Monday, December 31, 2007

Must a Catholic Vote?

Thomas Peters' blog, The American Papist, links to this CNS article where Most Reverend John McCormack, the Bishop of Manchester, NH explains voting is a moral obligation. Further:

"When candidates support or tolerate policies that include intrinsically evil acts, a Catholic must carefully assess the situation and decide which candidate will produce the least harm to innocent human life, if elected," he added.

I find this a difficult assertion to swallow and fail to see how exercising one's conscience to not materially cooperate with any evil by means of voting, would violate the moral precepts of the Church.

Should Ron Paul, our favored candidate for the Republican Party, not win the nomination, would it be a violation of the moral law should a Catholic chose not to vote for one of the other candidates which could be completely unacceptable? Let's say the ballot consists of Clinton, Giulliani, and the Libertarian candidate. Let's also say that all these candidates remain pro-abortion, pro-unjust war, and pro-death penalty [I know the last category is not necessarily intrinsically evil]. Does this mean that a failure to show up at the ballot box will constitute a sin? I would think that an intentional violation of a moral precept of the Church is a sin. Does such an ommission from voting generally constitute a venial or mortal sin? Does this mean Catholics must vote for and therefore materially cooperate with candidates that formally cooperate with intrinsically evil acts?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think we are ever required by the Church and under Her moral theology to ever materially cooperate with evil. Politicians who explicitly endorse the pro-abortion cause or advance unjust aggressive wars, engage in formal cooperation with such evil acts. Voting for one of these candidates can be a formal cooperation with evil if the voter endorses the candidates' own cooperation or a material cooperation if the voter does not endorse the candidates' views but can find a sufficient justification. So while it can be justified it does not follow that material cooperation with evil is ever required.

Any readers care to give clarification? Should Ron Paul not win the RNC nomination or go on as a 3rd party candidate, I don't see a reason to vote. Are Catholics required to materially cooperate with evil by voting for one of the pro-aborts or pro-unjust warmongers?

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Sabrin's "Open Letter to Pro-Lifers"

Prof. Murray Sabrin explains Ron Paul's influence on his own conversion to respect the natural right to life for the unborn:

"...I knew Rep. Ron Paul, who I have known since 1982, was a pro-life libertarian Republican. I called him to get his input on the abortion issue. He told me he wrote a book on abortion making a libertarian case for the pro-life position. I asked him to send me a copy. I read his beautifully written 100-page Challenge to Liberty in one reading and from then on I became a pro-life libertarian.

I never ever thought I could ever be convinced that a pro-life position was consistent with liberty and limited government. But in Challenge to Liberty, subtitled Coming to Grip with the Abortion Issue, Ron Paul demonstrated that logic is an indispensable tool to change peoples’ minds, especially when it comes to hot button issues like abortion."

Sabrin is also considering the possibility of running for the New Jersey representative to the U.S. Senate for 2008 as a Ron Paul Republican, a decision he'll likely make in January.

"Wrapped in the Flag Carrying the Cross"

After a condescendingly rude opening by this Fox and Friends interview, Ron Paul throws them off by quoting the Sinclair Lewis prediction that "[w]hen fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Of course the Fox interviewers couldn't handle such Harrison Bergeron type thinking and had to promptly move to commercial.

For Ron Paul's view on an excellent example of religion in the public life, particularly Catholicism, go here.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

The Tea Party Begins

It is almost 9 am EST and Ron Paul has already raised over 1.3 million since midnight.

This is an extremely important day for Ron Paul and for Americans because this is a protest against the inflation tax. Tomorrow the MSM will be talking about Ron Paul and the inflation tax. This is great for the campaign but even better for America. Wake America up!

Send a message to the elite banksters, government officials and corrupt big business that that don't own us and we're not going to take it any more!

Donate as much as you can TODAY!

Go Ron Paul!

Friday, December 14, 2007

The Ringing Endorsement from Daily Kos

You see Ron Paul is NUTS because:

Ron Paul has authored legislation saying that life begins at conception, to prevent federal money from being spent on family planning (that would include contraception), and has tried to amend the Constitution to "guarantee the right to life."

God Bless Ron Paul.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Secular Original Sin & Secular Baptism

I have always lamented that in the modern totalist states, like the United States, our children receive their Social Security identification numbers and cards before their Baptisms. Now Butler Shaffer brings to our attention calls from some Austrailian medical journal to impose a $5,000 tax on every baby born to couples with greater than two children plus the addition of an $800 a year carbon tax:

"All of this is designed to compensate for the 'profligate consumption of resources' caused by humanity. This is but the most recent example of the environmentalists' version of 'original sin': we humans don't really belong on this planet; we are trespassers upon the lands and waterways rightfully belonging to other species; and, unless we manage to destroy ourselves through political means, we should at least compensate our victims (who?) in the interim."

A Ron Paul administration would naturally oppose any federal efforts to regulate the population and strike down any calls to tax human beings for their mere existence which supposedly imposes some kind of carbon footprint on the planet. Further, a Paul administration would seek to give people the ability to opt out of the world's most diabolical ponzi scheme.

Catholic Outreach for Ron Paul

Dan Scanlon sends along this nice idea he has engaged in spreading the word about Ron Paul to other Catholics:

"I'm a member of the Greater New York Meetup and a few weeks ago I was at early morning mass when I got inspired with an idea to spread the good news about Ron Paul to my fellow Catholics. So I hurried home and got some flyers printed, checked parishes on line for mass schedules, took a cab over to a Republican nieghborhood and handed out flyers after mass as the faithful departed. The response was very positive and I only wish I had had six hands.
This is something important that anyone can do alone or preferably with another person to cover the other side of the street. No signs, no slogans, or crtical mass of members required; just a friendly "Good Morning, Catholics for Ron Paul" and a flyer. Here is a link to Parishes Online so anyone anywhere can cover any parish in the country. All you have to do is find a parish schedule, be there as the folks LEAVE (this is important in terms of tact as well as effect) and you're in business! Big bang for the buck as far as time investment (15-20 minutes) if not the two sided color flyers which cost a dollar a pop. This could be a national effort and we should be buying copies in bulk.

"Below is a link to the files section of the Greater NY Meetup for a copy of the flyer that another member had made up. "

Pax et bonum,
Dan Scanlon

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Ron Paul and Prostitution

Prostitution is evil. It is a system predicated on debasing the human person, it is born of abuse and makes that abuse a way of life. Where it flourishes, drug abuse, crime, suicide, disease and human misery grow.

Like all evils, it hurts those engaged with it the most, but the injury doesn't end with those who engage with it but casts a larger shadow that touches everyone in the community whether it is legal or not.

Over the last several years HBO has been advancing a campaign to "normalize" prostitution through its "reality" TV show The Cathouse - a state regulated legal brothel in Nevada. The reality of Nevada's legalized prostitution and of the effects of legalized prostitution in general are well documented.

Now the owner of the Cathouse has publicly endorsed Ron Paul and is encouraging "johns" to make a donation every time they pay for sex acts. This endorsement was arranged and created by a member of the MSM, Tucker Carlson - he called up the pimp and manufactured the news story.

In the Main Stream Media's general blackout of the Ron Paul campaign, this particular story has been picked up all over the place (Google news has 99 news hits for this story).

The story is an attempt to smear Ron Paul and his supporters.

But the fact is that Ron Paul supports the decriminalization of prostitution at the Federal level. His We the People Act would remove this issue from Federal and Supreme Court jurisdiction along with a host of other socially difficult issues in accord with the 10th Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. His legislation would make it solely a States issue an issue for the people to decide.

As Catholics, we recognize that the civil law has its foundation in morality. There is no law that does not have a moral dimension because it governs human action which is inherently laden with moral weight - the only question is whether the law is moral or immoral. This is why the Catholic Church has been an advocate for the abolition of chattel slavery for hundreds of years, it is why Holy Mother Church speaks out for the defense and respect for human life.

As such to legalize prostitution is to legalize the violation of basic human dignity.

But does Ron Paul want to legalize prostitution?


He wants the States to deal with this question not the Federal Government. He is not advocating the national legalization of prostitution (something that CFRP could not support), but rather the removal of this subject matter from the Federal Court system to empower the States to deal with it.

Is this something that Catholics can support?

