Election 2008 -- and the looming cultural crisis

By Joseph Pecar

The 2008 Election results portend monumental obstacles and setbacks to Catholics, evangelicals and other citizens working to preserve Judeo-Christian values within our culture — values such as respect for the dignity and sanctity of human life — values which are of such fundamental importance that they are guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. In truth, it is upon these very values that our Country has developed into the freest, fairest, most productive, wealthiest and most powerful nation the World has ever known.

From our Country's inception, history confirms this wholesome aspect of our nation's moral life to be the very foundation of its success and greatness. As Theodore Roosevelt once counseled, "In the last analysis the all-important factor in national greatness is national character." Even earlier George Washington expounded on this truism, saying in his farewell address that "Christianity would be essential if the nation was to have moral character."

It is for this reason that many citizens see an urgent need to discover and eradicate the pre-Election factors that prompted the majority of people — including many good pro-life people who thought other factors more important — to actually vote for candidates who rabidly support Infanticide, Abortion, Physician-assisted Suicide, Euthanasia, Human Embryo destruction, genocide, and other "culture of death" undertakings which directly contravene Judeo-Christian values.

In the same manner that history proves moral rectitude to be the foundation for our Country's greatness, history also records examples where moral decay proved the downfall of nations and civilizations once considered invincible. The Roman Empire is perhaps the prime example, but the Aztecs are another startling example where the abomination of human sacrifice they practiced led to the demise of a civilization which otherwise had reached astounding levels of power and social, artistic and economic prominence. It is the possibility of this type of demise occurring in our country that has so many Americans fearful.

During the campaign Barack Obama made his pro-Abortion stance and Abortion related "changes" he envisions clearer than those for any of his other platform issues. Because Barack Obama won the Election, and because of the explicit post-Election pledges he made to groups such as Planned Parenthood, many now see our Country in grave danger of being riven by a looming crisis between "culture of life" and "culture of death" proponents.

Both religious and lay writers contend that what precipitated this crisis is the fact that many citizens have developed improperly informed consciences — consciences that allow them to embrace and support culture of death trappings, without feeling pangs of guilt. Resolving the crisis depends crucially on whether or not this is true.

Although the responsibility of cultivating "properly informed" consciences ultimately rests with each individual, success is always a function of access to reliable and trustworthy information. Overall, it is the Church's appointed and authoritative teachers — the Bishops — who bear the brunt of the responsibility of ensuring that all of the faithful have access to easily understood explications of the Church's culture of life doctrine.

Yet, prior to the Election, among 433 U.S. Bishops only 150 spoke up and explicitly declared the moral imperative of "not voting for candidates supporting or promoting the culture of death whenever alternative life-affirming candidates are available." Because of this, the most probable reason why the majority of voters support Obama may very well be laid at the feet of the majority of Bishops, who by remaining silent with regard to the practice of Infanticide, Abortion and other abominations, may have led voters to wrongly conclude that "such practices could not truly be evil, because if they were, surely most Bishops would not have remained silent."

What follows is an in-depth review and analysis of why the Election turned out as it did, the consequences of the outcome, an evaluation of factors that could have changed the results, and the urgent need for actions to stem the erosion of the moral fabric of the nation — those related to and not related to the Election.

As a first step let's examine the role the Bishops and its impact on culture of life issues. To begin with, it is right and just to recognize and pay homage to the long line of the successors to the Apostle's — Bishops who over centuries, and often at great peril, courageously obeyed Jesus' command to preach and teach the Word of God to all men. As a layman, to establish a verifiable notion of the teaching role of all Bishops, I'll quote what two early, canonized Saints had to say.

Echoing the Old Testament teaching of the prophet Jeremiah, in a commentary on the Gospel of John, Saint Cyril, a fourth century Bishop of Alexandria and a Doctor of the Church wrote, "Our Lord Jesus Christ has appointed certain men to be guides and teachers of the world and stewards of his divine mysteries . . . to save the world by their teaching." In a homily on the Gospels, Saint Gregory the Great, Pope from 590-604, makes the plea, "Pray for us . . . that after we have taken up the office of preaching our silence may not bring us condemnation from the just judge."

It would be hard to find issues with a greater need for explicit instruction from our Bishops than the insidious and pervasive practice of Abortion and Infanticide in the United States. Abortion statistics produced by the Guttmacher Institute reveal that over one million abortions take place each year, nearly half of which involve women who have had at least one previous abortion — numbers too large to be attributed to saving a mother's life, not once, but twice or more times.

Beyond Abortion, Barack Obama is a rabid supporter and promoter of what can only be described as Infanticide. In 2001 Obama was the only member of the Illinois Senate to speak against SB1094 and 1095 — bills to provided mandatory medical care for Abortion survivors. Mournfully, it has become common and accepted practice to deny medical care to infants born-alive during an abortion, or even the comfort of being held and kept warm. Instead, they are often, heartlessly, simply abandoned and left lying on tables, or worse . . . . until they die.

Worthy of note is the fact that identical Born-Alive Infant Protection legislation was introduced as H.R. 2175 and passed in the United States House of Representatives by a voice vote on March 12, 2002, passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate 98-to-0, and signed into law by President Bush on August 5, 2005 — all of which puts Obama far to the left of even the most radical pro-abortion lawmakers in Congress.

Assuming all Bishops comport with the Catholic Church's denunciation of Infanticide and Abortion, then Gregory the Great's "warning of condemnation" for remaining silent in a time of egregious societal moral turpitude, is an excellent segue to a discussion of whether today's Bishops have "spoken out." By that is meant whether they have made manifestly clear statements as to the morality and consequences of voting for a candidate who is so blatantly anti-life . . . . , or, by issuing only vague or conditional guidance, they have — in essence — remained silent.

What if the Bishops had "spoken out" clearly before the Election?

Prior to discussing the pros and cons of the Bishops making an explicit statement about voting for Obama, lets first hypothesize what would have happened if Francis Cardinal George, (president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops [USCCB]), speaking for all the Bishops, had delivered to Catholic voters an unmistakably clear teaching that one commits a serious moral transgression by intentionally voting for a candidate supporting or promoting the "culture of death," when the option of voting for another candidate not supporting or promoting the culture of death exists — and used Barack Obama and John McCain as examples.

With nearly continuous, minute-by-minute election media exposure, following such a public pronouncement, it would be hard to imagine the magnitude of the ensuing reporting frenzy — but surely it would have dwarfed what happened after the ravings of Reverends Wright and Phleger were made public. Recall those news blitzes went on for weeks and weeks, completely dominating media coverage, and overshadowing issues with far greater voting-decision significance — like National security, economic policy, candidate qualifications and other crucial factors.

