internet, including a Youtube video of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother saying the Illinois senator is native to her Mombosa village. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4FqVRWgrNw&eurl=http://blog.barofintegrity.us/2008/11/01/barack-nate-dhalani.aspx?ref=rss)

Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii, and has released an image of a Hawaiian certification of live birth.  This did not satisfy some skeptics, however, who insist the image was forged.

One case, filed by lifelong Democrat Philip J. Berg of Philadelphia, is currently before the Supreme Court.  The defendants, including Obama and the Democratic National Committee, have until December 1st to respond to Berg’s appeal to the Supreme Court.  The district court judge that first heard Berg’s case had told Berg he did not have standing to bring charges.

Berg told LifeSiteNews.com that more court activity across America calling for the withholding of electoral votes until the matter is settled, like Keyes’ petition, is likely. 

Berg says he is very optimistic about his pending case, and says he is certain the Supreme Court will not be able to ignore the issue.  “Our government is based on the U.S. Constitution, we’re asking for the enforcement of certain terms here that are very basic,” he said. 

“I think this is the biggest hoax perpetrated upon the American public in the history of our country, and I really think certain people should end up going to jail,” Berg added.

Berg warned that, if Obama truly is ineligible, and nonetheless inaugurated, there would be “a real constitutional crisis.

“We’d have a nightmare on our hands,” he said.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Case Claiming Obama Ineligible for Presidency Appealed to Supreme Court
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102712.html

“For the past several months, the Bush administration has been drafting regulations that would protect the rights of doctors, nurses and health workers from being discriminated against if they refuse to perform or assist in abortions, as well as other morally contentious procedures. At stake are the religious rights of these professionals. We urge President Bush to move quickly before the next administration begins.

“President-elect Barack Obama has pledged his support for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a bill so draconian that it would jeopardize the right of Catholic hospitals and doctors to refuse to perform abortions. Now the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has sent him a letter calling on him to make good on his pledge. But if he were to do that, it would lead, in the words of one Vatican official, to the ‘equivalent of a war.’

“To put it differently, were FOCA to become law (it needs to be reintroduced in the House), the culture war that the Vatican official was referring to would come to a boiling point. In practical terms, this would mean the closure of every Catholic hospital in the nation: No bishop is going to stand by and allow the federal government to dictate what medical procedures must be performed in Catholic hospitals. Make no mistake about it, the bishops would shut down Catholic hospitals before acquiescing in the intentional killing of an innocent child. Were this to happen, it would not only cripple the poor, it would cripple the Obama administration.

“It is for reasons like these that the Catholic League urges President Bush to move with dispatch in instituting rules protecting the religious rights of all health care workers. If Obama wants to undo them, it will set up a confrontation he will surely regret.”

The Christians, a group of Evangelical Protestants who regularly go to the predominantly homosexual Castro District to sing songs and pray with passers-by, say they were holding hands and singing “Amazing Grace” when a angry mob began to shove and kick them, steal their belongings, pour hot coffee on their faces, and sexually assault them.

“We’d been there for a couple of nights just singing worship songs, people would come up and stand with us and join us, we got to pray for some people,” said one participant in an account filmed at the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsxojbyAQGI), “but on Friday night it just was different.”

“We started worshipping, it was kind of like you would walk into someone’s living room, and people are just hanging out with a guitar, worshipping Jesus, just really peaceful,” she continued. “And a man came up after we’d been there for a little while and just began yelling and swearing at us and commanding us to get out of the Castro District, and our leader went up and he said ‘why are you here?’ and she said ‘we’re here to worship God and we’re here because we love you’.”

The words enraged the man, who was soon followed by others.  Although the group did no preaching, the mere presence of Christians praying in the Castro District was enough to provoke a frenzy of violence.

“A few men came and they brought a large piece of cloth and covered us with cloth and cornered us into a corner, and they started swearing at us and yelling at us and just filled with hatred, and the crowd grew larger and larger and larger until it ended up being a few hundred people and the bars had emptied out, and we’re completely surrounded by people yelling at us,” the participant recounted.

“And all of a sudden, me and another friend had hot coffee poured on our faces, and I thought they were pouring boiling water on us until I could smell the coffee, and the girl next to me, someone reached in and took her Bible and she went and said ‘I’m sorry that’s mine, can I have it back please?’ and he hit on her head with the Bible, pushed her onto the ground and began kicking her.”

