National Catholic Register on Ron Paul

Today's headline piece in the National Catholic Register, "Ron Paul Draws Passionate Support", by Charlie Spiering features two quotations from yours truly:

Paul stands alone among the Republican presidential candidates as one who voted against the Iraq war, stating that it was unconstitutional, since it never received a congressional declaration of war. If elected president, Paul promises to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Thomas Peters, who runs the blog American Papist, contributes to a blog called Catholics for Ron Paul. He noted that since the Vatican hasn’t spoken magisterially about the Iraq war, Catholics can continue to debate the issue. “He [Paul] has philosophical and rational reasons for why he thinks that American involvement isn’t the best choice,” said Peters. “He examines the question using principles of just war theory, specifically speaking about the Christian tradition of a just war,” he added.

Paul mentioned the Vatican’s comments regarding the Iraq War when paying tribute to John Paul II’s legacy. “The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become one of the most eloquent spokesmen for the consistent ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia and the death penalty,” he said on the floor of the House of Representatives on April 6, 2005, four days after the Pope’s death.

Although initially a supporter of the death penalty, Paul changed his position after studying the issue throughout his political career.

Some religious voters remain skeptical about a vote for Paul, as his strict interpretation for the Constitution pits him against federal legislation to ban prostitution, drugs and homosexual “marriage.”

Peters said, “Ron Paul voted against the marriage amendment, but only because he thought it was non-constitutional, not because he doesn’t think marriage isn’t a union of a man and a woman.”

Ron Paul addressed the March for Life yesterday, but sadly I missed it. There were several Ron Paul supporters at the March, some of them carrying "Ron Paul for Life" banners.

Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade) endorsed Dr. Paul for President yesterday, as Casey Khan predicted on Monday.

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.

Video: Ron Paul at the Value Voters Debate

After being treated rather unfairly at the Value Voter's Debate, Ron Paul composed himself and delivered this final speech. Note especially, at the end of this clip, his remarks about the "Christian Tradition of ... Just War" (which he apparently mentioned earlier in the debate). Ron Paul accurately understands, describes and applies it in the limited time he is allowed:

New Video From Christians for Ron Paul

Ron Paul on Jesus Christ and Faith in Public Life

Statement of Faith

By Rep. Ron Paul, MD.

The Covenant News ~ July 21, 2007

We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of “just war.” This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success.

It has been and remains my firm belief that the current United Nations-mandated, no-win police action in Iraq fails to meet the high moral threshold required to wage just war. That is why I have offered moral and practical opposition to the invasion, occupation and social engineering police exercise now underway in Iraq. It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.

I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression, However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.

On September 17, 2001, I stated on the house floor that “…striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.” I’m sorry to say that history has proven this to be true.

I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution. I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned.

Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul

(hat tip to maiki ;)

Ron Paul on John Paul II's Legacy

The following is an article written by Ron Paul:

Theology, not Politics
April 11, 2005

Members of Congress from both political parties outdid themselves last week in heaping praise upon Pope John Paul II in the wake of his passing. Many spoke at length on the floor of the House of Representatives, and some even flew to Rome for his funeral.

I’m happy to witness so many politicians honoring a great man of God and peace. The problem, however, is that so few of them honored him during his lifetime by their actions as legislators. In fact, most members of Congress support policies that are totally at odds with Catholic teachings.

Just two years ago conservatives were busy scolding the Pope for his refusal to back our invasion of Iraq. One conservative media favorite even made the sickening suggestion that the Pope was the enemy of the United States because he would not support our aggression in the Middle East. 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-- and conservatives resented it. September 11th did not change everything, and the Pope understood that killing is still killing. The hypocritical pro-war conservatives lauding him today have very short memories.

Liberals also routinely denounced the Pope for refusing to accept that Catholicism, like all religions, has rules that cannot simply be discarded to satisfy the cultural trends of the time. The political left has been highly critical of the Pope’s positions on abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, feminism, and contraception. Many liberals frankly view Catholicism as an impediment to the fully secular society they hope to create.

Both conservatives and liberals cannot understand that the Pope’s pronouncements were theological, not political. He was one of the few humans on earth who could not be bullied or threatened by any government. He was a man of God, not a man of the state. He was not a policy maker, but rather a steward of long-established Catholic doctrine. His mission was to save souls, not serve the political agendas of any nation, party, or politician.

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.

Unlike most political leaders, the Pope understood that both personal and economic liberties are necessary for human virtue to flourish. Virtue, after all, involves choices. Politics and government operate to deny people the freedom to make their own choices.

The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become an eloquent and consistent advocate for an ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty. Yet what institutions around the world sanction abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty? Governments.

Historically, religion always represented a threat to government because it competes for the loyalties of the people. In modern America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military aggression in the name of democracy. Few American churches challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is maintained. This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion-- it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it. But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the legacy left by Pope John Paul II.

[emphasis in bold by Catholics for Ron Paul]

"Abortion on Demand is the Ultimate State Tyranny"

In the last presidential election, serious Catholics voted overwhelmingly for the pro-life candidate and cultural catholics were split between the pro-life candidate and the anti-war (pro-abortion) candidate.

When "Kerry Catholics" were challenged with the reality that, "You can't be Catholic and be pro-abortion," the usual erroneous response was, "You can't be pro-life and pro-war!"

When it came down to it, informed Catholics understood that voting for a candidate that supports a public policy that violates the Dignity of the Human Person is itself gravely wrong, no matter how well intentioned. The issue of war is serious, but ultimately it comes down to the prudential judgement of the legitimate state authority. War is a position the State can morally take, Abortion simply isn't.

Catholics are not single issue voters, they are voters who understand what issues are of singular importance!

No other issue is more gravely important than the principle of the inviolable Dignity of the Human Person - it is this idea which is so unique in human history (arising from the Judeo-Christian Tradition) and so critical for all our human rights, freedoms and duties.

The idea that human beings are endowed with certain inalienable rights comes from the genius of the Jewish story of creation and the unique anthropology that flows from it that man is made in the image and likeness of God. Contemporary creation stories make man into a slave of god(s), and thus this creates a very different set of assumptions regarding man's Liberty and his relationship with the State (but more on that in the days ahead).

Either God has endowed man with basic rights and liberties which the State must respect, OR the State gives man these rights and liberties and man must respect the State as god.

This is issue is critical, as it is the lynch pin upon which every civil liberty hangs; the whole social fabric will be undone in time if this basic truth is violated.

War is sometimes necessary, but when the State makes laws which violate the Dignity of the Human Person, it is a sign of deep sickness in the body politic which will bring about the collapse of all human liberty in the society.

So this issue is simply non-negotiable. If the United States desires to keep its Liberty, the it has to say NO to:

• Abortion
• Embryonic Stem-Cell Research & Cloning
• All Fertility Treatments which involve the destruction of human embryos, and
• Euthanasia

So where does Ron Paul stand on the issue of the Dignity of the Human Person?

Let Ron Paul speak for himself:

Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights.

Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.
. . .

We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.

There you have it.

Ron Paul understands that the Dignity of the Human Person is essential to preserving our Liberties and a cornerstone for living in a healthy society.

This is the single most important reason why Catholics should support Ron Paul for President.