If the bishops had made the above teaching public and clear, Cardinal George would certainly have been besieged for appearances on an uncountable number of both liberal and conservative television news and talk-radio shows. Looking back, should this have happened, our Catholic Bishops would have had an unprecedented, perhaps a singular opportunity to "go public" and explain, defend and promote the Church's long-standing "culture of life doctrine." Importantly that message would have gotten through to nearly every American, and to everyone around the world who tracked the election's progress on TV, the radio or the Internet. It would have literally been an opportunity to Evangelize on a scale never before possible in the history of Christianity.

Beyond teaching doctrine, our Catholic Bishops could also have provided timely and explicit explanations and examples of how existing U. S. laws and the actions of government officials and politicians allow and even promote Infanticide, Abortion, Physician-assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Experimentation that destroys Human Embryos and other "culture of death" actions — and yes, as addressed below, even genocide.

Should all of this have happened, then to the extent the Catholic Bishops were convincing and successful in their arguments, the staggering loss of human life in years to come could have been reduced, and the majority of voters with informed and good consciences would have rejected, not elected, Barack Obama — and many anti-life candidates running for other offices as well.

What about the Bishop's teaching since the election?

Regrettably, none of these things did happen before the election. And even just after the election, in the words of Julia Duin who covered the November 10-13, 2008 USCCB annual meeting in Baltimore for the Washington Times, "The U.S. Catholic bishops at their annual meeting Monday brushed off an apparent disregard among Catholic voters for Church doctrine on abortion, saying 'the economy, not their teachings, was to blame'."

The Catholic News Service report on the same meeting entitled, "Bishops' conference opens with nod to historic presidential election" states that "The historic significance of the election of President-elect Barack Obama dominated the opening address" and the only mention of Abortion in its report was whether the "focus should be on reducing the number of abortions by providing better social services to pregnant women and by addressing poverty."

Thus, the impression carried away by the media seems to be that emphasis during the Bishop's meeting was on the following: 1) the great racial progress made in our country by electing a man of color; 2) a vote for the amended version of the Proper of the Seasons (prayers for Sundays and feast days during the liturgical year); and 3) the role and operation of Catholic Charities and other such issues. While important, these matters are of far less consequence than the tragic loss of human life attributed to current Infanticide, Abortion and other culture of death practices in the United States — and the anti-life actions Obama promised to make if elected that will make matters far worse.

While failing to recognize and assign the highest priority to the intrinsic evil of Infanticide and Abortion, is it not paradoxical that the first order of business in the USCCB meeting's opening session was the consideration of a new "blessing for children in the womb"? And is it not also terribly inconsistent to encourage people to pray for the health and safe delivery of babies in the womb, while failing to speak out publicly and clearly on behalf of babies in wombs doomed to become victims of Infanticide and Abortion — especially if their fate is the result the Bishops not having given the faithful explicit instructions that they cannot, with a clear conscience, vote for candidates supporting or promoting such atrocities?

There's an old legal rubric that "Silence equals acceptance." Let's say that during the campaign many, if not most, voters pondered to what extent a candidate's stance on Infanticide and Abortion should play in making their decisions. Will it not be a heart-wrenching tragedy if as mentioned earlier, history demonstrates many voters voted as they did because by remaining silent, they assumed the Bishops themselves must not believe a candidates stance on Infanticide and Abortion to be the preeminent factor in deciding how to vote — reasoning that if they did, surely they could never have remained silent?

Did the Bishops fully realize the horrible anti-life consequences of an Obama presidency before the election?

The following excerpts from the official USCCB 2008 Meeting Statement delivered by Cardinal George on November 12 indicates they did. Here is what Cardinal George had to say:

"The fundamental good is life itself, a gift from God and our parents. A good state protects the lives of all. Legal protection for those members of the human family waiting to be born in this country was removed when the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade in 1973. This was bad law. The danger the Bishops see at this moment is that a bad court decision will be enshrined in bad legislation that is more radical than the 1973 Supreme Court decision itself.

"In the last Congress, a Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) was introduced that would, if brought forward in the same form today, outlaw any "interference" in providing abortion at will. It would deprive the American people in all fifty states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. It would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government and others of good will to reduce the number of abortions in our country.

"Parental notification and informed consent precautions would be outlawed, as would be laws banning procedures such as partial-birth abortion and protecting infants born alive after a failed abortion. Abortion clinics would be deregulated. The Hyde Amendment restricting the federal funding of abortions would be abrogated. FOCA would have lethal consequences for prenatal human life.

"FOCA would have an equally destructive effect on the freedom of conscience of doctors, nurses and health care workers whose personal convictions do not permit them to cooperate in the private killing of unborn children. It would threaten Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Charities. It would be an evil law that would further divide our country, and the Church should be intent on opposing evil.

"On this issue, the legal protection of the unborn, the bishops are of one mind with Catholics and others of good will. They are also pastors who have listened to women whose lives have been diminished because they believed they had no choice but to abort a baby. Abortion is a medical procedure that kills, and the psychological and spiritual consequences are written in the sorrow and depression of many women and men. The bishops are single-minded because they are, first of all, single-hearted.

"The recent election was principally decided out of concern for the economy, for the loss of jobs and homes and financial security for families, here and around the world. If the election is misinterpreted ideologically as a referendum on abortion, the unity desired by President-elect Obama and all Americans at this moment of crisis (emphasis added) will be impossible to achieve. Abortion kills not only unborn children; it destroys constitutional order and the common good, which is assured only when the life of every human being is legally protected. Aggressively pro-abortion policies, legislation and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans, and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion."

Understanding that it was common knowledge that Obama publicly promised Planned Parenthood that if elected, the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would be the first act he would sign into law, and in light of the Bishop's clear explication above of the likely impact of FOCA — published just days after the election — it is simply not possible that the anti-life goals of FOCA and Obama's intentions, were not known by the Bishops prior to the 2008 Election. Even more unimaginable is the fact that if the Bishops had such solidarity of opinion and wisdom prior to the election, then how and why in God's name did they not promulgate it widely among their Catholic faithful and to all Americans alike?

Moreover, it is unlikely that the Bishops were unaware or the specific dire consequences that Matt Bowman, an attorney with the pro-life Alliance Defense Fund, predicted should FOAC be passed into law, (Lifenews.com, September 24, 2008). In his article, Mr. Bowman states there will be an increase in the number of abortions "of 125,000 per year" in the United States because of the abolition of laws in states that have parental involvement, informed-consent laws and funding restrictions. "Even with this minimum," Mr. Bowman adds, "that's 125,000 children that were not killed this year because we (still) have these laws, and 125,000 (added to the existing 1.3 million abortions) who will be killed in 2009 and beyond."