Yes, based on the principle of subsidiarity and prudential judgement we know that any social ill is best addressed at the most local level. We also know that when an issue is absorbed by a higher level of authority, the local level tends to become apathetic and passive because "it is no longer my problem." Compassionate liberals who vote for big government programs to solve social problems don't volunteer or give nearly as much money to charitable organizations as small government conservatives. This is because subsidiarity matters.

We also know that when the government funds a program to solve a social problem (be that in law enforcement or social welfare), that problem grows and expands and so too does the program's budget. This is because the incentives are in the wrong place. The incentive for government is to expand its power, its budget and its program, so the incentive is to expand the social problem it is addressing, not eliminate it. Compare that to the kind of local private charities who actually make a difference and have an incentive to end a difficult social problem.

For example, Emmaus Ministries walks the streets of Chicago and Houston every night to help males prostitutes get off the streets. I would rather they have my money rather than the Federal Government to help solve the problem of male prostitution. But they are struggling to keep their doors open because their donations are down due to the state of the economy. Send them a donation to keep their doors open.

At the state level prostitution should be illegal. I think that Dr. Paul might disagree stating that the government can't make you a moral person. I would agree with that idea, but remind him that Law has a major impact on forming culture because of its foundation in morality. Any law that violates the natural law is not a law at all - Martin Luther King knew this and so too did our Founding Fathers.

Ron Paul doesn't condone prostitution, he knows its effects on people and communities, but he doesn't think the Federal Government should be the one to address it, and he may even think that the States should decriminalize it too.

This is where libertarians part ways with Catholics and traditional conservatives. We recognize that the law has an intrinsic foundation in morality and the state has a duty to promote the common good, libertarians have a more reductive understanding of the law as there to preserve liberty.

What it comes down to is two different conceptions of the idea of liberty. But that is for another post.

Suffice to say that Ron Paul is running for President, and his policy on this matter is focused at the federal level. It is a matter of debate and prudential policy as to whether the federal government or local government and local voluntary associations should address this issue.

But know that as a Christian Ron Paul does not condone prostitution, he would rather have families, churches, and voluntary associations deal with this issue rather than the government.

Monday, November 26, 2007

Ron Paul is Best Catholic Choice - US Bishops' Faithful Citizenship Guidelines

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has been rated the Best Choice for Catholic Voters, based on an independent analysis by The Defend Life blog of Maryland. The analysis used the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' criteria in Faithful Citizenship - its guide for Catholic voters - to rate the various candidate's platforms and has determined that Ron Paul's positions are most compatible with the USCCB standards.

Using a point system that gave greater weight for "non-negotiable" issues such as abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and gay marriage, the analysis lined up all the candidates to see where they stand on a broad array of issues.

Ron Paul (R) scored highest with a score of 99, with Alan Keyes (R) following with 70, and Mike Huckabee (R) third with 69. Dead last was the purportedly Catholic Rudy Giuliani (R) with -28 and Barack Obama (D) with -15. Hilary Clinton (D) scored a -11 and Fred Thompson (R) scored only a 4.

The Catholic vote in America is critical for the 2008 presidential election. Some have argued that Catholics are statistically invisible as voters, that they divide along the same partisan tribal lines as most Americans.

This is not true.

The last election was won in Ohio due largely to the presence of Catholic voters who significantly voted against John Kerry because of his culture of death platform and his rationally inconsistent statements such as, "I believe life begins at conception, but I can't impose my Catholic beliefs on others as president." Such idiocy was not going to wash over faithful and informed Catholics.

After this election, the Democrats began a deliberate "values voters" offensive to cloak these same culture of death positions in a rhetoric of "faith and values." The Democrats haven't changed their positions, they have just massaged their rhetoric and scheduled more speeches at churches.

The Republicans have shown their true colors as well. Last election was all about values, but then the neo-conservative radicals in the party have such a grip that the party has shrunk and they have given the electorate Rudy - the most terrible candidate on values - because he is a war hawk neo-con who will continue to wage an unjust war.

So the Catholic vote is important. But more importantly, Catholic voting principles are what matter. These principles are immutable and the best source for learning about them is the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

A number of faithful Catholics (and not so faithful Catholics) have published Voter's Guides to help inform the Catholic population as to the Catholic framework for choosing a candidate. In that same spirit, the United State Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote "Faithful Citizenship." As a document of the USCCB, Faithful Citizenship does not have magisterial status along the same lines as a document from the Holy Father, or one of the Congregations in the Curia, or even one from a bishop writing to his flock.

Often bishop conference documents are criticised for being unhelpful, bland and inconclusive. A bishop's conference does not have ecclesial status and the process of creating a collective document results in undermining the authority that the Church truly has. Even Cardinal Ratzinger has noted that the bishops' conference in Germany during the rise of the Nazis had the effect of watering down and muting the strength of the church's opposing voice to this evil.

So in making reference to the Faithful Citizenship document, it is done with a hefty grain of salt and light because true to form the document tends to lack both.

The Defend Life analysis can be read in detail here:

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Open Letter to Catholics

In support of Ron Paul.

In the tradition of Walter Block’s Open Letter to the Jewish Community in Behalf of Ron Paul and Laurence Vance’s Open Letter to the Protestant Community in Behalf of Ron Paul, I’d like to say a few words to my fellow Catholics.

Never in my life have I felt as strongly about a presidential candidate – or about any politician, for that matter – as I do about Dr. Ron Paul, Republican congressman from Texas. I’ve gone from being someone so disgusted with politics that I can’t bear to read about it to being a political junkie, avidly following the activities and successes of this great man.

As an American historian, I am not aware of any congressman in American history whose voting record is so stellar, and so consistently in accord with the Constitution.

Beyond that, Ron Paul is not a panderer. He’ll speak to an interest group and tell them to their faces that he has opposed and will continue to oppose funding their pet projects. Lobbyists know they’re wasting their money if they try to wine and dine him. He recently spoke before the national convention of an organization aimed at protecting the interests of a particular ethnic group, and began by saying: "Somebody asked me whether I had a special speech for your group, and I said, no, it’s the same speech I give everywhere."

Already by 1981, Ron Paul had earned the highest rating ever given by the National Taxpayers Union, received the highest rating from the Council for a Competitive Economy, and won the Liberty Award from the American Economic Council for being "America’s outstanding defender of economic and personal freedom."

Dr. Paul, who entered Congress in 1976 and returned to his medical practice in 1984, picked up where he left off when he returned to Congress in the 1996 election. I do not expect to see his like again.

He is also a good and decent man, who really is what he appears to be when you hear him speak. As a physician at an inner-city hospital, Ron Paul provided medical care to anyone who needed it, regardless of ability to pay. He never accepted money from Medicare or Medicaid, preferring to provide free care instead. That’s what people in a free society are supposed to do: be responsible for themselves, and then lend their assistance to those who are vulnerable and alone.

Ron Paul is a candidate who doesn’t insult his listeners’ intelligence, who answers the questions he is asked, and who doesn’t simply say whatever his audience wants to hear. And unlike other major names in the race, Ron Paul doesn’t have to run away from his record, which reveals an unswerving commitment to peace, freedom, and prosperity that is second to none in all of American history.

Although I would have supported Ron Paul back before I converted to Catholicism, I think Catholics will like what they see when they examine his record. Over at Defend Life, Ron Paul comes out decisively on top in a study of the candidates’ positions on the issues according to the guidelines recently established by the United States bishops. (If anything, I think this study understates Paul’s compatibility with Catholic teaching.)

On education and home schooling, Ron Paul is the clear winner. Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Duncan Hunter all voted for the execrable No Child Left Behind Act, and Governors Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have both come out in favor of it. Ron Paul – as did the Republican Party itself not so long ago – opposes any federal role in education, which is the responsibility of parents and local communities.

In other words, Ron Paul believes in a little something called subsidiarity, which happens to be a central principle of Catholic social thought. Subsidiarity holds that all social functions should be carried out by the most local unit possible, as opposed to the dehumanizing alternative whereby distant bureaucratic structures are routinely and unthinkingly entrusted with more and more responsibilities for human well-being.

On home schooling, Ron Paul has proposed legislation giving tax credits worth thousands of dollars to reimburse the educational expenses of home-schooling parents, as well as those of parents who send their children to other kinds of schools. What presidential candidate speaks like this?

