Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on Pinterest Connect on Google Plus Connect on LinkedIn

Welcome to the House of Moral Dilemma

August 27, AD2016

denial

I am totally astonished how any Catholic, professing to be faithful, could vote for Hillary Clinton. No amount of mental gymnastics has allowed me to understand how Hillary Clinton, and apparently those that support her, have no shame before God in promoting the horrendous evils of abortion, attacks on the family, and outright collusion against the Catholic Church. In this article, I will attempt to outline which Catholics vote for Hillary and what that vote represents in terms of participation in evil acts.

Pro-Hillary Catholics

It’s clear there are several groups of Catholics who justify voting for Hillary Clinton for different reasons, so let’s not make the mistake of lumping everyone together into one big bucket. Obviously, not all pro-Hillary Catholics fall into the groups provided below; however, this is a good general analysis.

Group 1Seamless Garment Catholics: These Catholics in effect apply the provision described above whereby they see a proportionate reason to vote for Hillary, in spite of her evil positions. Much of the logic comes from seeing abortion as a part of a “seamless garment,” or spectrum of life issues that are all equivalent. For instance, many cite a concern for feeding the poor, or finding justice for the immigrant, racial issues, and concern for treatment of workers as “pro-life” reasons to vote for Hillary, and against other candidates.  They simply overlook the other things.

Group 2Dissident Catholics: These Catholics vote by the demand of their consciences, but their consciences are not formed by Church teaching. That is, they have decided that certain Catholic teachings do not apply in their life, for one reason or another, or they just simply reject the authority of the Church. This is what is known in the Catechism as “false autonomy of conscience” and is referenced in CCC 1792. In other words, the Holy Spirit will never prompt anyone privately to disagree with a public teaching of the Church. Thus, regardless of what the Catholic Church has taught perennially, they will go their own way in an act of incredulity, heresy, or schism.  See CCC 2089.

Group 3 – Ignorant Catholics: These Catholics have never been taught the tenets of the faith, or the importance of obedience to the Church. In some cases, this ignorance is through no fault of their own. However, the Church teaches that isn’t always an excuse.  See CCC 1791-1794. More on forming moral consciences can be found in the USSCB Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship Booklet found here, and in the EWTN Voter’s Guide found here.

Voting for Laws and Candidates

At this point, it may be useful to distinguish between (a) voting for an intrinsically immoral law, and (b) voting for a candidate that supports intrinsically immoral public policy. (An intrinsic moral evil is something that’s always evil – for every person, in every time and in every place.)  The magisterium of the Catholic Church has only denounced the first as always being sinful. Around the time of the 2004 presidential campaign, Cardinal Ratzinger said that it is also sinful to vote for a candidate who supports intrinsic moral evils if you vote for them because of their support for these evils. He also said that it could be excusable remote material cooperation in sin if one voted for that candidate if one sees some other proportionate reason for voting for that candidate in spite of their support of an intrinsic evil. It should be noted that in the same 2004 paper, Cardinal Ratzinger as the head of the CDF also said that not all moral issues have the same weight as abortion and euthanasia. Thus not all pieces of the seamless garment are proportional.

The Democrat Platform: Rotten to the Core

Let’s be crystal clear about this: Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party platform represent the advancement of what St. Pope John Paul II called the “Culture of Death.” It is the opposite of the Culture of Life. It seeks to advance policies which not only kill the innocent, the unborn and aged, but through systemic lies about what it means to be human erodes marriage, family, and the authority of the Church. Hillary’s administration will not only continue the many dastardly policies of the Obama administration, but will turn up the volume on this persecution. She has promised it. What do I mean? Let me be specific. I am speaking of support for abortion, continued persecution of Christians who do not wish to participate in so-called “gay marriages” under the guise of discrimination, persecution of ministries of the Catholic Church by forcing them with a thinly veiled accommodation to purchase abortifacient birth control drugs, a continued push for public policy which not only allows but promotes sexual license and perversion, enslavement of the poor in a perpetual state of dependency, and support for embryonic stem cell research. What is promised is a continuation of all these things and a continued erosion of the first and second amendments.  If you don’t believe me, examine what happened at the Democratic National Convention this year.