The Bishops should also have known that on January 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Mr. Obama said with great pride: "Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice and have consistently had a 100 percent pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America ... To truly honor (Roe v. Wade), we need to update the social contract so that women can free themselves and their children from violent relationships."

Responding to these statements, Nat Hentoff (Washington Times, November 24, 2008) asked, "What, Mr. President, can be more violent than murder by abortion?"

Considering the Bishops to be highly educated people with intimate knowledge of the Church's culture of life doctrine and the considerable staff and other resources they have to evaluate related existing laws and candidate's positions, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that ignorance explains why the majority of them remained silent about "life and death" consequences underlying Infanticide/Abortion issues.

Did the Bishops know about abortion-related genocidal consequences before the election?

They certainly should have since a brother Bishop wrote passionately about it. On October 16, 2008, the Catholic News Agency published an article entitled "Abortion must be addressed 'for the survival of African American people,' Catholic bishop asserts" written by Bishop Martin Holley, who serves in the USCCB as Chair of the Sub-Committee on African American Affairs and a member of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities.

"As an African American, I am saddened by evidence that Black women continue to be targeted by the abortion industry," the bishop began in a statement. "The loss of any child from abortion is a tragedy, but we must ask: Why are minority children being aborted at such disproportionate rates?"

The prelate stressed that since the Roe v. Wade decision, "the number one cause of death in the African American community has been abortion." Because of this, "we have lost over 13 million lives. To put that in perspective, it is one third of our present Black population. Since 1973, twice as many Black Americans have died from abortion than from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined."

Abortion is an issue that must not be pushed to the back burner, he insisted. "It clearly must be at the heart and center of our discussion of the survival of African American people."

"Every year the federal government gives over $300 million to Planned Parenthood, (an organization that provides over twenty five percent of the total number of abortions performed in the United States). Last year for the first time, Planned Parenthood took in over ONE BILLION dollars and reported a profit of $51 million," he astoundingly said of the non-profit organization.

"We must demand an end to the victimizing of African American children, women, families and communities by Planned Parenthood and others in the abortion industry. Over 80 percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are located in minority neighborhoods," Bishop Holley continued. He then referred to well-documented evidence that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, began the 'Negro Project' to reduce the Black population.

On October 28, 2008, in The Witherspoon Institute's publication, "Public Discourse: Ethics, Law and the Common Good," Anne Hendershott made the cogent observation that, as of now "Nearly half of all African-American pregnancies end in abortion." Supporting Bishop Holley's assertion that Planned Parenthood targets minority neighborhoods, Hendershott adds, "Once the culture of abortion is established, the resistance of those who live there begins to break down.

Elaborating, she points out that "The early seduction of black Americans by the Birth Control League and Margaret Sanger's eugenics programs set into motion today's dilemma. From the beginning, the birth control movement's 'Negro Project' was especially appealing to eugenicists determined to check the climbing birthrates of those they defined as the 'unfit.' This Planned Parenthood commitment to population control for blacks continues today. Last February, students from The Advocate, a student magazine at UCLA, released phone recordings of Planned Parenthood fundraising staffers approving of a donor who claimed he wanted his money to help 'lower the number of black people.' In an undercover investigation, the students discovered that Planned Parenthood staffers were more than happy to accept contributions from a caller posing as a donor stating ''the less black kids out there the better.''

Following Obama's election, on November 11, 2008 (Lifenews.com), Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, said that "his dream of full equality remains just a dream as long as unborn children continue to be treated no better than property." Dr. Clenard H. Childress, Jr., the black senior pastor of The New Calvary Baptist Church in Montclair, New Jersey and founder of blackgenocide.org summarizes the dreadfully abhorrent situation with this shocking revelation. He said "according to Allan Guttmacher, today the most dangerous place for an African-American to be is in the womb of their African-American mother."

Is it not ironic and a terribly sad testimony that the first black President-Elect of the United States will go down in history as supporting and promoting genocide against his own race?

The question remains then, how or why Bishops remained silent before the election?

In fact as noted, by October 30, 2008, 79 Ordinaries among 120 Bishops did speak out. This amounts to about 30 percent of the 197 Dioceses in the United States, which as can be observed, correlates roughly with the 40 percent of Catholic voters that did not vote for Obama. The names and related information of the bishops who explicitly declared the moral imperative of not voting for candidates supporting or promoting the culture of death when other options are available, is provided at the following Internet location: http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/ index.php?option=com_myblog&show=-4785.html&Itemid=99999999 ).

In September of 2008, the USCCB re-published its 36-page "Faithful Citizenship" brochure, stating that its "purpose is to help Catholics form their consciences in accordance with God's truth." While Paragraph 7 declares that "the responsibility to make choices in political life rests with each individual in light of a properly formed conscience," it goes on to say that "we bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote" — and that's the rub.

Since the prime, and for many, the only way in which the vast majority of laypeople make choices in political life is by deciding which specific candidates they should vote for, how then can the stated purpose of Faithful Citizenship "to help Catholics form their consciences in accordance with God's truth" be reconciled with the also stated declaration that "we bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote"?

Faithful Citizenship may be an excellent "outline" of conscience-forming principles, but it is so nuanced that expecting laity to use it to make a judgment about a specific election or candidate is equivalent to asking someone to construct an automobile from nothing but an artist's sketch. Beyond not being effective or adequate, as a guide for making moral decisions, many feel the document is actually harmful.

For example, in his article "Will 'Faithful Citizenship' Win the Catholic Vote for Obama?", Deal Hudson observes, "As I have watched the campaign unfold, especially Obama's outreach to Catholic voters, the USCCB document has played a decisive role. "Faithful Citizenship" provided Obama's Catholic supporters the escape clauses needed to convince Catholics they could vote for a pro-abortion candidate in "good conscience."

Hudson continues, "Many bishops have spoken out forcefully that the document is being abused. Bishop Robert Vasa, for example, points out that voting for a pro-abortion candidate is never justified when the opponent is pro-life. Similarly, Bishops Kevin Vann and Kevin Farrell insist there are no "'truly grave moral' or 'proportionate' reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year."

"Obama's Catholic surrogates made little note of the corrections. The cat, as they say, was out of the bag when the bishops approved "Faithful Citizenship" at their meeting in November 2007.