According to the account, members of the crowd began to shove the group and blow whistles in their ears. They took photographs and said “we know who you are, we’re going to kill you”. The group made a circle with the women protected inside.  That was when “it got bad, it got perverse,” the participant said.

Although the videotaped participant did not elaborate, a YouTube member who posted a video of the violence included anonymous testimony from a participant claiming that “they were touching and grabbing me, and trying to shove things in my butt, and even trying to take off my pants - basically trying to molest me. I used one hand to hold my pants up, while I used the other arm to hold one of the girls. The guys huddled around all the girls, and protected them.”

After police arrived in riot gear, the mob reportedly became even more agitated, and began to violently lunge at the prayer group, seeking to go between the officers, who had formed a protective line.  That was when the videotaped participant said she thought she was going to die.

The police then reportedly insisted in escorting the group out of the Castro District, stating that it was necessary to preserve the lives of the prayer group members.  A video on YouTube records the final minutes of the escort, showing angry homosexuals screaming curse words, threatening the Christians, and attempting to force their way through the protective line of police (see video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRxFoBSPng - photos on this page taken from the video).

San Francisco’s KTVU reports that one opponent of Proposition 8 claimed that “their rights were respected.  They got a chance to go ahead and pray on the sidewalk and I had the opportunity to express my freedom of speech which is telling them to get out of my neighborhood.”

The television station explicitly attributed the anger of the homosexual mob to the recent victory of Proposition 8, the California referendum that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), told LifeSiteNews that America is beginning to see the real face of the homosexual movement in the aftermath of the Proposition 8 victory in California.

“Basically I think what we’re seeing is that the homofascist element of the larger gay movement is coming out of the closet, and they’re emboldened by what they perceive as injustice, but I’m hoping and I’m praying that their antidemocratic behavior educates America and helps Americans wake up to what this movement is all about,” LaBarbera said.

“If you do a little logic test and flip it around and if you had a video of a bunch of Christians or let’s just say conservatives, sexually molesting and chasing some gays out of a city, you’d better believe there would be a national outcry,” he added.

LaBarbera said that his website continues to receive more page views as interest grows in his organization, which is exclusively committed to combating the homosexual political agenda in the United States.

Related Links:

Testimony of Prayer Group Participant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsxojbyAQGI

Video of Mob Assault of Christian Prayer Group
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRxFoBSPng

Americans for Truth About Homosexuality
http://americansfortruth.com/

Related LifeSiteNews coverage:

Prop. 8 Protesters Besiege LA Mormon Temple, Press Forward on Legal Challenges
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110704.html

Video Shows Gay ‘Marriage’ Backers Terrorizing Cross-Carrying Elderly Woman and Reporter
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111010.html

Mormons, Knights of Columbus Face Chilling Threats and More Vandalism for Prop. 8 Support
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111711.html

Homosexualist Anarchists Storm Michigan Church During Sunday Service
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111104.html

It’s the day you got a sitter for the baby, switched preschool carpool days, set the alarm thirty minutes early to put on makeup and iron a shirt in order to get to school for the class party, only to find out your kid told you the wrong day.

It’s the day you rush out the door to meet the bus on time, stub you toe and spill your Starbucks on your freshly ironed blouse only to have your kid say, “Why didn’t you bring the dog?”

It’s the day you remember to bring the dog to the bus stop but he sees a cat and pulls you into the half shut door which hits your brow bone so hard that you see stars, but you stumble to the bus stop anyway only to have the kid say, “Why are you late?”

It’s the day you spend the morning in bed trying not to puke then the rest of the day in the bathroom puking but manage to put dinner on the table only to have the kids say, “Gross, I hate this.”

It’s the day you stay up until 2a.m. finishing the Halloween costume your child would die if they didn’t have, only to have, at the light of day, your kid declare, “Never mind mom, I’m just gonna wear a sheet.”

It’s the day you spend hours dusting every last knick-knack, window blind and piece of molding in your family room only to have someone light a fire without opening the flue.

It’s the day you do every load of laundry but the “reds” only to have your kid tell you at 10pm he needs his red shirt for gym class tomorrow.

It’s the day you splurge for a sitter so you can have lunch with your girlfriend only to have your kid wake up with a high fever and the runs.

It’s the day you cave into your maternal conscience and put clean sheets on those stupid bunk beds only to throw out your back and be forced to cancel the hair appointment that’s made your life worth living for the last two weeks.