Parental control of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks of liberty. No nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family. By moving to restore the primacy of parents to education, the Family Education Freedom Act will not only improve America’s education, it will restore a parent’s right to choose how best to educate one’s own child, a fundamental freedom that has been eroded by the increase in federal education expenditures and the corresponding decrease in the ability of parents to provide for their children’s education out of their own pockets.

When it comes to abortion, Ron Paul – an obstetrician/gynecologist who has delivered over 4,000 babies – has been a consistent opponent of Roe v. Wade, which he rightly considers unconstitutional. But he has no interest in the failed strategy of the past 35 years whereby we sit and wait for a remedy in the form of good Supreme Court justices. His HR 300 would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion, as per Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. That would overturn Roe by a simple congressional majority.

Then we could see who is sincere on the issue, and who is just exploiting it for votes. Few in either party really want to see the abortion status quo overturned, since it means they can’t scare their supporters into sending them as much money anymore.

Upon the Pope’s death in 2005, Ron Paul paid tribute to John Paul’s consistent defense of life. On another occasion, he offered an additional tribute, of the sort few politicians would utter:
To the secularists, this was John Paul II’s unforgivable sin – he placed service to God above service to the state. Most politicians view the state, not God, as the supreme ruler on earth. They simply cannot abide a theology that does not comport with their vision of unlimited state power. This is precisely why both conservatives and liberals savaged John Paul II when his theological pronouncements did not fit their goals. But perhaps their goals simply were not godly.

Speaking of John Paul II, it is important to remember that that pope was a strong opponent of the U.S. government’s attack on Iraq, sending his personal representative, Cardinal Pio Laghi, to Washington shortly before the commencement of hostilities in order to insist to the president that such a war would be unjust. The Pope’s first comments after the war broke out were these: "When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society."

Before his election as Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was asked if a U.S. government attack on Iraq would be just. "Certainly not," came the reply. He predicted that "the damage would be greater than the values one wishes to save."

After the war ended, Ratzinger said: "It was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction…. It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world." "There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq," he elsewhere observed. "To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war.’"

Hundreds of thousands lost their lives in this obviously avoidable war, a war that was based on falsehoods that we would have laughed at if they’d been uttered by Leonid Brezhnev. But since they came from the White House we cheer as for a football team, and duck the appalling material and moral consequences. A country that (by regional standards) once had an excellent health care system, opportunities for women, liberal gun and alcohol laws, and – yes – lots of immigrants, was turned into a disease-ridden basket case, filled with dead, wounded, and malnourished children, for no good reason.

That’s just wrong, and it isn’t "liberal" to say so.

Likewise, Ratzinger/Benedict is not a "liberal" for opposing the war. He is a moral conservative, but a man whose conservatism is more mature than the sloganeering jingoism of so much of what passes for conservatism in today’s America. Ron Paul is an equally sober and serious statesman, and for that reason was one of very few Republicans with the courage and the foresight to oppose this economic and moral fiasco from the very start.

It is especially satisfying to learn that in the second quarter of 2007, Ron Paul received more donations from active duty and retired military personnel than any other Republican candidate. By the third quarter, he was receiving more than any other presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican. Want to support the troops? Then support Ron Paul.

My main argument to you, though, is not a specifically Catholic one. It’s one that should resonate with anybody who values honesty, integrity, and decency. Ron Paul is a good man who believes in justice and the Constitution, and who cannot be bought. His ten terms in Congress have proven that again and again.

And that is why the media fears him. Unlike the rest of them, Ron Paul is unowned.
Now every establishment hack out there wants you to vote for one of the business-as-usual candidates. Are you really so happy with the establishment that its endorsement or cajoling means anything to you? If anything, it should make us all the more interested in Ron Paul – the one candidate the establishment fears, since they know their game is up if he should win.
Far from being in the unhappy position of a candidate whose children won’t even speak to him, Ron Paul is fortunate to have family members all over the campaign trail on his behalf. He has been married to the same woman for 50 years, and has been blessed with five children and eighteen grandchildren. There are some family values.

Just think: for once, you don’t have to choose the lesser among evils. You can finally vote for someone. You can not only be happy, but actually honored, to cast your vote for Ron Paul.
But don’t just vote for him. Find out about him, and get out there and spread the word.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Ron Paul Would Rescue Catholic Charities

An interesting insight was posted by "tz" in the comments box about the effect Ron Paul's policies would have on Catholic Charities.

Here is his comment:

There is no contradiction in wanting Abortion banned across the nation - one state at a time. But the most important thing is that Catholic Charities can cease losing their souls for tax-deductibility. No IRS, no compromise such as not being able to express an opinion between a cross-dressing pro-abort and a man of honor who keeps his promises and is pro-life, but also properly understands subsidiarity. Ah, the martyrs of old, who would not drop the pinch of incense and mumble words and suffer torture and death. When you sell your soul, do you have to declare the proceeds on your 1040?

"tz" makes a very important point here.

Over the years, Catholic Charities have had their wonderful reputation slide because it has been pressured to conform to the world on issues such as gay adoption and in some cases have chosen to cease offering services rather than risk losing its tax status. The fact of the matter is that Catholic Charities is not prepared to fight a legal battle and between taking a stand and retreating from the works of mercy, they are forced into retreat (or worse, to conform themselves).

The state has even declared that Catholic Charities is not Catholic and so must pay for contraception.

This is part of a very sophisticated attack on the Catholic Church that seeks to remove the Church from its mission to spread the Gospel and love the needy.

What is the instrument of torture that will remove the greatest force of love and charity in our society? The IRS and the tax code.

Ron Paul's policies would seek to eliminate the IRS and that would liberate (there is that word Liberty again) Catholic Charities to continue its wonderful work unfettered by the state's totalitarian ideology of sterilization, homosexualization and secularity.

This is what the Founding Fathers meant when they spoke of Liberty. They weren't advocating a freedom were everyone can do what they like, that is not Liberty, but rather license, and total licence leads to licentiousness and spiritual, psychological and physical bondage. No, they were advocating the most fundamental Liberty - Religious Liberty - the freedom to pursue virtue, express faith, hope and love in a public and communal way, and to give thanks to God for His blessings, unrestrained by a State ideology. The Founding Fathers wanted a society based on the Liberty that is the fruit of the moral life, because a nation of virtuous men and women would ensure the survival of our country. Whereas a nation of licentious men and women would slide into a tyrannical state.

Tyranny is not on our door step of our nation, it is in the front hall!

Ron Paul's policies on taxation and the elimination of the IRS would abolish this modern day sophisticated structure of injustice, torture and coercion.

It is just one more reason why every Catholic should support Ron Paul.

Thank you "tz" for your insight and for reading CFRP.

Go Ron Paul!

Monday, November 19, 2007

Blogger: Paul Best Choice for Catholics

At the Defend Life blog, blogger Joe Healy finds Ron Paul the best presidential candidate in light of the U.S. bishops' criteria.

CFRP Welcomes Readers of

Today one of CFRP's blog entries was picked up by Spirit Daily.

Thank you Spirit Daily and welcome to Spirit Daily readers!

Why Every Catholic Should Vote for Ron Paul

Every Catholic should be engaged in politics because every Catholic has a duty to seek and promote the Common Good. But what is the Common Good? The catechism tells us:

By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily." The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:

So the question you all should be asking yourself is, "What are the social conditions that allow everyone to flourish as persons and groups in our society most easily?"

To answer this question we have to know what the three essential elements that can not be abridged in our search for a flourishing society:

1. Respect for the Person - Here we are talking about the most fundamental respect for the inalienable rights of the person - The Right to Life, The Right to Liberty (properly understood), and the Right to the Free Exercise of Religion. (CC 1907) Society will decay and eventually collapse when any of these fundamental aspects of the person are violated.

2. Social Well Being & Development - The epitome of everyone's social duty is to seek the development of all peoples in society. (CC 1908) Does this mean that we should support a big welfare state that supplies all of our food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, etc.? No. Becasue this violates the principle of subsidiarity and cultivates dependencies and undermines the family. The state should not replace the family and voluntary associations like the Church and the local homeless shelter. It means that you and I, our families and our local churchs and voluntary associations should seek to ensure that no one in our community suffers due to a deficit of well being or can not develop because of some structural injustice in society (like slavery) or other impediment to flourishing.