"This presentation of 'Faithful Citizenship' on the Web site of 'Roman Catholics for Obama' is typical:

"'We hope you'll spend time reviewing all of the material housed or linked from here. But if you read just two documents, please make them be the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' 'Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship' — which explains why '[t]here may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other grave reasons' — and Barack Obama's Blueprint for Change, which outlines all of Senator Obama's positions and is, we think, reflective of why he is the candidate whose views are most compatible with the Catholic outlook. Visit any of the pro-Obama Catholic Web sites and you will find this message taken from 'Faithful Citizenship': Catholic voters can ignore Obama's pro-abortion record because of mitigating factors.'" (Hudson's article is at: http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4774&Itemid=48 )

Other pertinent scholarly assessments of Faithful Citizenship shortfalls and its potential to lead Christians and others seeking to establish a moral basis for selecting a candidate into err, include Robert J. Kendra's "Episcopol abortion politics" (November 2008 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review) and a collection of impassioned papers by Randall Terry under the heading "A Humble Plea — To Bishops, Clergy, and Laymen" which can be found at: http://www.ahumbleplea.com/

So, the situation prior to the election was this. The USCCB Bishops published Faithful Citizenship, best described as a sort of textbook of general principles for establishing a moral basis for selecting candidates. Then, the majority of the Bishops, and the USCCB as an organizational entity, ignored written teaching admonitions and supplications from 150 brother Bishops and manifold pleas from lay people warning of an impending dire social moral catastrophe if the Bishops did not speak out explicitly — and they simply remained silent. By remaining silent, they in effect said to the people, as far as applying Faithful Citizenship principles in selecting a specific candidate for this 2008 election goes, "you're on your own."

In retrospect, it is clear that even if most of the Bishops wanted to issue explicit guidance as to the morality and consequences of voting for a candidate who is so blatantly anti-life, they evidently found themselves in a place where a unified statement could not be made. Because of this, the only alternative for Bishops who refused to remain silent was to speak out individually. Those who did speak out were, in fact, quickly identified and their names were listed on the Internet site cited above — which in effect disclosed how each of those Bishops would personally exercise their right to vote.

In light of all of the evidence above, the fact that 56 percent of Catholic voters voted for Obama, an individual with the most radical and extreme anti-life stance of any politician in history of the United States, proves that in this case the Church's efforts to impact in a positive way the laws, policies and culture of the Nation, was apparently an utter failure. It also appears that the Bishops found they could not "themselves" use Faithful Citizenship as a basis of establishing, with certainty, whether or not voting for Obama was a mortally immoral act — which is the most plausible explanation of why they could not produce a unified judgment and statement.

The question then arises, when they decided they could not produce a clear and explicit unified statement, why did not all of the "silent" Bishops volunteer to make their own voting decisions known, without comment, so that they might have "taught by their actions" — even if they could not "teach with their words"? They could have done this by simply posting their intended vote on an Internet site like the one that tabulated the actions of Bishops who chose to speak out. Considering the egregious loss of human life that hangs in the balance, one would have thought that to be the least they could do.

To what extent does the Government constrain Church Teaching?

The "tax-exempt status" moral dilemma.

The reason why churches do not feel free to endorse one candidate over another is simple: the implicit threats in IRS laws concerning political activity by non-profit organizations (including churches) to revoke their tax-exempt status if they make such endorsements, effectively silences them. That is the reason why on September 30, 2008, in response to a campaign dubbed "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" (organized by the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based Religious Rights legal group), about 20 pastors across the Country publicly disobeyed the law and came out in favor of specific candidates. It remains to be seen how the government will respond to this challenge, though past experience suggests it will be with a heavy hand. This, the activist churches maintain, will give them an opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of this law in court.

Since many Protestant congregations are only loosely, if at all, affiliated with a national denomination, such test cases only have the potential to impact single congregations. If the court rules against them, they can disband, declare bankruptcy and re-incorporate without ever missing a single Sunday service.

With the Catholic Church, the stakes are much, much higher, as the action of any one priest acting in an official capacity can potentially affect the entire Church. Since the bishop's (plural) ministry includes the mandate to guard, defend and preserve the treasury of the faith (temporal and spiritual) delivered into their stewardship, they find themselves in an untenable position. This is why they currently are only free to address issues but forbidden to endorse candidates.

All of which leads one to consider seriously whether a tax-exempt status is a blessing or a curse. To lose this status might initially be quite painful to the Church, but at the same time may be very liberating. Perhaps the instruction found in Luke 16:13, "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon" — points to the answer.

Assuming that all Bishops exercised their patriotic duty and voted in the recent 2008 Election, the notion introduced above of them individually volunteering to make known publicly how each intended to voted, might have been an effective way for the Bishops to teach — by their actions if not by their words — without the hazard of losing the Church's tax-exempt status.

This would not have required a hurried production of a new document. It would not have required obtaining a consensus among Bishops. And yes, some Bishops may have again essentially remained silent by "voting present" or otherwise refusing to make their voting intentions known. Assuming that among the Bishops there would have been an overwhelming majority of them not voting for Obama, that would have delivered a non-nuanced, perspicuous moral lesson from the Bishops that none of the faithful could misinterpret.

Moreover, as noted, had the Bishops simply revealed their voting preference in a simple list without comment, there should be no basis for attacking the Church's tax-exempt status since it ought to be a right of every America to voluntarily disclose how he votes. Does not the Government give its tacit approval of any citizen voluntarily disclosing his voting intentions to pollsters? Do not pollsters and others then have the right to aggregate and publish poll-predicted results in terms of arbitrarily-defined groups or affiliations?

While there may be some monetary risk to an IRS ruling revoking the Catholic Church's tax-exempt status, how can a financial risk offset the deaths of so many innocent lives that appear certain in an Obama Presidency? Jesus was never afraid to directly confront the Scribes and the Pharisees or even the likes of Herod. If there needs to be a confrontation between the Catholic Church and the IRS about what constitutes a limitation on the rights of the Church to make public statements based on Church teaching, perhaps now is the time to have it.

In His instruction, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" [Mark 12:17], Jesus teaches us to recognize and obey legitimate worldly laws. And yet, in one of the few incidents the Bible tells of Jesus taking physical action against men, another passage says, "Jesus entered the temple area and proceeded to drive out those who were selling things, saying to them, 'It is written, My house shall be a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves'" [Luke 19:45]. Here, He clearly warns us not to let concern for money or worldly things take precedence over prayer, worship, teaching and other spiritual works.

Other Moral strings attached to accepting Government grants and largesse.