It’s the day you’re cemented to the couch with the bad back and heating pad, wondering if you’ll be incapacitated through the rest of the fall planting season only to have your daughter bring you a “Get Well” drawing, a root beer and a kiss.

It’s the day that anything that could possibly hit the domestic fan and fly in your face does; only you realize it’s going to be okay.

A wave of quasi-fascism has descended upon California and touched several other states. But instead of exposing the abuse, the media are ignoring it.
 
On November 4, California voters approved Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment declaring that only marriages between a man and a woman are valid in the Golden State.  Since then, militants have vandalized property, threatened individuals and mailed white powder to Mormon churches. Most Americans probably are not aware of this fascistic behavior, because the media - the people who are supposed to be the first line of defense against domestic tyranny - are absent.
 
Fascism is a powerful word, but often used imprecisely, so let’s define our terms.  The following definition comes from former Columbia historian Robert O Paxton, author of The Anatomy of Fascism: 

“A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

How does the term “fascism” apply to America?  A national network of angry gay rights demonstrators is screaming for the use of force - judicial force - to nullify Prop. 8.  They’ve committed numerous acts of verbal abuse and physical violence (check out the account and video of Christian evangelists being hounded out of San Francisco’s Castro district) and are openly seeking revenge against churches and businesses that supported Prop. 8. As they did previously in Massachusetts, they have uncovered lists of citizens who supported marriage and targeted them for abuse and boycotts.   Is this a form of Paxton’s “internal cleansing?” 
 
This network of homosexual protesters is far from nationalistic, but otherwise it’s quite similar to Paxton’s definition.   It’s easily seen as a “mass-based cult of unity or energy,” motivated by perceptions of victimhood, and abandoning “democratic liberties” to pursue its goals without the ethical and legal restraints customary in American politics. 
 
This mass movement is also collaborating effectively, but not at all uneasily, with traditional elites.  First, the politicians.  Same-sex “marriage” has been imposed in three states by rogue courts and governors who ignored the rule of law-Massachusetts, California and most recently Connecticut.  Prop. 8 was a popular backlash against the California Supreme Court edict.  Now Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is calling for the court elite to strike back by declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional.  California Attorney General Jerry Brown, an outspoken supporter of gay “marriage,” is calling for the court to issue a new decree quickly.  California’s top elected officials want the court to overrule the clearly expressed will of their own citizens. 
 
Maybe “citizens” is the wrong word.  Citizens govern themselves.  Golden State elites seem to be turning Californians into subjects.
 
On to the news media elites. Democracy itself is under attack in California, and what are the supposed watchdogs of freedom, the free press, doing about it?  When they’re not applauding, they’re strategically averting their eyes. 
 
Within two days of the popular passage of Prop. 8, the media began defining the story as gay civil rights denied, rather than civilization defended.  Media outlets began to caricature supporters of Prop. 8 as bigots, and refused to allow them to tell their side of the story.  The prevailing media attitude toward legalizing same-sex “marriage” is exemplified by a five minute, on-air editorial by MSNBC’s resident attack dog, Keith Olbermann.  Olbermann called the Prop. 8 vote “horrible, horrible.”  The poor guy was so emotionally distressed, he forgot to shout.
 
The moral credibility of homosexual agitators is based on public perception that they are “victims,” so the media have virtually ignored numerous examples of gay activists victimizing their political adversaries.  Broadcast television networks have failed to show gay protesters hurling racial and religious epithets at African-Americans and Mormons, two groups largely responsible for Prop. 8’s victory. Normally, such outright bigotry would be front page news.
 
The media are even ignoring sacrilege and violence.  Until Bill O’Reilly showed a video clip on Nov. 17 on Fox News, only one major newspaper, and no broadcast networks, covered the carefully planned Nov. 9 assault of Mt. Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan, by homosexual activists during a worship service.  No national networks, to the best of our knowledge, have shown the dramatic footage at Palm Springs City Hall of screaming protesters roughing up an elderly counter-protester, tearing a cross from her hands and stomping on it.  
 
Even a reprise of the anthrax scare has gone almost unreported.  Only a handful of newspapers and NBC’s Today show have noted that domestic terrorists have sent packages containing white powder to Mormon churches.
 
Entertainment media elites are getting their licks in, too.  CNN reported yesterday that Roseanne Barr, for example, said African-Americans are “as bigoted and ignorant as their white Christian white right wing counterparts.” Ah, the sweet sound of tolerance.
 