3. Peace - this is not the peace of the hippies or of some wooly pacifist who wouldn't even fight to defend the innocent, nor is it the peace that we see in totalitarian societies where fear keeps everyone in line. Rather this peace is deep because it is the fruit of a society that respects persons and seeks development as part of a just and stable society. It implies a morally acceptable means of security and the right to personal and collective defense. (CC 1909) In other words, the right to bear arms, and a strong (moral) national defense that is governed by the Doctrine of Just War.

There is a lot more that can be said about this, but lets look at Ron Paul for a moment as he is on these issues:

1. Respect for Persons - Ron Paul's understanding of this issue is profound and deeply informed. He understands the philosophic relationship between the fundamental right to life and the liberty our founders recognized in the Constitution. Liberty is impossible without absolutely protecting the right to life from conception to natural death. He has said that "Abortion is the ultimate State Tyranny" because the state has no basis to deny someone of this most fundamental right. Ron Paul is against embronic destructive research (however he has talked about situations where the principle of double effect results in the unintended destruction of the life of the child). And perhaps the only issue that Ron Paul has changed his position on over the years is the question of the Death Penalty, previously he was in favor of it, but he is now against it. I don't know of another politician whose position is more in harmony with the philosophic position of the Church.

2. Social Well Being & Development - Ron Paul is an advocate of small government; stated another way, he is an advocate of personal responsibility and engagement with issues at the local level where you and your neighbors can make a difference. When the State tries to solve a social problem, the problem will grow because by its nature, the State is about power, and not compassion. Power always seeks to take and expand; compassion seeks to give away and sacrifice for others. So State programs tend to grow the problem and grow their budgets - this means they will take more money away from you and I. This is why the Church teaches about subsidiarity and the debilitatiing effects of a welfare state on the family.

Ron Paul is a constant advocate of reducing the size of government and reducing the tax burden on the American family. Today the tax payer has to work for close to 6 months to pay government before he can start working for the well being and development of his own family. In addition, Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about the immoral and unjust inflation tax that is imposed by our Federal Reserve system and the policy of borrowing and then debasing the currency. This policy is perhaps the greatest structural injustice against the poor and middle class in existence today. He wants to do away with our the unconstitutional currency, and eliminate the 16th Amendment and the federal income tax.

Ron Paul understands that the path to human flourishing is to get government off our backs, restore an ethic of personal responsibility to the people and let them keep the fruit of their labor by restoring a sound currency and taking away an income tax.

The American people are the most generous in the world. But how can we have time and money to give to charity or volunteer when we have such excessive taxation and the money we work hard to make is routinely debased as a matter of federal reserve policy? When American families have the conditions for their freedom and their prosperity restored and secured, they pour themselves out for others unlike any other time in history and we will see human well being spread by our good example.

3. Peace - Ron Paul is the only candidate calling for the abandonment of the "premptive war doctrine" and a return to Christian Just War principles. He is the only candidate calling for an immediate end to the war in Iraq. He is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. And a strong critic of the military industrial complex (our society is at risk when large powerful companies have direct and immediate incentives to go to war). Ron Paul is also a strong critic of the erosion of our civil liberties that have happened in the name of "domestic security."

No other candidate running, or in recent memory encompasses the principles of Catholic Social Teaching and the necessary conditions for the Common Good than Ron Paul.

Friday, November 9, 2007

Ron Paul & The Primacy of Life

Ron Paul eloquently defends his position on the life issues.

Two interesting points here.

1. One of the interviewers aggressively attacks Ron Paul with the false dilemma of "Who are you going to put in jail, the woman seeking an abortion or her doctor!" Ron Paul answers with humility and a strong dose of reality. He is a passionate defender of life. This line of questioning reveals just how impoverished the thinking is on the pro-abortion advocacy side of things.

2. He says that the only way that embryonic research might be morally acceptable is when you have an ectopic pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother. Invoking the natural law principle of double effect, the action that seeks to save the mother's life results (in an unwanted fashion) with the death of the child. In this limited scope, Ron Paul suggests that it might be morally acceptable for that embryo to be reserved for research purposes.

This exchange shows how deeply informed Ron Paul is with natural law arguments on the life issue. But more so, how deeply he holds them.

Catholic Convert Kudlow Gives Ron Paul a Fair Shake

Is the Main Stream Media really asking Ron Paul about how to fix our monetary system?

Yes, and they are discussing Hayek's The Road to Serfdom too!

This really is revolutionary!

Thursday, November 8, 2007

"Thou Shalt Not Steal"

Ron Paul does a masterful job of admonishing Ben Bernanke on the central bank's complicity in the current policy of confiscatory inflation.

The Manichean Presidency

David Gordon of the Mises Institute writes an excellent review of Glen Greenwald's new book, A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. EvilDestroyed the Bush Presidency Mentality . Here is a money quote from the book:

The term Manichean refers in its most literal sense to a religion founded in the third century by the Persian prophet Manes … it central precept was that the entire world could be cleanly divided into two opposing spheres — God and Satan in the world of the eternal, and a corresponding battle of Good and Evil playing out on earth … the historical fate of the Manichees is of far less interest than is contemporary reliance on their religion's central moral tenets. In the overwhelming majority of President Bush's significant speeches and interviews throughout his political career — but particularly since the 9/11 attacks — he evinces a dualistic worldview lodged at the core of his belief system. (p. 46)

"The Bush administration views other countries as so dominated by evil that they cannot be expected to act rationally."

Here's praying for a foreign policy which looks at all other nations with the eyes of the Father, a good Creation, a rational Creation, capable of Redemption. Ron Paul's foreign policy would be based on a realistic view of our own faults and a realistic respect for the dignity of other peoples in their affairs. A non-interventionist foreign policy invokes the Golden Rule as its central principle, one which, if we have Faith, will serve this nation and the world well.

Dr. Paul defending John Paul II

Here's a great quote of Ron Paul defending John Paul the Great from the secular statists.

"To the secularists, this was John Paul II’s unforgivable sin – he placed service to God above service to the state. Most politicians view the state, not God, as the supreme ruler on earth. They simply cannot abide a theology that does not comport with their vision of unlimited state power. This is precisely why both conservatives and liberals savaged John Paul II when his theological pronouncements did not fit their goals. But perhaps their goals simply were not godly."

In other words, as St. Peter said, "We must obey God rather than men." -Acts 5:29

Monday, November 5, 2007

The Meaning of November 5th

The organizers of the 5th of November initiative have not formally responded to CFRP's post nor to my e-mail asking for clarification as to the meaning of November 5th.

However, they have posted a speech by Ron Paul about patriotism, the resistance to oppressive state power and non-violence means. It seems that this new addition to the website is a response to the valid criticism raised by CFRP and others about the meaning of November 5th as being anti-Catholic/Christian, and supportive of terrorism as a means of resisting an oppressive state .

By posting this video, the organizers, I think, are clarifying the spirit with which they are invoking the 5th of November. This is very welcome. It is a spirit that CFRP can agree with and support.

The following YouTube video was posted to the combox discussion of CFRP's earlier post about the meaning of the 5th of November from a Catholic perspective.

CFRP supports the effort to raise a fantastic money bomb for Ron Paul's campaign, but does not support the kind of resistance used by Guy Fawkes. In a sense, the "bomb" being dropped today on the government is a money bomb, and Ron Paul's statement makes clear that planting bombs (a la Fawkes) is to be rejected. Lets hope that if the organizers of this campaign get interviewed by the MSM that they too make that clear.

Lets hope that the campaign is a success and the message of the day is Ron Paul's message of Patriotism.

Donate here (as much as you can) to be part of history.

Saturday, November 3, 2007

"The Sometimes Painful Realities of American Life"

Here is a profound quote enunciated by Morgan Freeman in a Hollywood production on the Declaration of Independence:

The real glory of the Declaration of Independence has been our nation's epic struggle throughout history to close the gap between the ideals of this remarkable document and the sometimes painful realities of American life.