Since its inception in 1943, aid rendered by Catholic Relief Services (CRS) in fulfilling the commitment of the Bishops of the United States to assist the poor and vulnerable overseas, should be a matter of immense pride and gratitude to all Catholics and non-Catholics alike. CRS is an organization motivated by the Gospel of Jesus Christ to cherish, preserve and uphold the sacredness and dignity of all human life, foster charity and justice, and to embody Catholic social and moral teaching.

By the late 1950's, CRS delivered 62 percent of all of the U.S. Government food shipped by private voluntary organizations. Remarkably, 94 percent of all CRS operating expenses are expended for programs leaving only 6 percent for what amounts to overhead. In 2005, CRS's total operating revenue was $547 million, of which $388 million was obtained from Government, international organizations and other exchange transactions.

While the good accomplished by CRS is undeniably noteworthy, accepting 100s of millions of dollars from the U.S. Government poses yet another mechanism for wielding an enormous amount of pressure on our Bishops, which can have the effect of limiting what Bishops believe they are allowed to do with regard to pronouncements affecting candidates during elections, as well as in expressing what can be interpreted as critiques of Government actions and policies.

The time has certainly come for the Bishops to unshackle the Church from Government imposed restraints on its ability to explain and apply its moral doctrine. Father Frank Pavone, the National Director of "Priests for Life" supports this contention when he said, "For 35 years much of the pro-life movement has had to fight with one hand tied behind its back because Churches can only do limited lobbying and no political intervention. It's time to take off the handcuffs. The only way to make a difference in the world of politics is to be able to name names during election campaigns and get "down into the mud" of legislative battles.

An Election 2008 "Culture of Life" Postmortem.

Insight into what caused the 2008 Election to turn out as it did, understanding its anti-life impacts and defining a forward-looking response strategy and plan of action can be deduced from the answers to the following:

1. The extent to which Election results are apt to degrade the moral fabric of the nation — and, in particular, whether the results portend a looming "culture of life" crisis,
   
   
2. The extent to which the influence of Judeo-Christian values expressed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence will be diminished or eradicated by new laws, Judiciary decisions and other Government actions,
   
   
3. The extent to which voters possessed properly informed consciences, and
   
   
4. The extent to which voters follow the dictates of their consciences.
   
   

Focusing first on Item 1, with Barack Obama having pledged "The first thing I will do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," it's clear that the limited but hard fought for pro-life progress made in past years — as well as the prognosis for future efforts — has been dealt a devastating blow. Because so many human lives lost through Infanticide and Abortion are at stake, attempts to prevent FOCA from becoming Law, must clearly be the highest priority post-Election action for the Hierarchy, Catholic laity, and all conscientious pro-life supporters.

Attesting to the gravity of the situation, Cardinal George stated that the USCCB will "have to enter into negotiations" with the Obama administration "so that some of our concerns get ironed out." Sadly, since the best time to have negotiated with Obama, that is before the Election, has passed us by, the USCCB's negotiating attempts may be "a day late and a dollar short."

Revealing a more urgent grasp of the consequences of FOCA becoming law, Jeffery T. Kuhner writes in his article "Obama vs. Pope Benedict", "President-elect Barack Obama's plan to pass the Freedom of Choice Act is setting up a showdown with the Vatican. . . . Mr. Obama signing the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) 'would be the equivalent of a war,' a senior Vatican official told Time magazine last week." (Kuhner's article is at http://www.washingtontimes.com /news/2008/nov/30/obama-vs-pope-benedict/print/ )

With respect to the diminishing impact of Judeo-Christian values (Item 2), inroads made over the past few decades to fund abortion with public funds, to endow lesbians and gays with special rights, to remove all traces of religion from the public square, the election of Obama — in spite of his pledge to Planned Parenthood — and numerous other examples, evidence is mounting that the Judeo-Christian influence, which shaped our Country from its beginnings, is under attack, and slowly but surely being eradicated.

Since by far the majority of Americans subscribe to traditional Judeo-Christian tenets, the diminishing relevance can only be explained by admitting that the minorities promoting secularization of our laws, of our Judicial decisions, of Government actions and even our Constitution, are far better organized and vocal, and thus far more effective in "marketing" their position to the public, and to those running the Government, than their Jewish and Christian counterparts.

In fact, groups promoting secularization are even more effective in reaching the "general public" than groups representing Judeo-Christian beliefs are in reaching members of their own sects. As an example, Catholic voters alone had a reasonably opportunity to drastically change Election 2008 results had the combination of official Church sponsored and other pro-life promotion groups been even marginally more effective in reaching just the Jewish and Christian voters.

That this is true is evident from the following simple numerical example which indicates what the results of the 2008 Election might have been had the Bishops been able to convince more of their laity of the moral repugnance of voting for a candidate supporting Infanticide and Abortion. Among 88 million Americans who voted in 2008, about one in four, or 22 million, were Catholic. Understanding McCain lost by 8.5 million votes, if roughly 4.3 million more Catholics had voted for McCain, meaning 4.3 million fewer votes for Obama — then Obama would have lost the popular vote.

In that case, instead of 44 percent of Catholics voting pro-life for McCain, 66 percent would have voted for him, and while it is the Electoral College that determines the ultimate winner — certainly had the Bishops been more successful in inculcating the Catholic Church's culture of life doctrine within the hearts of just its own lay-members, a McCain win was a doable feat.

As to Item 3, that is, the extent to which Election 2008 voters possessed properly informed consciences, the point has already been made that although the responsibility of cultivating "properly informed" consciences ultimately rests with each individual, success is always a function of access to reliable and trustworthy information and, perhaps even more so, the guidance of competent spiritual directors (be they religious or lay) who help individuals properly discover and assimilate truths contained in that information. Overall, it is the Church's appointed and authoritative teachers — the Bishops — who bear the lion's share of responsibility of ensuring that all of the faithful have the best and most explicit instruction and explication of the Church's culture of life doctrine upon which all consciences can truly be "properly informed."

Regarding Item 4, first let us assume that the vast majority of Catholics (and all voters) follow the dictates of their consciences, whether properly informed or not. (To hold otherwise would indict the majority of all voters of intentional evil.) Inasmuch as the majority of Catholics and other voters did vote for Obama, then under the assumption that these voters did follow the dictates of their consciences, one must conclude that they felt no moral obligation to refrain from voting for a candidate who openly and proudly advocates Infanticide and Abortion. The pivotal question then becomes, did or did not this majority of voters actually possess truly informed consciences?

In attempting to answer that question, recall what the Bishops who did not remain silent actually taught. For example, recall Bishops Kevin Vann and Kevin Farrell's insistence that there are no "'truly grave moral' or 'proportionate' reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year." Now there are only two possibilities. Either those bishops are teaching the truth, or they are not.