America hasn’t yet seen political violence of the kind that led to takeovers of Germany and Italy by Fascist thugs before World War II.   But if media outlets don’t investigate these incidents, expose the perpetrators, and pressure the government to press charges,  we can only anticipate greater political violence. 
 
Eventually, the media themselves will be the targets.

This same tendency exists at the national level. Such blindness can be fatal, as Ralph Waldo Emerson warned when he wrote, “A nation never falls but by suicide.” In America today, we readily perceive the dangers posed by international terrorism, hostile foreign regimes, uncontrolled immigration, the global narco-gangsters, etc. It is the threat within that seems to be off the radar screen.

The fall of Rome and other dominant civilizations manifest similar pathologies-imperial overreach, runaway spending, erosion of money’s purchasing power, personal debauchery. At the most fundamental level, national suicide follows moral decay. Hard work, thrift, deferring self-gratification, self-reliance — the individual virtues that enable people to prosper and civilizations to thrive — fade away. They are supplanted by self-indulgence, borrowing from the future to live it up today, refusal to accept personal responsibility, and wanting something for nothing, even at the expense of innocent others.

Sad to say, there are signs of such rot, such weakness of character, all around us today. Our nation is drowning in debt. Our culture is increasingly ignoble and hedonistic-people would rather read about Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton than Michael Monsoor and Ross McGinnis (two Congressional Medal of Honor winners who gave their lives in Iraq). Many Americans are afflicted with a sense of entitlement, believing that “society” owes them a living and that they shouldn’t have to work to improve themselves. Millions want to feed at the government trough rather than put forth the necessary years of effort to succeed on their own. They demand ever-larger handouts from Washington-that is, from their fellow citizens who pay taxes.

So widespread is the insidious belief that individuals have an inherent “right” to government support that politicians are locked into a permanent search for ways to confiscate more wealth from more people. Private property-the basis for so many other human rights, and the indispensable prerequisite for social prosperity, indeed, the very key to our country’s economic success — is under siege and our future at risk.

Anecdotes illustrating this moral rot abound. The most memorable I ever heard was during the Whitewater scandal, when the possibility was raised that Bill Clinton had defrauded the American taxpayer. At a public presidential appearance, a woman called out from a crowd, “Don’t you worry about Whitewater, Bill, just keep our welfare checks coming!” Translation: “Steal if you want, Mr. President; just give me my own little piece of something-for-nothing.”

Recently (on Oct. 17, to be exact) radio talk-show host Sean Hannity asked callers to say why they favored Obama for president. What followed was a depressing succession of people saying that Obama would give them more money, free health care, and other goodies. Totally forgotten was Democratic President Kennedy’s appeal, “Ask not what your country can do for you …” In its place was the piggish attitude, “I want it. Promise to give it to me and my vote is yours.”

As pathetic and demoralized as such me-first attitudes may be, individuals like those aren’t the crux of the problem. The real culprits are their enablers: educators who fill their minds with the notion that political taking, rather than economic service to one’s fellow man, is a legitimate way to profit; “intellectuals” who scorn property rights and define “justice” as government redistribution of wealth; clergymen who confuse socialism with Christianity; and especially the demagogic politicians who pander to them. The pied pipers of this ethical plague, not the mice they mislead, bear the primary responsibility for the culture of thievery that is corroding the fabric of our republic.

Indeed, our outrage should not be directed at the poor dupes, but toward the rich and powerful, and their congressional allies, who use government to enrich themselves. Congressmen pontificate about helping the little guy, and then give subsidies to millionaire farmers. They publicly commiserate with the middle-class family who can’t afford mortgage rates adjusted up to 8 or 9 percent, and then approve when the Fed and Treasury Department arrange 2.5 percent lines of credit for wealthy Wall Street firms. They lament Joe Lunchbucket’s economic challenges, then dole out billions of dollars of earmarks and corporate welfare to their country club buddies. Who can blame the small fries for wanting relatively modest handouts when they see all this?

Congress is leading the assault on private property, and reaping a windfall from it. The gold-plated health insurance and retirement plans, the all-expenses-paid vacations, the millions in cash that pass through campaign accounts and PACs … “Public service” pays well these days. Since they oversee a trillion-dollar political market for stolen goods, it shouldn’t surprise us that members of Congress skim a relatively modest commission of a few million for themselves.

The U.S. Congress is becoming as corrupt as the Roman senate, which kept transferring property from the productive sector of society to the unproductive sector, until finally the productive sector collapsed and Rome herself fell. We aren’t at that stage yet, but there isn’t much time left to wake up and confront the moral rot that threatens to sink us.