These painful realities were present in the beginning with slavery and later with racism. Today the gap manifests itself most overtly with the modern preventive war doctrines, but there is an even more profound painful reality that is all too obvious that it is often ignored, abortion. A whole generation of Americans have been eliminated with the judicial backing and financial support of the modern American state. While African Americans now largely enjoy the equal protection of the law, the same cannot be said for their unborn or any unborn in America. And while Thomas Jefferson's reputation suffers from his self-acknowledged hypocrisy to slavery, Martin Luther King's hypocrisy to the life of the unborn should be recognized as well. While there is no evidence King overtly supported abortion, he was a recipient of he Sanger Award by Planned Parenthood for his support of its "family planning" initiatives. Both Jefferson and King, two of America's greatest champions of natural rights and equality, personify the beautiful, yet sometimes tragic struggle that is America.

The gap which desperately needs to be closed today respects the life of the unborn of which I believe Ron Paul is a champion. Paul reminds us of the obvious, without life, there is no liberty. Further, as the great Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmstead exhorts us, we must notice the text of the Declaration stating that the endowed inalienable rights come to us upon our creation. We are created equal in rights by "the Lord the Giver of Life", not born equal in rights. Of course, one need not be Catholics to know when and how human creation occurs. Thus, the unborn are created equal as enunciated in our founding charter. Paul continually seeks to statutorily overrule Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and all their ilk with the "We the People Act." While he would remand the abortion question back to the states, it is an incremental strategy which will result in real restrictions on abortion. Further, I think he would do what he could to eliminate abortion in areas under Federal jurisdiction, like the District of Colombia.

Finally, under a Paul administration, I think a good strategy for cutting government spending would be to place a hierarchy among programs and their effect on life. After dealing with the most direct and immediate unjust Federal action, the Iraq war, at the top of the chop block should be Federal abortion and family planning financing during a Paul versus Congress budget battle. All other Federal budget cuts should be subordinate. I think he should bring the government to a shut-down over the issue, particularly since it is the extremely painful reality of this American age.

Here is the Morgan Freeman video on the Declaration of Independence:

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Remembering the 5th of November - A Catholic Response

Many Ron Paul supporters will be familiar with the Money Bomb campaign over at This November 5th.

Catholics for Ron Paul join in the desire to give Ron Paul a major boost in donations, however the meaning of November 5th leaves much to be desired in its anti-Catholic and anti-Christian symbolism.

The inspiration for this date comes from Guy Fawkes Day in England, a ritual re-execution in effigy of a Catholic who opposed the oppressive Protestant rule of James I. Guy Fawkes was involved with the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 - an attempt to relieve the persecutions against English Catholics by assassinating the King and blowing up Parliament. The plot was discovered and Guy Fawkes was executed. This event was used to introduce more oppressive measures against English citizenry by the State, these oppressive laws remained intact for over 200 years.

Every November 5th, Guy Fawkes is ritually re-executed in effigy as a ritual of Protestant sectarian boosterism. If anyone has visited the North of Ireland and experienced the way events from the 1600's are ritually enacted, they will know what this is all about.

But this is not why the organizers of this event chose November 5th, it is because of the film V for Vendetta - where the vigilante anti-hero of the film takes on the persona of Guy Fawkes and turns him into an anti-statist anarchist. (Note the anti-Catholic tract pictured at the beginning of this youtube clip.)

Here too, the symbolism is a bit off the mark.

Yes Ron Paul is a hero that is going against the state to seek freedom and repair a structural injustice within our system. But the film V for Vendetta is an openly anti-Catholic film that bizarrely glorifies a Catholic anti-establishment figure from history who sought to liberate Catholics from an anti-Catholic tyrannical regime, and puts him in a film which is overtly anti-Catholic and anti-Christian. How does this fit with Ron Paul and his message?

There are many supporters for Ron Paul who read into his message an anti-establishment ethos, but Ron Paul himself is a believing Christian and remember that the Liberties that he and we are fighting for are rooted in a Judeo-Christian worldview. Austrian Economics, the school of thought Ron Paul is speaking from, has its philosophical beginnings in the work of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics.

Equating Ron Paul with the V for Vendetta Guy Fawkes is a mess of symbolism. The historical Guy Fawkes fails in his plot and is killed by the state. The V Guy Fawkes is trying to over throw a the film's portrayal of Christianity in favor of a radical social agenda. How does this fit with Ron Paul's message? Ron Paul is on the record that he agrees that the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a women - this position would place him among those organizing the concentration camps in the V for Vendetta film!

As for Catholicism - Ron Paul's son is Catholic and Ron Paul is one of the most eloquent defenders of Catholicism. Ron Paul is not for the elimination of Faith from the public square, he is for the repeal of all legislation that has limited the free exercise of religion (such as no prayer in public schools) in our society. This is not exactly the message of V for Vendetta.

Again, Catholics for Ron Paul is in support of giving Ron Paul a money Bomb and a big boost, however the choice of November the 5th is unfortunate and runs counter to Ron Paul's message.
Catholics for Ron Paul respectfully asks the organizers of the 5th of November Money Bomb initiative to clarify their use of this date, and distance themselves from the anti-Christian and anti-Catholic symbolism of the 5th of November Guy Fawkes/V for Vendetta message.

Why mix Ron Paul's positive message of with the off color symbolism and frankly distasteful message of V for Vendetta and Guy Fawkes Day?

UPDATE: It seems that CFRP is not the only one's out there questioning the meaning of the 5th of November date.:

The problem? Their huge political win is going to be mired due to Neocon criticism that Ron Paul is endorsing terrorism against the US government.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Blessed Are the Peacemakers

This will send the warmongers up a wall, but here is the one non-crazed candidate speaking about foreign policy. The video is called "Ron Paul's First Action as President."

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

The Man in NYC

I had the good fortune to meet with Ron Paul in New York City on the evening of October 12th at a nice party in a village penthouse. My mother in law got me the ticket, for which I am grateful. Here is me and Ron Paul:

Here is Dr. Paul and the Revolution at Grand Central station.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Ron Paul & Rudy on Marriage

Ron Paul answers well on why he opposes a Federal marriage amendment primarily for federalism reasons. He also notes that marriage came under modern state control in the US about a hundred years ago for public health concerns. Secondarily, Paul makes the excellent point that he thinks marriage belongs to the private sphere, namely to ecclesiastical institutions.

Rudy says he disagrees marriage is not just a religious institution, but it is a civil institution as well. He knows, he married people.

For some LRC views on separating marriage and state see Prof. Stephen Safranek’s analysis here, and my own here. Along similar lines see Prof. Daniel Crane’s “A ‘Judeo Christian’ Argument for Privatizing Marriage,” in the Cardozo Law Review.

What Does Bella Have to Do with Ron Paul?

Everything! Both are massive underdogs. Both are fighting for truth and justice in their respective ways. Both fight for the right to life.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

A Catholic for Ron Paul VP?

Murray Sabrin discusses the possibility of Judge Andrew Napolitano for Ron Paul's running mate. I always thought South Carolina governor Marc Sanford was the best choice, but I think I like the Napolitano idea better. Napolitano brings that extra charisma to an already charismatic campaign. I saw Napolitano give a speech at the Mises Institute last weekend which, while substantive, it was quite entertaining. As a Constitutional expert, he would make a nice addition to an administration focused on viewing the constitution as an important backstop to most decisions. He would do a great job explaining complex constitutional issues to the American people.

Also, Napolitano would really help Paul shore up the Catholic vote, emboldening an already strong pro-life candidacy. Napolitano, unlike most Catholics in the public eye, is unashamed of his Catholic faith. In his speeches he makes references to going to Church and saying the rosary. And while his explicit faith combined with a principled pro-life stand will shore up orthodox and traditional oriented Catholics, Napolitano's stands on civil liberties and just war will help shore up the more "progressive" and left oriented Catholics.

As a real native to the New York tri-state area, he will help Paul steal some votes from Hillary in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. I know of a number of New York area democrats whom I could convince to jump to the Paul camp with an endearing Napolitano on the team.

Finally, it I think Napolitano would be a great person to pick up where Paul leaves off with the Revolution.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Message from Ron Paul

The other day, my old sparring partner in so many Congressional committee hearings, Alan Greenspan, was on the Fox Business Channel. After Alan promoted his new book, the reporter asked if we really needed a central bank. Greenspan looked stunned, and then said that was a good question; he actually talked about fiat money vs. a gold standard. Now, the ex-Fed chairman is not about to endorse our sound monetary policy, but you know our Revolution is working when such a question is asked in the mainstream media, and this powerful man gives such an answer.