Assuming Bishops Vann and Kevin to be teaching the truth, then if the vast majority of people did vote with clear consciences one can come to only one conclusion. That is, the reason Obama won the election was because the majority of people, Catholics and others, did not have properly informed consciences!

For those who agree with that conclusion, it should be clear that the most importunate and crucial post-Election actions the Church and all people with life-affirming beliefs must take — fall into these two categories:

1. Bishops — and all pro-lifers — doing everything possible to prevent the Freedom of Choice Act from becoming law, and
   
   
2. Bishops — and all who can personally reach out to other souls — doing everything possible to enlighten and uplift the souls of all people currently struggling under the scourge of a miss-belief that they have properly informed consciences — when in fact they don't.
   
   

Where do we go next? What specific post-2008 Election actions should be taken?

Steps to prevent FOCA enactment.

Let's begin considering what could or should be done to prevent FOCA from becoming law with some excerpts of Chuck Colson's November 7, 2008 BreakPoint article, Election Results, Opportunity Unlimited, which summarizes his assessment of the post-Election 2008 state of affairs. Colson begins, "Over the last few days, I have been besieged with calls from Christian friends in deep despair over the election. I understand the feeling. The President-elect, along with his newly strengthened allies in Congress, opposes almost every pro-life and pro-family position conservative Evangelicals and conservative Catholics have fought for so hard.

"The election was tough in another way, as well. We lost some good friends in Congress. I think particularly of Robin Hayes, an outstanding Christian Congressman from North Carolina. And Marilyn Musgrove from Colorado, who courageously led the initiative for the marriage amendment and was targeted by gay activists, who spent $14 million dollars to defeat her.

"But as I told the hand-wringers who called me, we must never despair. It is a sin to deny the sovereignty of God. We just have to learn how to live differently. But I'll talk more about that in the future. . . . . Having said that — I have my differences with the incoming President and the majorities in Congress — and I, for one, will continue for one to fight hard for the unborn and for traditional marriage, among other issues. So don't give up, or retreat into your sanctuaries, as some are suggesting."

Beyond Colson's general encouragement to rally our forces despite the challenges posed by the Election, Father Pavone adds his own optimistic viewpoint and has defined specific steps his organization plans to take to advance the culture of life in the United States in a paper entitled "Post Election 2008 Strategy." (That Paper is at http://www.priestsforlife.org/elections/post-election-2008.htm )

Father Pavone begins by saying, "First thing to remember: The election of Barack Obama as President is not the end of the world. The pro-life movement survived eight years of Bill and Hillary Clinton. We will survive the next four years under Barack Obama.

"That said, Priests for Life will NOT waver or weaken in the face of an Obama Presidency. Rather, Priests for Life will be more radical and more aggressive in our fight to end abortion. We will employ tactics we were hesitant to use in the past."

While it is not possible to present the details of Father Pavone's plan, the categories or steps he contemplates are listed here:

Grassroots Work:

• Alternatives to abortion.
  
  
• Showing America the consequences of abortion.
  
  
• Stage media events that force Americans to see the corruption of the abortion industry.
  
  
• Help organize mass demonstrations.
  
  
• Give women harmed by abortion a platform for speaking out.
  
  
• Get local.
  
  
• Launch a lobbying organization to be the voice of the unborn before lawmakers.
  
  
• Increase the use of technology, especially those relating to the Internet.
  
  

Church Work:

• Encouraging the Institutional Church to take the lead in the fight to end abortion.
  
  
• Continue to advance pro-life collaboration across denominational lines.
  
  

Clearly, even without the details, there is no questions that the activities and organizations Father Pavone envisions constitute an excellent point-of-departure for an all-out, USCCB supported, Church-wide and inter-denominational effort to create a groundswell of public support as well as the support of key government officials and departments to defeat passage of FOCA.

Individuals seeking ways to help stop FOCA might find as a convenient starting point participating in the "Fight FOCA" petition being promoted by the legislative arm of Americans United for Life (AUL). AUL has established the Internet site http://www.fightfoca.com/ for that purpose. The importance of the issue is evidenced by the fact that a Google search for FOCA already returns over 4 million results.

Steps to heal and help correct good souls with ill-informed consciences.

If because of the large number of human lives at risk, blocking enactment of FOCA is a post-election first priority, how could anyone argue a second or equal priority attempt to uplift and properly inform the souls of 65,431,955 of our fellow Americans — including millions of Catholics — who this past November cast their votes for the man Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver called "the most committed 'abortion-rights' presidential candidate of either major party since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973."

A philosopher once mused that in terms of learning, people fall into three categories — those who know and know they know; those who don't know and know they don't know; and those who don't know and don't know they don't know. We follow those in the first category since it is from them that our most capable leaders arise. Those in the second are usually eager to learn. Especially when dealing with moral questions, it's dealing with those who "who don't know and don't know they don't know" that pose the greatest challenge. When they become leaders they lead us into error. When they remain on the sidelines they are apt to vote for, support and follow misguided leaders.

These categories come to mind as we ponder ways to approach those who see no moral transgression or harm in supporting Presidential, Congressional and other candidates — as well as already elected officials — who promote Infanticide and Abortion. During the Advent 2008 season as we prepared to deal with the adverse culture of life impacts of the Election, it was perhaps more than a coincidence that on December 9, we celebrated the feast day of Saint Juan Diego.

Saint Juan, a Chicemeca Indian, was born in 1474 in what is now Mexico City and lived among the Aztecs. At its pinnacle Aztec culture had rich and complex mythological and religious traditions, as well as reaching remarkable architectural and artistic accomplishments. However, just as our society is confronted with the evil and wretched consequences of Infanticide and Abortion, the people of Juan's era had to cope with that striking element of Aztec culture which saw nothing immoral about, and therefore practiced, rites of human sacrifice.

At 57 years of age and a newly baptized Catholic, Juan walked every Saturday and Sunday many miles to church, departing before dawn to be on time for Mass and religious instruction classes. On chilly mornings he wore a tilma or ayate — a coarse-woven cactus cloth as a mantle. During his walks on December 9, 10 and 12, 1531, the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared as the pregnant Mother of God to Juan and speaking to him in his native language, Nahuatl, instructed him to ask his Bishop to build a "little house" where the cries and heartbreak of the oppressed could rise to God.

At first Juan's bishop was strongly opposed and asked for a sign that his story was true.

On December 12, Our Lady appeared to Juan on Tepeyac Hill and told him to pick the Castilian roses which miraculously appeared there and bring them to the Bishop as a sign for him to believe her request. Juan gathered the roses into his tilma and brought them to the Bishop.