The rest of the table and room decorations are then selected with that centerpiece in mind.  Each thing is either included because it both complements and coordinates with the chosen centerpiece, or rejected because it does not.  Anyone entering the room is immediately aware of it, for the centerpiece establishes the room’s atmosphere, and therefore affects whatever occurs within it.

Lives have centerpieces as well.  The difference is that most of us do not take the time to actually examine the object or person that we have placed at the center of our existence.  Our lack of examination, however, does not diminish the significance of our internal centerpiece.  Each of us still arranges the rest of our life around it, including those elements that enhance the effectiveness of our internal centerpiece, and rejecting those that interfere with it.

Over the past few years, America has been engaged in a national discussion about whether the centerpiece of our country should be changed. 

Throughout our history, our national centerpiece consisted of the philosophy explained in our Declaration.  In simple terms, it said that there was an authority higher than the State, that each individual was endowed with fundamental human rights by that higher authority, that those rights began with life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (or property), and that the only legitimate purpose of government was to preserve those fundamental rights.

That centerpiece resulted in the creation and growth of a nation that an entire world recognized as unique.  In fact, people of every ethnic background came, embracing a culture that first acknowledged their worth and followed that acknowledgement with opportunity.  It wasn’t perfect, but our history has been a growth toward a more complete fulfillment of the promises contained in our centerpiece.

But in the last election, those who advocate changing that centerpiece came into power.   They have a very different idea of the proper role of government.  And while they paid lip service to the ideas that government is not the highest authority, and that our individual rights to life, liberty, and property cannot be legitimately cancelled by the state, the policies and programs they advocated belied their assurances.

That there are those who are intent on re-defining America is not surprising or even alarming.  What causes concern is that the citizens of this nation willingly handed the reins of power to the re-definers.

Did they do so knowingly?  There are three possible answers.  The citizens of this county actually want to jettison the centerpiece of America.  The citizens of this country don’t know that there IS a centerpiece and therefore don’t understand its importance.  Or, the citizens of this country were not aware that the “change” being promised would be of such a fundamental nature.

No matter which possibility, or combination of possibilities, is actually correct, the result of this election offers us an opportunity.  America was born, not because people lived somewhere, but because people believed in something - something that changed the course of world history.  That belief system is just as valid and persuasive today as it was two hundred years ago. 

The question is, will we rise to its defense?

A: Many Catholics and non-Catholics alike erroneously believe that all Catholic priests are obliged to live in poverty, but in fact this is not the case. Some clergy have made vows of poverty, while others have not. At the same time, some Catholics take a vow of poverty even though they are not and will never be ordained to the priesthood. Readers may find that the actual situation is surprisingly complicated!

There are some religious institutes whose members are required to take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience (c. 573.2). Occasionally additional vows particular to their institute are required as well. Carmelites, Dominicans, and Jesuits (to name only a few) fall into this category. Members of such institutes generally receive a small monthly stipend, perhaps $100 per month in the U.S., for personal expenses. With this tiny amount they can buy a birthday gift for a relative, or go to a restaurant occasionally for lunch, or get a pack of cigarettes. They often have full-time jobs, maybe as university professors or hospital administrators, and as such they earn full-time salaries-but they cannot touch this money as their paychecks are immediately turned over to their religious superiors. The cars they drive, the houses they live in, and sometimes even the clothes they wear are not the property of the religious themselves, for these things as a rule belong to their religious institute.

Before one starts flipping through the code to find more details on this subject, it’s important to realize that there is actually very little law in the Code of Canon Law pertaining to religious institutes. This is because each institute has its own specific body of law-called proper law-which pertains only to its members, no matter where in the world they happen to live. An institute’s proper law must be approved either by the Vatican, or (in the case of small, local groups of religious) by the diocesan bishop in whose territory they reside.

The proper laws governing religious institutes can vary dramatically. This is generally due to the historical period in which an institute was founded, and/or to its intended purpose. The Benedictines, for example, have been in existence for well over a thousand years, while the Legionaries of Christ were founded only in the 20^th century. The first group lives a generally monastic life, while the other is normally involved in active ministry. Consequently, their systems of governance and rules of conduct are very different-because the original purpose of each institute, as intended by its founder, was radically different from the other.