At the DNC, the Democrats completely removed any doubt about their full bore support for abortion. Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood, was seated next to former President Bill Clinton in the stands and later gave a key speech to the cheers of the delegates. The full truth was revealed as we witnessed the delegates vote into the party platform several key changes. The word “rare” was removed from the slogan of abortions that are “safe, legal, and rare.” Additionally, a promise was made to repeal the Hyde and Hunt amendments, those laws that prevent federal funding of abortions domestically and overseas. Abortion was declared to be a fundamental element of healthcare for every man, woman, and child. The Democrat platform has gone from one mention of abortion at Barack Obama’s first convention, to now a total of 19 separate declarations.

One particularly disturbing example of this at the recent DNC was President of NARAL Ilyse Hogue who proudly declared that she had an abortion, smiled, and raised her two hands in triumph as the crowd cheered. I couldn’t help but think of the crowds cheering the death of Jesus, another innocent who did nothing to deserve being the victim of another famous political execution.

The Democrats also quietly removed support for faith-based programs. This hasn’t been widely reported, except by Bill Donohue, president of the civil rights group the Catholic League. This is compatible with Hillary Clinton’s promise on several occasions that Christians must change their beliefs to accommodate abortion and gay marriage.

Welcome to the House of Moral Dilemma

In thinking through these moral dilemmas, from the perspective of the three groups described above, I have sought to provide a model which could help these Catholics avoid the evils of Hillary and today’s Democrats. While I am not a trained moral theologian, I believe the “house of moral dilemma” analogy provides a good framework with which to apply Catholic moral teaching.

Imagine a house. It’s the house of moral dilemma. It has a front door, a roof, a back door, a basement, and rooms inside. There is a party on the back deck to which you are invited. It’s a party where you celebrate a sound moral decision which is pleasing to God. All invited guests must enter through the front door.

You approach the front porch. On it are many different flower pots, promising the supposed “good things” Hillary Clinton will bring the United States. Peace. Tranquility. Prosperity. Happiness. Freedom. Upon approaching the door, you can see inside the house. In the front room, you can see paintings representing the Democrat platform. Some are nice paintings of happy poor people, but some are portraits of Margaret Sanger and Cecile Richards. Curious, you open the door, and enter. While the house is beautifully decorated, there is a stench. It’s the stink of the abortion for any reason, and the fetid odor of attacks on family and the Church. What isn’t visible is what’s in the basement: the corpses of 60 million unborn children killed since 1973, those who were convinced that a gay lifestyle was healthy for them and died of terrible diseases, those millions of poor enslaved through entitlement programs since the Great Society was instituted, and now, if various emails are to be believed, election manipulation and collusion with enemies of the United States.

Holding your nose, you venture further into the house. Social programs to help the poor are represented by lovely pies and cakes in the kitchen, and pans of savory food for the needy immigrant are there on the table. Jobs for the unemployed are represented by fresh fruit. Unfortunately, as you enter the kitchen the filth from the front rooms are still on your shoes, and it won’t come off.  It marks up the floor and the flies that are attracted begin to spoil the good things there.

The door to the back deck is there, and it’s open a crack. The question is: can you go to the party where you celebrate making a sound moral decision with this fetid muck on your shoes?

Speaking In Plain Language

It doesn’t take a genius to see that the literal killing of someone (the unborn or the aged) has a greater weight in the moral calculus of deciding for whom we should vote than other issues. If you’re dead, you have no need for food stamps (which is precisely why the Democrats reason it’s good to kill babies: to spare them from poverty). One cannot simply vote for a candidate because they are “nice to poor people” in spite of what is now a totally pro-abortion platform: on demand, removing the Hunt and Hyde amendments, up until the moment of birth. This decision process is like entering a house, a house of moral doctrine. If you encounter abortion, euthanasia, pro-gay marriage, and attacks on the Church in the foyer or front living room, then there is no cause to proceed to the back deck for the barbecue. The only moral decision is to turn right around and leave the house.