When Juan opened the tilma to show them, to everyone's astonishment, a Miraculous Image of Our Lady appeared on it (which still exists today for all to see in the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City). The Bishop then built the church as Our Lady had requested and, incredibly, nine million people were converted and baptized within the next nine years. Human sacrifice ended in Mexico forever. Our Lady of Guadalupe, which means Crusher of the stone serpent, brought the light of the true faith, crushed the false gods of Mexico and established an era of peace.

The lessons we can learn from what took place in Juan's era is the realization that putting an end to the horrendous loss of life from the practice of Infanticide and Abortion today will require a similarly large scale evangelization and conversion effort — first among people who already identify themselves as Catholics and Christians, and then to the extent possible, among non-believers of every stripe who now support a radical secularism that refuses to classify Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide, Infanticide, Abortion, Embryonic Cell Destruction, and Genocide as murder.

In his homily for the Canonization of Saint Juan at the Basilica of Guadalupe, Mexico on July 31, 2002, Pope John Paul II endorsed this need for evangelization (i.e., teaching the Word of God especially by preaching or missionary work), when he said, "'The Guadalupe Event', as the Mexican Episcopate has pointed out, 'meant the beginning of evangelization with a vitality that surpassed all expectations. Christ's message, through his Mother, took up the central elements of the indigenous culture, purified them and gave them the definitive sense of salvation'. Consequently Guadalupe and Juan Diego have a deep ecclesial and missionary meaning and are a model of perfectly inculturated evangelization."

If we are to take John Paul II's admonition that evangelization will be crucial in achieving our post-Election goals seriously, it is essential for us to also recognize that the type of missionary activities which successfully lead to evangelization in modern, highly developed and industrialized countries is markedly different from what worked in the past.

Traditionally, the first step in teaching about the one, true God, was by way of the example set by the missionaries working among the indigent people they served. To gain acceptance, to "get the ear" of such people, typically missionaries first worked corporal works of mercy among them — administering medical aid, teaching them to read, helping them learn modern agriculture or industrial techniques. Thus they first taught the Word of God by their example, with the more "pulpit-like" evangelizing often occurring much later.

Understanding the missionary frontier in the future will be in highly developed and modern societies — societies that may have had religiously centered cultures for centuries but have fallen prey to secularized, or worse yet, atheistic philosophies and forms of governments — our first step must be to realize that surest and most effective way to "get the ear" of modern day pagans, is to appeal to and interact with them via prime time major TV media, talk radio, the Internet or all three. It is generally accepted that because of television's pervasive and subtle impact on huge segments of our population, it has been instrumental in the deterioration moral standards. For the same reasons, used properly TV is also the best and is perhaps the only mechanism that can be as successful in restoring our culture as it's been in degrading it.

Time tested ways to successfully Evangelize in this modern era.

As an accomplished expert using the Internet, radio and other prevailing media in getting religious mores reflected in the public domain, Chuck Colson also seems to agree with the notion of beginning our work with Christians by saying "More than ever we need to rally our own forces. Remember, politics is but an expression of culture; and culture is religion incarnate. So, if there is a collapse in politics, the place to fix it is by equipping the Saints. Christians defending and living their faith can rebuild a culture which gives us healthy politics."

In constructing a strategy and a plan to bring to an end the erosion of the moral fiber of our Country and to ensure that Judeo-Christian values are again reflected in our nation's culture, we should follow the guidance of both John Paul II and Chuck Colson. That is, if we hope to duplicate the scale of a Juan Diego-like success in eradicating human sacrifice, then with regard to the Church's culture of life doctrine we must pursue a vigorous, all-out evangelization effort to promulgate the truth — the Word of God — and we must, as Colson recommends, begin with the Saints.

Unfortunately, in the past and particularly during the Election 2008 campaign, instead of clearly and explicitly communicating (evangelizing) this message to Catholics and others using the powerful force of modern media and technology, as afore noted, most Bishops chose to rely solely on the "hands-off" distribution of their Faithful Citizenship booklet — which again as noted, many critics contend had exactly the opposite affect by leading its readers astray. Even Cardinal George expressed the feeling that something must have gone wrong. Referring to "off-the-record" sessions the Bishops would hold during their three-day meeting, Julia Duin quoted Cardinal George as saying, "We're going to discuss what worked and didn't work. We will have to come back and ask whether or not the way we've taught has been helpful."

Cardinal George's declaration that "The recent election was principally decided out of concern for the economy, for the loss of jobs and homes and financial security for families, here and around the world" describes how and why voters voted as they did, but it leaves unanswered the question "why" — even for Catholic voters — the "economy" trumped the intrinsic "moral guilt" of intentionally voting for a candidate who openly and proudly promotes Infanticide and Abortion.

One hopes that in searching for "what worked and didn't work," Cardinal George now appears prepared to admit that simply publishing Faithful Citizenship "did not work." However, in light of his earlier assessment that "the economy, not their teachings, was to blame" that assumption may not be defendable.

While it is certainly true that the Catholic Church's long-established culture of life doctrine, — versions of which were contained in letters written by Bishops who chose to not remain silent — are without fault, what is at issue here is whether or not, in toto, the method that Bishops chose to communicate doctrinal truths to voters effectively prepared them to make a morally correct voting choice. The fact that 56 percent of Catholic voters voted for Obama (while notably only 53 percent of all voters voted for Obama), suggests that even if Catholic Bishops believe their teaching to be blameless, post-Election statistics prove them wrong.

Why is this true? Because in terms of pedagogically sound principles, "teaching" success can never be measured solely in terms of the validity and truth of what is being taught, but rather in terms of how well and to what extent the truths have been imparted to — and learned by — those being instructed. Surely, in the case of this last election, the most reliable and unbiased measure of the Bishops success regarding their Infanticide and Abortion teaching is the percent of Catholics who voted pro-life. In a broader sense, a low percentage of Catholic voters voting pro-life is also an indication of the overall failure in the Church's mission to be a positive influence on the moral fabric of the nation.

Reflecting on the substantial pro-life progress and the potentially very large number of human lives that would be saved if a wholly plausible McCain win had taken place, let us hope that when the Bishops held their discussion about "what worked and what didn't work" with regard to their teaching, that they eventually concluded (as Obama's winning mantra did) that "significant changes are needed." But, whereas Obama merely selected obvious problem areas and then slyly promised "change" without saying what or how the changes would be made, the Bishops must thoughtfully define and prioritize what evangelization methods need to be changed and specify unambiguously the steps to be taken to successfully make them.

Specific Evangelization efforts the Bishops hopefully will undertake.