You and I are reopening a whole host of questions that the establishment thought it had closed off forever: on war, on taxes and spending, on inflation and gold, and on the rule of law and our Constitution.

A few years ago, I asked a famous conservative columnist a question. What did he think about the prospects for a restored Robert Taft wing of the Republican party? He thought I was joking. As you know, I was not.

After all the aggressive wars, the assaults on our privacy and civil liberties, the oppressive taxation, and the crazed spending and deficits, I believe that many Republican voters are ready to return to our roots. And the big boys feel it too. It is no coincidence that the Republican National Committee invited me to a fundraising dinner involving only "top-tier candidates."
Some of the opposition claims that I am not a "real Republican," whereas I am the only one in the race. And our campaign is registering new Republican voters by the boatload. None of my opponents is doing anything approaching that.

Of course, they pooh-pooh our success. "He's just registering Democrats and Independents and people who have never voted before." Well, yes. It's called growth. We are laying the groundwork for the primaries.

All over America, our support is wide and deep and growing, and young people are joining like never before. After the Dearborn debate, I went to the University of Michigan for a rally. 2,000 students turned out, something that has happened to no other candidate this year.
The crowd cheered all our ideas, but especially our opposition to the Federal Reserve, and our support for real money of gold and silver, as the Constitution mandates, instead of prosperity-wrecking fiat money. American politics hasn't seen anything like this in many decades. It is truly revolutionary.

But time is getting short. We must do massive radio and TV advertising, open many small offices (three in just South Carolina the other day), staff them, pay all the bills, and turn out our vote with massive organizational and phone-bank efforts.

As you know, the blackout is ending; our campaign is starting to get mainstream media attention, thanks to growing donations and volunteers. And contributions are the key to more attention, and to our being able to do the actual work of victory. Good news: our recent green-eyeshade analysis of all the candidates' net finances, which got so much press attention, shows our campaign as one of only three in the top-tier.

But we must keep moving up, and the Iowa caucuses are now on January 3rd. The New Hampshire primary may be in early December!

As always, everything depends on you. Please, make the most generous donation you can as soon as you can. I need your help so badly.
The other day, an 8-year-old boy handed me a small white envelope. It contained the $4.00 he had saved from his allowance, as a donation to our campaign. I can't tell you how seriously I take my responsibility to work hard, and spend frugally and effectively, to be worthy of his support, and yours.

Please help me keep working, even harder and more effectively, for all we believe in. Without you, I'd have to pack it in. Donate now . We have more than an election to win. We have a country to save.


Ron Paul

Kudos to CBN; Will First Things Get Left Behind?

David Brody, a national correspondent for CBN News, has been giving Ron Paul a fair shake recently. He recognizes Paul's rock star following noting Paul's opposition to the war and take on Roe v. Wade. While some evangelicals like Bob Jones are endorsing Romney, others have still left themselves open, like James Dobson and Pat Robertson.

It is interesting to note that the Chairman of Paul's Iowa campaign is from Iowa's Christian Alliance and the former chairman of Pat Robertson's Iowa campaign. There is still hope for big shot evangelical support of Ron Paul. The question for them is how beholden are they to the Iraqi nation building project to make a vote for a truly pro-life presidential candidate?

On the other hand, in the case of First Things, editor Joseph Bottum seems to foreclose a vote for a Ron Paul presidency as an act of "go[ing] mad." He fails to make any kind of substantive critique of Paul's ideas or even give credence to Paul's pro-life credentials. Paul offers a fresh approach which is rarely, if ever, considered by the pro-life establishment: enact a Congressional limit on Federal appellate court jurisdiction. In short, statutorily overrule Roe v. Wade. For a man who would "sup with the devil to see" Roe v. Wade overturned, it is sad to seem him summarily dismiss Ron Paul's bright ideas founded in Constitutional authority. It seems for the time being, First Things is much more beholden to the nation building project in Iraq.

Ron Paul on the bully pulpit would give the most radical pro-life Presidency ever, seeking within the confines of federal power a respect for life from cradle to grave, both foreign and domestic. And I dare speculate, that even if he didn't get Congress to statutorily overturn Roe v. Wade, if a state sought to enforce abortion statutes as murder, a Ron Paul executive would not enforce a decision by the Federal courts overturning such a state statute. Thus, while the court in that instance may have spoken, it would do so only with a mere opinion without the force of the executive behind it. Under a Paul presidency, the states could exert their proper plenary powers outlawing abortion without any kind of executive interference. In short, a Paul presidency would really allow for bold action by the pro-life movement in the several states.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Ron Paul on the PBS NewsHour

A fine interview that examines Ron Paul's message in more than a sound bite:

Part 1

Part 2

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Bringing Hell to Iraq

Whether its US troops or soldiers of fortune hired by the President, the Federal government is killing more and more innocent civilians in Iraq. A.P. reports that grunts called in an airstrike, apparently going after Al-Qeada, killing 19 insurgents, 15 civilians, and 9 children. 9 children? I can't imagine what must be going through the soldiers' heads when they found out they've killed 9 children? And if they're not thinking about it now, assuming they survive, what is this horrid nightmare going to do to them later in their lives? And what about the families of all the dead, what kind of anguish this must bring? All this, so we can feel safer from the potential of a possible threat from a third world country with no airforce and an army decimated by Gulf War I?

We, as Catholics have an obligation as voters under this government to do what we can to stop the atrocities that are done in our name and Ron Paul is the only pro-life candidate who actually wants to stop this madness.

Excellent Ron Paul Video

Ron Paul: A New Hope

Ron Paul Combating “Structures of Sin”

Some people are astonished to discover Catholics for Ron Paul because of the widespread myth that Catholicism is an oppressor of human freedom and liberation. The reality is that Catholicism and the Church are the greatest champions of human dignity and liberty history has known. The Catholic Church has been combating “structures of sin” for a long time, so too has Ron Paul (just not as long). Although the Catholic Church doesn’t promote specific models or endorse particular public policies, she does articulate the moral framework for doing so.

For example, the Catholic Church teaches that the State has a “fundamental task” in economic matters of creating “sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency.” The Church also implores everyone to “combat, in a spirit of justice and charity, those “structures of sin” wherever they may be found and which generate and perpetuate poverty, underdevelopment and degradation. These structures are built and strengthened by numerous concrete acts of human selfishness."

Ron Paul has been combating one of the greatest “structures of sin” for a very long time: the Federal Reserve System, the fiat currency and its role in inflation, and the oppression of the middle class and poor in our country to the benefit of big government, big banks and big business. Say what?!?

In Ron Paul’s own words:

The dollar died on August 15,1971; after that date, it had no independent value for anyone. The new rules, with the dollar now simply a managed fiat currency, ushered in even greater inflation, economic turmoil, and set the stage for total loss of confidence in the dollar.

With the death of the dollar, the time is ripe for the institution of a trustworthy monetary system. The times demand it, and so does the survival of our economic and political order.

The task is not difficult, if we ignore—for once—the political pressures from the special interests whose demands are fulfilled through inflation of the money supply. Inflation, whether for the benefit of big companies, bankers, bureaucrats, monopoly wages, transfer payments, or political careers, must be ended.

If we expect to reverse the destruction of our economy, we must try to understand the motives of those who promote inflation.

Many big business people, bankers, union leaders, politicians, and professors all grew to love inflation, as they saw in it a chance to pursue their goals. Sometimes these were purely materialistic; at other times they embodied the lust for power. In both cases they were immoral.

When I studied the amount of inflation since 1970 and the proportion of Federal deficits in those years that needed to be monetized—created out of thin air—I came up with some startling figures. It is possible that only twenty percent of the inflation, the expansion of the money supply, was necessitated by deficit spending. Eighty percent of the inflation, therefore, may have been for "stimulation" of the economy to aid big business and big banking. Whatever the motive, these institutions profit from the depreciation of the dollar.

Some of the large banks, which have been prominent promoters of fiat currency, have certainly benefited from inflation. Their "profits" have been enhanced, since somebody has to broker all the new money created by government, and pass it on to the large corporations. The international bankers are delighted to do so.

The banks also have the privilege of creating checking account money, known as demand deposits. The banks create this money in the process of making loans—loans for which they charge interest. Much of our money consists of bank-created demand deposits.