No Catholic in Good Conscience Can Vote for Hillary Clinton

In conclusion, it’s clear to me that one cannot vote for Hillary Clinton and remain unstained by the great evils she and the Democrats aspire to advance in the United States if elected. Hillary Clinton will be elected if the same 60% of self-professed Catholics vote for her as did for President Obama. Those votes have a direct impact on whether or not she is elected. And whether or not she is elected has a direct impact on those evil policies getting advanced. There is no way around it. For Catholics who are ignorant of what the Church teaches, or simply believe they can pay attention to one part of the “seamless garment” and ignore very serious other parts, and for those who dissent, I implore you to reconsider your positions. Do not be a part of advancing what St. Pope John Paul II called “the Culture of Death,” which promotes the moral and physical death of Americans and erosion of their dignity as human beings.  Be a part of promoting authentic Gospel-based Catholic teaching, which promotes a consistent ethic of life in the United States and around the world.

Photography: See our Photographers page.

About the Author:

James Hooper is a lifelong Catholic, and is blessed with a wonderful wife and child. Jim was was graced with a profound reversion experience in 2011, with a strong calling to know God, obey His Church, and spread the Gospel to seeking souls. His evangelical outreach has focused on online apologetics, street evangelization, and communications strategies. Jim is a team leader for Saint Paul Street Evangelization in Downtown St. Louis and Belleville, IL, and the Director of Communications for St. Mary of Victories Church in St. Louis. Jim is a fervent supporter of the Covenant Catholic Radio Network in St. Louis (http://covenantnet.net), and has evangelized on the air several times. Professionally, Jim is the Leader of a Business Architecture team at a large Catholic Health Ministry. He has a Master of Science Degree in Management Information Systems from Saint Louis University, and is a certified Project Management Professional (PMP).

If you enjoyed this essay, subscribe below to receive a daily digest of all our essays.

Thank you for supporting us!

  • S.L. Hansen

    Uh, yeah, but you left out any discussion about the moral dilemmas in voting for Trump.

    • newenglandsun

      If we do not vote for one, we do not have to vote for the other. If both are immoral, we’d be participating in their sin to vote for them.

    • Jim H.

      The analysis should include which “intrinsic moral evils” each candidate espouses, and will be likely to advance. Being an immoral person does not necessarily make a candidate immoral to vote for. For instance Trump’s divorces and past have nothing to do with whether he is most likely to advance those things as public policy. Hillary on the other hand rolls around in intrinsic moral evil – there’s no way you could get that stink off of you if you voted for her. With Trump, as obnoxious as he is to some, we at least are protecting the United States supreme court from radical liberal justices who will plague this nation for 40 years.

    • newenglandsun

      How do you tell if a politician is lying? He’s moving his lips. Many don’t trust Trump to carry through on his plans regarding abortion. Regardless, he also insists on de-gender-segregated bathrooms.

    • Jim H.

      True about politicians. However, many believe Mr. Trump has had a metanoia, a change of heart. He recently appointed a very well known pro-life advocate as campaign manager, and his VP is crowing that they will overturn roe-v-wade. I think that’s the best its going to get. We didn’t’ get that kind of language from Romney or Bush.

      The important thing is to stop Hillary. As the article describes, she is evil to the core on this issue. Abortion will be forced upon us, as will many other evils.

      The erosion of religious freedom is also probably the 500 pound gorilla. I wish I had covered it more fully in the article.

    • newenglandsun

      True. But it seems like a gamble with Trump. To me, it seems better to just pray for the merciful destruction of our nation. I’m not a gambler.

    • tomte

      True… assuming that Trump is not lying to us regarding his proposed Supreme Court choices.
      Certainly Hillary revels in the destruction of innocent life, bows down to Abortion Inc.
      Trump is not so thoroughly demonic through and through (talk about damning him with faint praise, ha, ha!)
      Trump is a real mystery though… I just don’t know how to call it with him.

    • Jim H.

      Trump isn’t discussed because this article is about Hillary and the Demoncrats.

    • S.L. Hansen

      The headline is general and doesn’t indicate that it’s only about Democrats.

    • Jim H.

      Our apologies. We had hoped you’d get that idea from the first sentence.

    • S.L. Hansen

      Nothing in the first sentence that says that only Democrats face a moral dilemma. I was expecting a segue into talking about how Republicans also have a moral dilemma. And independents like me do as well.

    • Jim H.

      Perhaps I will write a second article applying the Moral House analogy to Trump. My goal in this article was to inform Catholics about Hillary, and to introduce the House of Moral Dilemma.