At a minimum, let's hope the Bishops will agree to a resolution that in the future, when essential matters of faith and morals are at stake in elections or in any other way or time, that allowing Ordinaries in 70 percent of Dioceses to remain silent is just not an option — that no amount of outside pressure will stop them from preaching the Truth.

In looking back, the improperly-informed consciences of many souls can largely be traced to improperly invoking guidance found in Faithful Citizenship that reads, "There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil." In terms of how this affects "who" one should vote for, the media often refers to this guidance as "arguments of proportionality" — that is, factors judged sufficient to trump or "proportionally" supercede other factors that would otherwise preclude a person from voting in good conscience for a particular anti-life candidate.

So it seems that a highly effective and appropriate approach to enlighten and uplift souls burdened with improperly-informed consciences would be for the Bishops to first assemble a list of the major issues that caused those souls to fall into error. Next, they should provide a detailed, step-by-step analysis of how and why, each of the issues that led Catholics astray — when properly subjected to the scrutiny of principles defined in Faithful Citizenship — in fact failed to meet legitimate "proportionality argument" requirements.

In developing the teaching examples, since the Election is over there should be no "loss of tax-exempt status" concerns. So the evaluations can be made in terms of illustrations based on the platforms, positions and specific statements made by John McCain and Barack Obama and other candidates. (If the Bishops find that Faithful Citizenship guidance is currently inadequate to support such judgments, they can then focus on remedial action or conclude that some other mechanism of counseling the faithful is required, and put it in place.)

Finally, they need to prepare and promulgate their explanations and instructions which refute errors that led to improperly-informed consciences to the widest possible audiences — using all appropriate forms of media — in the hopes that all Catholics and all other voters benefit from them.

And what are some of these issues that led to error? As the Bishops point out, one example that gravely influenced Catholic voters is "the economy." And yet it should be clear that even if Obama is able to achieve a "startling" short-term improvement in our economy, we should be mindful that historically nations embracing a culture of death eventually end up impoverished and worse yet doomed. Put more succinctly and powerfully, Blessed Mother Teresa "equates" Infanticide and Abortion with poverty by teaching "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." In short, the economy can never "proportionately" trump Infanticide and Abortion.

Another factor cited by Catholic voters including nuns and priests, is that they saw the avoidance of "wars in Iraq or Afghanistan" and attendant loss of lives, as a "proportionality argument" justifying voting for a candidate supporting Infanticide and Abortion. For example, Sister Patricia McCann, a Catholic nun... who volunteered for Obama, opposes abortion but said "many other 'life' issues, such as ending the war in Iraq, make her an enthusiastic Obama backer." A poignant refutation of this contention is again made by Mother Teresa herself who counsels, "But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child — a direct killing of the innocent child — murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? (See also the article "The truth about Biden's tacit and overt approval of the Iraq war" that refutes such arguments and speaks to how the Iraq War has saved far more lives than have been lost in combat at http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/pecar/080920 ).

Still other folks reason that regardless of who is elected, because Roe v Wade has survived since 1973, there is no hope of ever eradicating Infanticide/Abortion in the United States. Thus, to them, a candidate's pro-death stance ceases to even be a factor at all in selecting a candidate.

Clearly, the Bishops must provide knowledgeable personnel and the means to ferret out additional "proportionality" and other misguided arguments posed on any other basis that led Catholics and other voters to justify their votes for Obama. Once at least all of the major arguments are identified, indisputable refutations must be compiled and structured in such a convincing and lucid manner that even unlettered laypersons, with no formal moral philosophy backgrounds, cannot miss the point.

It is assumed that a modern high technology media, like high-definition TV during prime-time would be used to communicate these instructions to the widest possible spectrum of viewers. Moreover, it is hoped that the USCCB would identify among themselves a "clone" of the late Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, who for example was a recognized authority figure with the talent to garnish not merely acceptance, but a star-like attraction that enabled him to out-draw all other competing individuals and programs — including the then "King of Television" and very gifted Milton Berle.

To facilitate the spreading of His Gospel to the ends of the earth, Christ chose to come into the World and preach at the crossroads of the Eastern and Western parts of the World. Certainly the most effective way of proclaiming the Gospel worldwide today, and perhaps as already alluded to, the only practical way of reaching those who are currently non-believers or those who are lax-non-Church-going believers, is through the same pervasive Internet and prime-time TV broadcast programs, that, on balance, have been so instrumental in the degradation of our culture.

On the basis of both Bishop Sheen's success and popularity and Mother Angelica's pioneering work at EWTN, it is safe to assume that both of them were driven by and convinced that modern media has an indispensable role to play in 20th and 21st Century Evangelization. As a long-term objective, the Church should build on these pioneering successes and produce not just catechetical but drama, other entertainment, news, broadly-based commentary "talk" programming for broadcast on prime-time TV, Radio and the Internet.

Just as Hallmark has created a highly successful enterprise in broadcasting by and large morally edifying programs, the Church could offset the costs to produce and present such spirit-lifting programs — as Hallmark has — through sponsoring advertiser revenues. The goal should include a presence on all cable and satellite distributions systems — and possibly Church-owned broadcasting and Internet site assets.

What we are facing today is comparable to the circa 470 A.D. physical attacks by Goth, Viking and other barbarian hoards that attempted to destroy Europe, with the exception that beyond physically destroying Churches and burning libraries, we face a sometimes imperceptible "virtual" attack on the minds and hearts of all men. This is being done with the objective of not only purging the use of Judeo-Christian values as guiding principles in national constitutions, in a country's laws and in its legislative and administrative actions, but ultimately by totally "cleansing" religious influence from the ethos.

Moreover, those launching attacks to eradicate any religious influences on a culture, those that would eventually deny the rights of all people to freely and publicly practice their religions, are not limited to outside aggressors, but rather may include indigenous government officials and other powerful individuals and a myriad of special interest groups.

Likewise it is important that we do not ignore the threat to Judeo-Christian values posed by religious sects seeking conversion by force (including the current breed of Islamofacists that see nothing wrong in the slaughter of innocent non-combatants through suicide or roadside bombs) as well as the imposition on secular laws, rules based on aspects of their own peculiar beliefs (again for example the Ouran's Sharia).

The surest way to lose the culture war is not just refusing to fight, but refusing to fight with all one's might. In terms of the last Election, the only thing worse than remaining silent before the Election — would be to remain silent after the Election. Let us sincerely implore God Almighty that He motivate all religious people — lay folk too but especially the Hierarchy — that they not let the disaster of this looming Culture of Life crisis happen.

© Joseph Pecar