Many — but not all — members of religious institutes are also ordained to the priesthood. We have all probably encountered priests who were from the abovementioned institutes, or perhaps Cistercians, Augustinians, or Redemptorists. All of these men are both members of their institutes, and ordained clergy at the same time. If the rule of their religious institute requires its members to vow poverty, then it’s a safe bet that these clergy have done so.

At the same time, there are many other members of religious institutes who are not clergy. This obviously includes all sisters and nuns, like the Sisters of Mercy or the Poor Clares. There are also numerous religious institutes of men who are not priests-like the Christian Brothers, for example. To make things even more confusing, there are some institutes which include among their members both ordained priests and men who are not ordained. Some Franciscans (for example) are unordained brothers, while others are priests. Since they all ordinarily wear the same Franciscan habit, it’s impossible to tell just by looking whether a Franciscan is “Father Tom” or “Brother Tom.” But regardless of their status as clerics or laity, if these religious are full-fledged members of their institutes (i.e., if they have spent the requisite number of years as aspiring members and eventually made their full profession), and if membership in their institutes requires them to take a vow of poverty, then they ordinarily will have vowed poverty in accordance with their rules.

Unfortunately, it gets even more complicated! There are some institutes, called Societies of Apostolic Life, whose members are not required to make any vows at all (c. 731.1). To cite some examples, the Paulist fathers fall into this category, as do the priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter. Externally, it appears that they live together exactly like those religious who have vowed poverty, but in fact the proper law of their institute does not require them to take such vows. They are priests, but they have not vowed poverty.

And finally, we cannot ignore that category of priests which is the largest by far: the diocesan clergy. Your average pastor or assistant pastor is not a member of a religious institute at all! Rather, he was ordained specifically for active ministry in a particular diocese. He is under the authority of the diocesan bishop, who usually is the bishop who ordained him. Diocesan priests do not make vows. They receive a salary-a very low salary, it is true, but ordinarily one which permits them to live simply yet with dignity. As canon 281.1 notes, clergy deserve the remuneration that befits their condition, since they dedicate themselves to the ecclesiastical ministry. This remuneration should provide for the necessities of life. And when they reach the age of retirement, or must step down from their ministerial positions because of illness, they are to be suitably provided for (c. 281.2).

Note that while priests are entitled to some monetary compensation for their ministry, those who have not vowed poverty are not barred from having certain legitimate outside sources of income. A priest may come from a wealthy family, for example, and if he has not made a vow of poverty in a religious institute, he may inherit money and property from his relatives. Priests who have not vowed poverty may also freely choose to invest their income as they see fit, and so they may lawfully own stocks or shares in mutual funds.

At the same time, however, the Church does want her priests to live luxuriously. Canon 282.1 states clearly that the clergy are to follow a simple way of life, and are to avoid anything which suggests worldliness. Lavish vacations, expensive designer clothing, and luxury vehicles would probably fit into this category. Elsewhere the code asserts that the clergy are to shun everything that is unbecoming to their state in life (c. 285.1). One could argue that extensive casino gambling, for example, would hardly be befitting someone who has embraced the clerical state and thus given his life to God.

And priests are not to engage actively in any sort of business (c. 286). This does not of course pertain to the typical sorts of efforts made to raise revenue for the parish church or school. Rather, it forbids priests from having any sort of part-time job “on the side.” A priest could not spend his day off selling real estate or performing in musical concerts for hire. While he is of course permitted to have hobbies and pastimes of his own, he is not to engage in them solely for the purpose of earning money from them.

So what does all this say about the pastor of Rick’s sister, the one who just bought another brand new car? Well, there is certainly no canonical prohibition preventing the clergy from owning cars, even new ones. Rick states that it is “one of the nicest cars in the whole parish,” but even this is not necessarily a violation of the law. True, if the car is far more luxurious than is really needed, it may have been an instance of poor judgment on the part of the priest. But if the pastor bought a sturdy new car because in his judgment it is important for him to have reliable transportation, his choice would certainly not be reprehensible. Some years ago I met a diocesan priest who invested a huge sum of his own money in a new SUV, because he was concerned that if he were called out to visit a dying parishioner during a snowstorm, he wanted to be able to get there. He was therefore driving an extremely fine vehicle, not because it in itself gave him pleasure, but so that he might be able to minister to the members of his parish in even the worst weather conditions. One could say that his decision to purchase the car was more selfless than selfish!

The bottom line is, our priests are required to live simply, but they have not necessarily taken a vow of poverty. They have the right to appropriate compensation for their ministry to us, which of course is beyond price in any case.