  • Funny- I’m out and out Group 1, yet I can’t vote for Hillary or any Democrat. Why? Because when it comes to feeding the poor, stopping wars, or heck, even getting rid of Gitmo, they are as reliable as a Republican claiming that a vote for him will end abortion.

    As in none at all.

    My vote- Mike Mautren, of the American Solidarity Party.

    • newenglandsun

      Vladimir Putin–of Russia–for me.

  • Barbara Durand

    The only party with a pro life platform in 2016 is the Constitution Party.

    • Tony
    • Most is not equal to 100%, and Republicans have earned themselves a reputation for ignoring the pro-life planks of their platform once elected whenever shiny new tax breaks are dangled before their crony capitalist eyes.

      The Democrats do the same with welfare whenever the livelihood of Planned Parenthood is threatened.

    • Tony

      Agreed. The Republican party is deficient with regard to pro-life issues. They treat pro-lifers like the Democrats treat African-Americans. They know they have our vote, and they don’t have to ultimately do what we want. We need to teach them a lesson and my preferred lesson to teach is going to be Donald Trump.

    • The problem being that Donald Trump has lived a life that is basically the opposite of the reason I’m pro-life. From his questionable business ethics to his sexual escapades to his outsourcing of fatherhood, he’s anything but a pro-life champion.

    • Tony

      Of course he’s not as pro-life as you might like. But he has said he would appoint Constitutionalists to the Supreme Court. Hillary will not. She will appoint progressive judicial activists. Trump seems to be nominally pro-life. Hillary doesn’t think a child 5 minutes before birth has human rights. And he seems to have been a good dad (according to his children) and he gets along with all of their mothers.

      I like to say it’s a choice between Dennis the Menace and the daughter of Satan.

    • “But he has said he would appoint Constitutionalists to the Supreme Court.”

      And that is where his business ethics come into play. There is a reason why subcontractors should NEVER do work for any company with “Trump” in the name- what is written in the contract is never what the final payment is.

      It’s more like Charles Ponzi vs the daughter of Satan (notice which one I changed….)

    • newenglandsun

      Trump, as a businessman, cannot be trusted. OTOH, he hasn’t attempted to sway the pro-abortionists at all. There is something demonic going on though nevertheless. With both of them.

    • newenglandsun

      Seeber is right. Both candidates are demonic. #NeverVoting

    • Tony

      Good, you cast a half a vote for each.

    • newenglandsun

      Hardly. More like -1 for both if that was possible. A vote for one is a vote for one not necessarily a vote against the other. A vote for one or the other is still counted participation in their evils.

      If Belphegor and Molech were running, would you vote for either of them even if one was a “lesser evil”? Evil is nothingness and so evil cannot be measured. There is no “lesser evil”. There is nothing and nothing.

      You want to vote for nothing?

    • Tony

      After this election is over, you are either going to get your wallet stolen or get shot in the head. If you sit out the election, stupider people than you are going to determine what happens to you, whether you get your wallet stolen, or get shot in the head. I prefer to cast my vote for Trump to make it 1 vote harder for Hillary to shoot me in the head. No matter who you vote for, one of those two outcomes is going to happen.

    • newenglandsun

      I highly doubt that’s going to happen and if it does because I refused to burn incense to either of the demons, at least I’ll die a martyr and then you’ll be praying for my intercession on behalf of you for actually committing idolatry.

    • Tony

      And you can explain to your children what happened to their 1st, 2nd, 5th, 10th and 14th amendments under a Clinton court.

    • newenglandsun

      God’s will will be done. I cannot change that from occurring. The U.S. is not my country but the Church is. If the U.S. divorces itself from the authority of the Church, it is my business to flee it lest I partake in its sins or be counted in its plagues.

    • Jim H.

      Mmm, I think you need to do some reading about your duty to promote Christ the King in the society in which you live. We live in the world, and are not able to just check out as you are suggesting. Our actions and our lack of actions matter.

      The United States has never been married to the authority of the Church. We must do the best we can to promote Christian values by participating.

    • newenglandsun

      You may want to read Rev. 18–“get out of her my people”.
      Jesus also commanded his followers that if the people won’t listen, they should kick the dust off their shoes and move on.

    • Jim H.

      I’m sorry but a narrow read of Rev 18, ala Sola Scriptura won’t cut it.