Inflation bestows benefits, as well as wreaking havoc. Wealth is transferred from one group to another. Although the transfer has haphazard elements, it goes from the middle class and the poor to the government, the bankers, and the large corporations. This is the immoral process that must be stopped.

Interventionist economists carelessly criticize the spreading of economic growth throughout a free-market society as the "trickle-down theory." But inflation, by trickling, then rushing, through society, spreads economic misery among the poor, working, and middle classes, while enriching the special interests. It is this "trickling-down" that deserves condemnation from everyone concerned about poverty.
(Gold, Peace and Prosperity, by Ron Paul)

Here Ron Paul clearly describes one of the greatest “structures of sin” plaguing our society today.

What is a structure of sin? It is the sum total of “the negative factors working against a true awareness of the universal common good, and the need to further it, gives the impression of creating, in persons and institutions, an obstacle which is difficult to overcome.” Structures of sin are “rooted in personal sin [such as greed and the lust for power], and thus always linked to the concrete acts of individuals who introduce these structures, consolidate them and make them difficult to remove. And thus they grow stronger, spread, and become the source of other sins, and so influence people’s behavior.” (John Paul II – Sollicitudo Rei Socialis)

The Federal Reserve System, its necessary inflationary mechanisms and the way it very subtly and immorally transfers wealth from the poor and middle class to big business, banks and government is perhaps one of the greatest “structures of sin” leading to the oppression of the America people by special interests. These structures “generate and perpetuate poverty.”

The Catholic Church teaches that the State has a responsibility to ensure a “stable currency” as one of the fundamental tasks of the State in economic matters. The State’s current monetary policy is one of structural instability and inflation.

[The] State must adopt suitable legislation but at the same time it must direct economic and social policies in such a way that it does not become abusively involved in the various market activities, the carrying out of which is and must remain free of authoritarian – or worse, totalitarian – superstructures and constraints.

Our current Federal Reserve/Fiat Monetary System has surrendered our country to authoritarian and totalitarian superstructures that oppress the poor and destroy the middle class while advancing the “economic interests” of the elites of a global society against the basic and just interests of regular folks like you and me.

Our country and our economy are being destroyed and the reason is primarily our Federal Reserve System/Fiat Monetary System.

Oh, and the Founding Fathers also agree:

"It is apparent from the whole context of the Constitution, as well as the history of the times which gave birth to it," said Andrew Jackson, "that it was the purpose of the Convention to establish a currency consisting of the precious metals."

"The loss which America has sustained since the peace," noted James Madison in Federalist Number 44, "from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the State chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice of the power which has been the instrument of it."

"The emitting of paper money is wisely prohibited to the State Governments," said Alexander Hamilton, "and the spirit of the prohibition ought not to be disregarded by the United States' Government."

Not only is inflation the result of the political demands of special interest groups, the career desires of politicians, and the ill-conceived motives of economists, it is also clearly unconstitutional. Money of real value, gold or silver, was clearly intended by the Founding Fathers, as evidenced in their writings and in the Constitution. Their abhorrence of paper money stemmed from their experience with the Continental, and irredeemable Colonial paper money. That same abhorrence is becoming evident today as well, which is a healthy sign for those of us interested in developing a sound money system. (Gold, Peace and Prosperity by Ron Paul)

Go Ron Paul!

St. Ignatius of Loyola Prayer for Ron Paul

Ron Paul is fighting the good fight hard. Here he is on Tucker Carlson and he's looking a little tired. He needs our prayers.

"Dearest Lord, teach me to be generous.
Teach me to serve you as you deserve;
to give and not to count the cost;
to fight and not to heed the wounds;
to labor and not to seek for rest;
to give of myself and not to ask for reward,
except the reward of knowing that I am doing your will."
-St. Ignatius, pray for us.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

National Review warming to Ron Paul?

I was surprised to find strong praise for Ron Paul on the National Review Online blog:

This weekend, I attended and spoke at the Second Amendment Foundation’s annual Gun Rights Policy Conference, which was held at a convention center in northern Kentucky, a few miles away from Cincinnati. What I saw and heard there changed my mind about the viability of Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy; Paul is going to far outperform the expectations laid out for him.

... Last Saturday night, at the buffet dinner and reception, the speaker was Ron Paul. The difference between Paul as a speaker in 1988 and in 2007 was startling. In 1988, he was perfectly competent. This time he was electrifying. In 1988, his campaign could do little more than leave some literature on a table. This time, he had volunteers to hand out literature, including (for the recipient audience) devastating material on Romney and Thompson.

...Most impressive, however, was the large crowd of young people who showed up to hear Paul’s speech. They were enthused and energized, many of them sporting Ron Paul Revolution t-shirts. (The shirts are very clever, since they use “Revolution” to also say ““LOVE”,” which makes revolution seem a lot nicer.)

Is Paul still a longshot? Yes, but so were George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Gary Hart. It is true that Republicans have, for over half a century, nominated whoever was leading in the first Gallup poll after Labor Day. But the past doesn’t control the future. Until 2000, for instance, no-one who had lost the New Hampshire primary had ever won the general election.

Polls show that about quarter of Americans are libertarians, in a general sense, so Paul has lots of room for growth. If he can keep raising enough money to get his message out, then with some strong finishes in the early states, he will start getting earned media. And beyond that, Ronald Reagan is among the many candidates who have proven that many voters will support someone even if they disagree with him on many issues, if they respect his integrity and find hope in his optimistic vision.

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Ron Paul, John Paul II, and the Iraq War

Below is an article written a few months ago by a good friend of mine, Kathryn Landreneau. We tried to get it published in some other venues to no avail. So what better place to post this than Catholics for Ron Paul?


"I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th." This was Rudy Giuliani’s scathing commentary on Ron Paul’s discussion of the Iraq situation during the Republican debate on May 15. Paul was the only candidate there who does not support U.S. involvement in Iraq, so he drew plenty of fire. Sean Hannity was another one of Paul’s attackers. During the Fox News interview after the debate, he would not allow Paul to finish his sentences, and called his ideas “immoral.” Since both Giuliani and Hannity are Catholics and Ron Paul is not, it should be safe to assume that Paul’s ideas are unacceptable to Catholics. However, to make that assumption would be nothing more than to judge a book by its cover.

During the debate, Paul outlined his opinions on Iraq quite clearly. He believes that the traditional Republican foreign policy is to avoid entanglements with other countries. Ronald Reagan, the quintessential modern republican, said that it is particularly unwise to become involved in the Middle East, because the region is so “irrational.” According to Paul, the U.S.’s continuous meddling in Iraqi affairs for the past ten years, including an occupation of their holy land in Saudi Arabia, bombings in their country, and sanctions, were part of the cause of the 9-11 attacks. Paul is not pulling these ideas out of thin air. The official 9-11 report written by the CIA says the same thing. Yet, people like Giuliani and Hannity insist on calling Paul’s assertions absurd and immoral.

Perhaps someone should ask them if they thought John Paul II was absurd and immoral. During his State of the World address in 2003, the late Pope begged world leaders not to solve the problem of terrorism in the Middle East by going to war. The way to attack terrorism, he said, is by going to its root causes. People are driven to terrorism when they are being treated unjustly: “History, in fact, shows that the recruitment of terrorists is more easily achieved in areas where human rights are trampled upon and where injustice is a part of daily life,” he said, naming Iraq as one of those countries. He explains that, among other things, it has been “sorely tried by more than 12 years of embargo.” He clarifies that none of this is an excuse for terrorist acts. However, we cannot expect terrorism to end as long as we provoke a country by going to war against it.

It’s really no surprise that people like Giuliani and Hannity are not in line with John Paul II’s opinions on Iraq. After all, despite their claims to Catholicism, each of them stands against many other things John Paul II fought for. Giuliani has repeatedly asserted that he is pro-choice. He supports government funding of abortions and has said that partial birth abortions should not be banned. As New York mayor, he pushed the city council to protect the rights of homosexual partnerships. He has been married three times; the last marriage was to a woman he had had an extramarital affair with. Besides the fact that Hannity supports Giuliani in the presidential race, further evidence of his “cafeteria Catholicism” was exposed by Fr. Thomas Euteneuer recently. In his weekly column as president of Human Life International, Euteneuer challenged Hannity for being pro-contraception. Hannity then invited Euteneuer onto his show and proceeded to treat the priest rudely, even going so far as to blame Euteneuer in part for the clergy sex abuse scandals.

