The Morality of Politics

Fr. Joseph, O.F.M.

The arena of politics is as controversial today as it ever has been. The cause of this controversy is not nearly as complex as most would like to make it. Those who are guilty just don't want others to know this.

The state has been given to us by God to look out for the temporal welfare of its people. This means its main purpose is to work for the common good. If those who hold a public office in any way do not work for this purpose, they have usurped their position.

It is also important to note that in working for the common good of the people, a morality is necessarily implied, for one cannot be morally neutral, and yet work for an objective good.

This is the contradiction of the political scene today. Everyone wants something (what is supposed to be a "common good" but rarely is anymore), yet it is (from their point of view) supposed to be devoid of any moral basis, especially a Christian one.

The nauseous cry of "separation of church and state" is constantly before us today. (A cry which is not only immoral in the strict sense, but erroneous from what was meant by those who wrote the Constitution of the United States.) As a result, anyone who presents himself, even in a general way as a Christian and expresses his views is hounded into submission.

The end result is, we, as a nation, are no longer allowed to recognize the source of all objective good, refer to God in public (whether it be in prayer or speech) or acknowledge Him as the source of all legitimate authority, without being labeled as a "right wing fanatic!" This is a clear, ominous sign of things to come.

Once a nation begins to turn its back on God, it can no longer expect His blessings. Only those who are unable or refuse to see will not concede that this country is already being punished for its crimes.

One ought to rightfully begin with the long-standing divorce laws. Who, by the way, is aware that in the distant past, divorce was illegal in this country? Divorce has become so common in this country, that nearly half of all marriages end this way. Few people are willing to take their nuptial vows seriously when they are able to walk out at the first sign of trouble, thinking that the marriage has actually ended. Perhaps a more revealing statistic to know would be of those who have "remarried", but are actually living in adultery. Needless to say, the state has no business involving itself in such matters. The fracturing of society in this way undermines the very foundation of society: the family.

Divorce is a sign of selfishness, at least on the part of one of the spouses. This selfishness will display itself in other ways, also. Artificial birth control may not be considered a question in the legal sphere (certainly, though, in the moral sphere), but its consequence certainly is, i.e., abortion. Anyone who is honest enough, will admit the selfish connection between the two. These types of people want only to satisfy their lower passions and care little for God's laws and their own responsibility.

Since 1973, abortion has plagued this country in a way that is unlike anything it has ever seen. The reason is once again easy to understand. When men allow innocent babies to be slaughtered under the guise of a legality (today the politically correct term is "choice"), it is a sure sign they have denied the providence of their Creator and wish to play God themselves. Having been allowed to continue for twenty-seven years, and the number of murders in the 40 millions, one can only wonder at the punishment that is forthcoming from God.

Everyone ought to realize that what is legal, may not be morally correct.

In more recent years, society and the government have been dealing with the question of homosexuality. To allow these moral perverts to be considered normal goes beyond all sense of basic reasoning and decency. It indicates where society stands in its standard of morality.

A growing number of sodomitic politicians along with others who are nothing but lowly cowards have made it possible for these perverts to gain considerable political power.

These moral degenerates are not satisfied with being given the legal right to coexist, they wish to pervert all of society, especially the youth of this nation. Their means are as cunning as ever, promoting the lie that this perversity is in the genes, or they are born this way. The morally astute individual won't be fooled by these devilish tricks.

They have the audacity to promote this hideous sin as "an alternative lifestyle", being allowed to promote it in schools of all levels, twisting the minds of the naive and innocent. As a result, we are seeing more and more high school and college-age students "coming out"and claiming their abnormalities. To refer to them as gay is not only a distortion of the English language (purposely done, of course), but also hides their truly unhappy state behind a wall of deception.

So-called "gay-marriages" is a natural conclusion of this perverted way of life. Recently, the state of Vermont passed a law allowing these sinful unions. It opens the door for all fifty states to pass similar legislation, putting a normal marriage (one man and one woman) on the same level as these sodomitic unions.

The Old Testament clearly shows us what God thinks of this sin, utterly destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. "But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house both young and old, all the people together. And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? Bring them out hither that we may know them:" ... And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And he destroyed these cities, and all the country about, all the inhabitants of the cities, and all things that spring from the earth." (Genesis: Chapter 19; Verses 4, 5, 24, 25)

St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, confirms the sinfulness of such behavior: " For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient." (Romans: Chapter 1; Verses 26, 27 & 28)

The hate-crime laws are yet another example of politicians using their position to deceive the unaware citizen. These laws are presented in such a way so as to influence the ordinary man on the street into thinking that they will help reduce crime toward "minorities."

First of all, why is it necessary to make laws for particular groups of people? There are more than enough laws already in force to cover all crimes, and in many cases, numerous times over. An example of this are the large number of gun laws. Any reasonable person would conclude that further legislation is totally unnecessary upon learning of the multitude of laws. Lawmakers continue to pass more and more laws year after year. To what purpose? It has nothing to do with the "common good" and everything to do with total and absolute control by wanting to take away the guns from the people of this country. If we can't defend ourselves then how can we retain at least some semblance of freedom?

Secondly, the hate-crime laws by their very nature are divisive, and therefore, work against the common welfare of a nation. Their intent is to magnify the crimes of a white person toward a minority (whether they're black, queer or Khazar makes little difference). The lawmakers seem to imply that hate is a one-way street. In other words, if, for example, a white man attacks a black man, the crime is said to be racially motivated, i.e., a crime of hate. But if a black man attacks a white man, there is no consideration of hate. Why the double standard if not an evil motive? There have been numerous examples that reflect this situation in crimes committed throughout the country.

In addition, and perhaps more importantly, is the desire to stifle any form of verbal or written condemnation of the actions of those who desire to undermine right order and the common good. Strangely enough, from the mouths of those who clamor for "freedom" we witness the desire to control their enemies in an immoral manner. But you see, we are not supposed to say such things, nor think them. For the thought police have now surfaced and we may be condemned for our thoughts. But, of course, this also, is a one way street, for these devilish one-worlders are allowed to spout from the mountain tops their godless programs with little or no repercussions. Those on the other hand, who wish to maintain right order and work for the temporal welfare are silenced.

We are currently seeing this taking place with those who are running for office of the President of the United States. The candidates who boastfully spout the socialist one-world rhetoric are given national coverage in the press. Those men, though, who have a true concern for this country, are being given a media blackout. The Establishment does not dare allow the American people to hear in an open and honest manner the views of such candidates, for they surely know that these men would be elected, undermining the diabolical plans of these human devils.

I wonder how many people have recognized these patterns for what they are; typical communistic tactics to circumvent ever so subtly, but all too effective.

These are clear examples of right being considered wrong, and therefore, given no platform, and wrong being promoted as if it were God's holy will.

Any responsible public official knows they are in that position to serve the people. They will do all in their power to help the ordinary citizen within the limits of the law. This necessarily implies a morality that corresponds with at least the natural law. Anything less does a real harm to society, whether the masses agree or not. Truth and objective morality are principles which must necessarily go beyond an individual's private life and someone's subjective ideas. Otherwise, the welfare of the individual and society are destroyed. With this destruction comes the downfall of a civilization.

Return to Contents

Return to Homepage.