      Please refer to

      Pope Pius XI in the 1925 encyclical Quas Primas which speaks to the ever-increasing exclusion of Christ, his Church, and his teachings, from their rightful position in the public life of nations.

      Also Bl. Pius IX’s 1864 encyclical Quanta Cura, and the 1885 encyclical of Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, on “the Christian Constitution of States”.

      And, also Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, which says in article 1 that it “leaves intact” the “traditional Catholic doctrine regarding the moral duty of men and societies to the true religion and the one Church of Christ”.

      We are a part of American society, and unless we move to another country, have a moral duty to promote the good as best we can.

      I believe Trump to be the best good we can promote to stop the evils Hillary will be bringing upon this country.

    • newenglandsun

      Ah, one of those “I’VE SEEN THE LIGHT” Catholics.

      I am not contesting that Christians should not promote Christianity within their given governments but if a government is in flat-out rejection of Christ, we are to oppose it every which way.

      Both Trump and Hitlery will ruin this country. It ought to be the Christian’s best duty to oppose both heretics rather than just one of the heretics.

      Further, Catholic theology is formulated by scripture, tradition, and reason. You seem to side-skip scripture for tradition which is actually a theological mistake as Protestant heretics side-skip tradition for scripture by elevating the authority of one over the other. Both have equal authority.

    • Jim H.

      If you could produce a magisterial document which instructs us to check out of the fight, then that would be helpful. That was the point I was making by producing the encyclicals and other writings.

      By the way, encyclicals are not considered to be Tradition. They are a part of the Magisterium, which is actually the third leg of the stool, not reason. They are authoritative teaching which leverages both Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Thus I am not side-stepping scripture, I just accept the teaching of scripture that private interpretations are not allowed. (2 Peter 1:20)

      On the other hand, claiming that one’s personal proof text of Sacred Scripture has authority is probably to be avoided. Our consciences must be formed by the authentic Magisterial teaching of the church. Lest we end up in some hyper-liberal or schismatic traddie group.

      In this case, the Magisterium does not teach we should check out from our societies – only not participate in their intrinsic moral evils. Voting in an election is not an intrinsic moral evil. And applying the Moral House analogy, I don’t see any guaranteed intrinsic moral evil coming from Mr. Trump, any more than it came from Eisenhower, Reagan, or Bush. We may not like the way he smiles or combs his hair, but it isn’t an intrinsic moral evil.

    • newenglandsun

      “In this case, the Magisterium does not teach we should check out from our societies – only not participate in their intrinsic moral evils.”
      When did I ever say we “should check out”? I said, we should not participate in the evils and if the country is moving toward evil, we are to call it out but if it proves stubborn, we should get out so as not to partake in plagues. Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah for instance?

      “Thus I am not side-stepping scripture, I just accept the teaching of scripture that private interpretations are not allowed. (2 Peter 1:20)”
      When have I used a “private interpretation”? “Slander is worse than Cannibalism”–St John Chrysostom.

      “Voting in an election is not an intrinsic moral evil. And applying the Moral House analogy, I don’t see any guaranteed intrinsic moral evil coming from Mr. Trump, … [w]e may not like the way he smiles or combs his hair, but it isn’t an intrinsic moral evil.”
      You argue in your article that voting for someone who supports and demands intrinsic evil is an intrinsic moral evil. This has nothing to do with how he combs his hair. This has everything to do with his complete and utter lack of trustworthiness. Lying is every bit an intrinsic moral evil as abortion is. Stop misrepresenting my position–you sound like Donald Trump!

    • Jim H.

      This duty is chiefly exercised by voting, through which citizens elect their representatives and even determine by referendum the laws which will govern them. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

      2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

      2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country [Rom 13:7]:

      Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. [Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners…. They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws…. So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it. [Ad Diognetum 5: 5, 10]

      The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.” [1 Tim 2:2]

      In their November 1998 pastoral letter Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics the Bishops of the United States speak of a false pluralism which undermines the moral convictions of Catholics and their obligation to be “leaven in society” through participation in the democratic process.