Despite the fact the Ron Paul is not Catholic, the convergence of his ideas on the war with those of John Paul II is no accident. Paul highly respected the late Pope and his views on social issues. On the occasion of John Paul II’s death, Ron Paul wrote a column praising him. In it, he said, “The Pontiff would not ignore the inherent contradiction in being pro-life and pro-war, nor distort just war doctrine to endorse attacking a nation that clearly posed no threat to America.” In the column, Paul distanced himself from other political conservatives who resented the Pope’s views on the war. In this way, he shows himself to be a unique candidate in the presidential race, and one that Catholics should take notice of.

Kathryn Landreneau is a mother of two, heroically helping her husband attend Pepperdine Universtity School of Law in Pasedena, CA.

Benedict XVI & Ron Paul

In August of 2005, over four hundred thousand youths from around the world flocked to Cologne to see a frail old man preach the message of the Gospel. Benedict XVI did not have the fire or charisma of his predecessor John Paul II, but nonetheless, the world's youth hung on this man's every word. There was no need for fireworks, no need for liturgical dance, the world's youth needed none of the worldly things many of their parents try to placate them with. What they needed was the Message: "My dear young people, you too offer to the Lord the gold of your lives, namely, your freedom to follow Him out of love, responding faithfully to His call..." With that call, thousands knelt behind this old bishop in Eucharistic adoration. Benedict XVI's profound commitment to the Message, in spite of his relatively bland persona, has won over world youth. It is their hope that Benedict will deliver into action the wonderful ideas and rhetoric espoused by the great John Paul.

Currently, in America we have a similar phenomena with Dr. Ron Paul. The media, the elites, and most baby boomers are baffled by the growing youth movement in support of a man whom they describe as "ordinary, frial-looking" with an "unexceptional" speaking ability. Of course, once again youth are lured not by the condescending superficialities of the candidate's persona, but his commitment to a profound message, freedom. Paul's predecessor in the freedom message was none other than the late Ronald Reagan. Like John Paul II, Reagan's charisma and freedom oriented rhetoric inspired Americans throughout the 1980's. What America's youth are hoping for in Ron Paul today, is that Reagan's freedom oriented rhetoric is set into action, particularly against both the domestic and foreign policies of the culture of death.

And so their respective followings grow, in spite of derision by American elites. For instance, when the Tridentine Latin mass was recently given liberalized status in the Catholic Church, Cardinal O'Malley of Boston tried to downplay its significance: "This issue of the Latin Mass is not urgent for our country..." He, of course fails to see the growing number of young families as well as old pre-boomers who are finding a great interest in the ancient liturgy. The same goes for Ron Paul's messages. For example, with regard to banking and finance, Paul seeks to eliminate the Federal Reserve, replacing it with a gold standard. While elites deride these ideas as both anachronistic and unrealistic, America's youth is much more skeptical of the current power structure, with a growing interest in the "classical" ways of doing things. In both Benedict XVI and Ron Paul, we see a rebirth of the practices and ideals held onto for decades by a tiny remnant. [Maybe we needed restoration of the Latin Mass before we could restore the gold standard.]

I was originally tempted to compare Benedict XVI and a Ron Paul presidency to the collaboration between John Paul II and Ronald Reagan, but their collaboration dealt with a more black and white challenge than what we face today. Today, like in the early 20th Century, we see a world fractured by nationalism, terrorism, and total war. I'm hoping we see the waning of the leviathan that began amidst the heroic protests of Benedict XV and Blessed Karl of Austria less than a hundred years ago. I'm hoping for a Ron Paul presidency to help Benedict XVI bury the leviathan and curtail the destructive power lust of the 20th century. Benedict eliminated the papal tiara from his coat of arms, symbolically demonstrating that the Church's authority is not authoritarian. Paul, like Benedict, seeks to restore the proper role of power vested in the American presidency by bringing its office back to the enumerated powers delegated to it by the Constitution. In other words, the President and the Federal government's authority is not authoritarian. A Ron Paul presidency during a Benedict XVI papacy would make a formidable challenge to a world enthralled by the culture of death. Both men know how to intelligently deal with the Middle East such that both east and west will mutually benefit from a peace based on free trade, actual diplomacy, and understanding.

I wonder if Benedict XVI knows who Ron Paul is and how well the revolution reconciles with the Message of his Papacy?

Blessed Karl and Benedict XV, pray for us.

Rosary for Ron Paul's Campaign Success Begins Today

This e-mail came in from a reader of Catholics for Ron Paul. Looks like CFRP is making a difference in the campaign. Thank you Catherine for tuning in and being an advocate for Ron Paul.



Thanks for all the wonderful info on Catholics for Ron Paul.

I'vealready converted at least one Catholic to his cause thanks to you, and we both had the idea of praying the Rosary for Ron Paul's campaign success. We'll be having a prayer vigil from the feast of St. Francis until the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary. (Think Lepanto, thePhilippines, and all the other victories attributable to the power ofthe Rosary.)

Here's the info: From the feast of St. Francis to the feast Our Lady of the Rosary (October 4-7) join us in praying a daily Rosary for the success of Congressman Ron Paul's presidential campaign.

We are also praying for peace in our world, an end to Roe v. Wade, anda restoration of total religious freedom in America.

For all those not totally convinced about a Ron Paul presidency (Iunderstand, I've been there), please join in praying the Rosary forour country, for our next president, and for the upcoming elections.

N.B. Dr. Paul is not a Catholic, so the Rosary is probably not histhing; on the other hand, he is pro-religious freedom, so we figure itcan only be for the good.

If any of you are on facebook, check out the event!

Thanks again and God bless your efforts!



Is a Non-Interventionism the same as Isolationism?

The most frequent swipe taken against Ron Paul is that he is a "isolationist." When talking to people about Ron Paul the response is often, "Isn't he an isolationist?!?"

Isolationism conjures up images of a militia style survivalists radically relying on his bowie knife and wits to keep himself warm and alive but loath to interact or even talk to his suspicious neighbors.

In an interconnected networked global economy, isolationism sounds kind of crazy. So if Ron Paul is an isolationist, then isn't he kind of crazy too? And thus the slur against Ron Paul does its job and goes unchallenged in the minds of unsuspecting voters.

But what is isolationism, and is Ron Paul an isolationist?

From Wikipedia:

Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). It asserts both:

1. Non-Interventionism - Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related directly to direct territorial self-defense.

2. Protectionism - There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

Not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries.

Isolationism is nonintervention combined with economic nationalism (protectionism). Most non-interventionists are not isolationists. Most, like Thomas Jefferson and Ron Paul in the United States, favor nonintervention combined with free trade and free cultural exchange.

+ + + + + + +

Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist, rather he, along with our Founding Fathers, is a non-interventionist.

Ron Paul is opposed to our current foreign policy which was crafted by neo-conservatives in the latter part of the 1990's. These neo-conservatives, many of whom are signatories to the Project for a New American Century, espouse a policy of direct intervention in the affairs of other countries because America has a responsibility to be the policeman of the world, and has almost a divine mandate to spread peace, freedom and democracy around the world by using military power!

Our current foreign policy is one of global entanglements and the "spreading of our values" abroad through "pre-emptive war" and other methods of naked and stealth coercion. This is a policy of empire and neo-imperialism. This is not the policy of our Founding Fathers; it is the English policy our Founding Fathers fought to liberate themselves and us - their posterity - from living under.

Does Ron Paul advocate economic Protectionism?

Not at all.

He wants to get America out of these global trade agreements that "manage trade" in a way that is akin to protectionism.

Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is a canard to deflect from a serious debate about America's current foreign policy of "never-ending pre-emptive war for an ever ascending global peace and security." This policy is unconstitutional, it is an affront to the American people in whose name it is advanced, and it is giving us a tyrannical domestic policy and fueling suicide terrorism.

This policy is the problem. Ron Paul is the only candidate running for President who is making this point.

Don't let anyone get away with calling Ron Paul an isolationist - he isn't. Calling him one is an attempt to slur him and make him seem crazy.

Go Ron Paul!