      25. Today, Catholics risk cooperating in a false pluralism. Secular society will allow believers to have whatever moral convictions they please – as long as they keep them on the private preserves of their consciences, in their homes and in their churches, and out of the public arena. Democracy is not a substitute for morality. Its value stands – or falls – with the values which it embodies and promotes. Only tireless promotion of the truth about the human person can infuse democracy with the right values. This is what Jesus meant when he asked us to be a leaven in society. American Catholics have long sought to assimilate into U.S. cultural life. But in assimilating, we have too often been digested. We have been changed by our culture too much, and we have changed it not enough. If we are leaven, we must bring to our culture the whole Gospel, which is a Gospel of life and joy. That is our vocation as believers. And there is no better place to start than promoting the beauty and sanctity of human life. Those who would claim to promote the cause of life through violence or the threat of violence contradict this Gospel at its core.

    • newenglandsun

      “This duty is chiefly exercised in voting”
      Okay, sir, give me a document that EXPLICITLY says this. I have not denied the need for Christians to combat their corrupt governments and submit to their good ones, however there is nothing to do with VOTING!!!

      Gee, why would that be? Perhaps because voting is an ENTIRELY MODERNISTIC concept that are used in democratic societies?

      I happen to be a monarchist. That is, I support and promote the ABOLISHMENT of voting rights for all. Many Christian nations throughout the years have been divine right monarchies and there was no need of voting to promote the Church in these contexts.

    • Jim H.

      Your particular political views have very little to do with the moral obligation to promote the common good by participation in the society in which you live. Regardless of whether or not voting is a recent phenomena, the principles apply.

      We do not have a monarchy here. We have a constitutional republic. Let us participate in our society to promote the common good.

      This may help you work out your confusion.

      http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm

    • newenglandsun

      I don’t see why voting is important to promoting common good in our society. We can simply speak and have civilized discussion, write petitions, create alternative organizations and none of these have to vote to promote the common good in our society. They just actively promote it other means.

    • Jim H.

      The moral theology is taken up in the magisterial documents presented.

      On a practical note, you may find yourself some people who have lived in societies where they did not have the right to vote. Its a precious right that you are too easily dismissing.

      Have history and civics been so abandoned in our schools that its not obvious how precious the right to vote is?

    • newenglandsun

      So we can vote for one demon or the other demon and either way we’re voting for a demon. Is it ethical to vote for a demon?

      And what about the glorious Catholic monarchies that have existed through history? The only reason democracy should be argued for is as a way of leading back to the domination of Christian values and as soon as that happens, the monarchy can be re-established. But our western society is being de-Christianised. It needs to be evangelised and converted before we can do this.

    • Tony

      Well, then they will know your pious posturing got them into the mess they’ll be in.

  • Pat Hershwitzky

    Build your house on rock–foundational truth–this includes the right and duty to (protect) life, the sanctity of marriage and family, and the inalienable right to worship God AND live according to His–THE Word. The reality is that those who do so authentically ensure the health of community and nations. We are precariously close to fascism and the obliteration of the Bill of Rights, without which there would never have been a federal (national) government. We are also regressing to monarchical government with Queen HC–Henrietta VIII–demanding her coronation. Pray, pray, pray

  • dagny111

    Deathocrats. The death cult is an ancient powerful enemy.

    • newenglandsun

      Demoncrats (the “n” is silent).

  • DebraBrunsberg

    Excellent. Thank you. This should not just apply to Catholics, but to anyone who identifies as a Christian. Murdering babies is not exactly falling in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ. I am just as tired of those who blather out the I AM SAVED and therefore I can do anything I want and Jesus is going to jettison me to the first level of heaven when I die. We can blame whomever we want, but we also have to ask ourselves, to whom have we brought the truth of Jesus to lately? The old question, if they were going to start arresting people and putting them on trial for being a Christian, would they find any evidence to convict you? We are all compelled to bring the good news. Are we doing this?

  • Guy McClung

    Ditto! Ditto! and DITTO re Judas Pontius Kaine who, it looks almost certainly now, will be president when unhealthy [physically] Hillary is no longer president-which may be sooner than later. Google hell vote yourself in for fuller treatment of these issues and see my article Judas Pontius Kaine here. It was the majority of what is called the “catholic” vote that put Obama on his throne and so it will be with queen Hillary. And this can be laid at the feet of the democatholic non-shepherd hireling archbishops, bishops and priests of America; not to mention the implicit papal endorsement of Hillary. Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas