A Pope of Surprises

(Note: This is a revised and expanded edition of my previous post.)

Yesterday, on just the second day of the conclave and on the fifth ballot, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 76, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was elected the 266th Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, and the 265th Successor of Saint Peter, and has taken the name of Francis. He is the first pope from Latin America, the first Jesuit pontiff, and the first non-European pope in many centuries.


This new pope brings many surprises. For one thing, I did not expect the cardinals to elect a new pontiff so quickly, given that they seemed to lack clear direction in the wake of Pope Benedict's stunning resignation, and the fact that no single cardinal stood out as a clear front-runner going into this conclave. But apparently the cardinals had already begun to form a consensus around a particular candidate when they entered the conclave—a candidate about whom they did not speak openly to the news media. That was a tactful move on their part, and a brilliant way of dealing with the modern world media machine that tries its best to influence the election of the next pope. They allowed journalists to focus on their favorite candidates and indulge in their favorite speculations, and then pulled the rug from under their feet with the quick election of a “dark horse.” It’s plainly obvious that the cardinal electors did not allow the world’s media to influence their decision. That is heartening, and the cardinal electors deserve our great respect and warm congratulations for carrying out their duty so well amid difficult circumstances. In choosing a pope, their solemn responsibility is to follow their consciences and cast their ballot for the man whom they feel is best qualified to lead the Church at this particular moment. And they have taken that responsibility seriously, thanks be to God.

For another thing, I was not expecting this particular cardinal to be elected to the papacy. I did include him on my list of thirty-two papabili (see my recent article, "Who Will Be the Next Pope?") because according to my research he met the qualifications for a serious papal candidate; however, I put him a ways down the list (at #20) because I felt he was a bit of a long shot, mainly because of his age and relative obscurity. I also felt a Latin American pope was less likely than an Italian or other European. But age, nationality, and familiarity with the general public are only secondary considerations for the cardinal electors in choosing a new pope.

Also, I was not expecting a Jesuit pope, but I am nonetheless delighted to see one. I have great respect for the Jesuits because of their high education and faithful service to the Church over the centuries as well as in our own day. They were founded by Saint Ignatius of Loyola to be simple yet highly trained and loyal servants of the pope, and they were forbidden to accept ecclesiastical honors such as being made a bishop, a cardinal, or pope. So it is ironic to have a Jesuit who has accepted all three of these honors. But of course, it is up to the pope to appoint bishops and name cardinals, and he can bestow these honors on whomever he thinks should be given them. And it’s up to the cardinals to elect a pope and to choose the man whom they believe is most suited for that position. Saint Ignatius perceived that the danger in accepting honors is that they can make men proud and arrogant. But even with his great learning, Jorge Bergoglio is obviously a humble man and has remained so, which is why he was given these honors—and why it was appropriate that he should have been given them. He accepted them in humble obedience to the authority of the Church, not out of pride or to advance his ecclesiastical career. His education as a Jesuit will no doubt prove a valuable contribution to the papacy and the Church.

And finally, I was not expecting the new pope to take a name that no previous pontiff has used. I thought he would call himself Pope John Paul III or Benedict XVII or Paul VII or John XXIV or Pius XIII or something like that. But no, he chose Francis. What a beautiful and appropriate name--perhaps in honor of Saint Francis of Assisi, the poor and humble man, and Saint Francis Xavier, the great Jesuit missionary--or perhaps in honor of Saint Francis de Sales, the sixteenth-century "gentleman saint."

This man was unfamiliar to me; I had never really seen him prior to his appearance on the loggia of Saint Peter's Basilica, so I wasn't sure what to expect. When he first came out on the balcony, initially he seemed a little distant and reserved, perhaps even a bit nervous and fearful, as he stood there almost motionless, solemnly facing the massive crowds of cheering people in Saint Peter's Square, acknowledging their applause with an occasional slight wave of one hand. He seemed as stunned as we were by the cardinals’ choice of a pope. Frankly, I felt a bit sorry for him. Just like Cardinal Ratzinger before him, he did not want to be elected pope, and probably did not even expect it. As he stood there before us, clothed simply in the white papal garments with his pectoral cross, he seemed to have the weight of the world on his shoulders—and in a very real sense he did, because the modern papacy is a tremendous responsibility. His rigid and dignified stance reminded me of earlier pre-Vatican II pontiffs.

Then as His Holiness began speaking into the microphone, smiling as he warmly greeted the people in Italian, my apprehensions melted away and I was instantly won over to the new pope. His words of greeting lasted at least a minute, longer than those of the two previous pontiffs. In a thoughtful and respectful gesture, he first directed our attention to his great predecessor, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and led us in praying an Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be for him. I was impressed by how he then bowed down in front of the whole world and asked us, the faithful, to pray that God would bless him before he gave us his first blessing as our new Shepherd in Christ. Once he had done that, he added a few words of farewell, saying he looked forward to seeing the people on Sunday, and wishing them good night.

This is clearly a man of profound humility, simplicity and deep faith, a man of restrained and even temperament who also knows how to communicate with an audience through carefully chosen words and meaningful gestures—a man who, I believe, will evangelize the world mainly through his own powerful example of holiness.

Now that I’m getting to know Pope Francis a little better, and who he was as Cardinal Bergoglio, I realize that my first impressions of this man as being distant and fearful were inaccurate. This is not a bold and outgoing character like Pope John Paul II or a shy and gentle scholar like Pope Benedict XVI. This is a different kind of man altogether: noble and dignified, reserved and correct, with quiet presence, yet nonetheless a man of deep joy, kind and cheerful, who is able to connect with people. He has his own personality and style, and as he stepped onto the world stage as our new pope, he was more or less simply being himself.

I do gather one thing in particular about this man’s unique personality and style from the time we spent waiting for him to emerge after the white smoke and the official announcement of his election, and the time he took on the balcony to greet us and lead us in prayer, and how he lingered a moment before departing. This is a man who is not in a hurry. He takes his time, and is comfortable doing so. And I believe that that sends a very significant message to our modern, fast-paced, highly secularized and materialistic twenty-first-century world, in which we are pressured to rush to get so many different things, that there is something far more important than everything else that is worth not rushing for. It is when we slow down and let go and listen that God can speak to us in the stillness of our hearts. We must have the courage to shut out the world from time to time in order to deepen our relationship with God and allow him to direct our lives towards our heavenly goal.

As I continue to observe the papacy, I’m coming to learn that each pope is unique and has something special to teach us. Pope John Paul II taught us to be bold and fearless in proclaiming the Gospel to the ends of the earth. Pope Benedict XVI taught us the importance of being correctly formed in our faith and of keeping the liturgy and the Second Vatican Council within the proper context of the Church’s rich tradition. And I believe that Pope Francis will teach us how to slow down and listen to the Holy Spirit, as well as how to serve the Lord and one another in simplicity, humility, and charity. His style will take some getting used to, but we will get used to it just as we got accustomed to the style of Pope Benedict XVI before him. I'm sure he will do a fine job of succeeding the two great pontiffs of our time, and will continue leading the Church in the direction it has been taken by Popes John Paul and Benedict.

We are truly blessed to have Pope Francis as our new Holy Father. May God bless him and help him, through the intercession of the Virgin Mary and all the Angels and Saints, to faithfully carry out the task entrusted to him for years to come.


Copyright 2013 Justin D. Soutar. All rights reserved.

Habemus Papam! We Have a Pope!

(Photo credit: AP)

Today, on just the second day of the conclave and on the fifth ballot, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 76, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina, has been elected the 266th Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, and the 265th Successor of Saint Peter, and has taken the name of Pope Francis. He is the first pope from Latin America, the first Jesuit, and the first non-European pope in many centuries.

Wow! Lots of surprises here. For one thing, I did not expect the cardinals to elect a new pope so quickly, given that the cardinals seemed to lack clear direction in the wake of Pope Benedict's stunning resignation, and the fact that no single cardinal stood out as a clear front-runner going into this conclave. But apparently the cardinals took their responsibility seriously and were able to reach a consensus quickly.

For another thing, I was not expecting this particular man to be elected. I did include him on my list of thirty-two papabili (see recent post below, "Who Will Be the Next Pope?") because according to my research he did meet the qualifications for a serious papal candidate; however, I put him a ways down the list (at #20)because I felt he was a bit of a long shot, partly because of his age. I also felt a Latin American pope was less likely than an Italian or other European. But age, nationality, and even precedent are not the primary considerations for the cardinal electors in choosing a new pope. Their solemn responsibility is to follow their consciences and cast their ballot for the man whom they feel is best qualified to lead the Church at this particular moment. And that they have done, thanks be to God.

Also, I was not expecting the new pope to take a name that no previous pope has used. I thought he would call himself Pope John Paul III or Benedict XVII or Paul VII or John XXIV or Pius XIII or something like that. But no, he chose Francis. What a beautiful and appropriate name--perhaps in honor of Saint Francis of Assisi, the poor and humble man, and Saint Francis Xavier, the great Jesuit missionary--or perhaps in honor of Saint Francis de Sales, the sixteenth-century "gentleman saint."

I had never seen this man prior to his appearance on the loggia of Saint Peter's Basilica, so I wasn't sure what to expect. Initially he seemed a little distant and rigid, perhaps a bit hesitant, standing almost motionless, solemnly facing the massive crowds of cheering people in Saint Peter's Square, acknowledging their applause with an occasional slight wave of one hand. His dignified stance reminded me of Pope Pius XII and earlier pre-Vatican II pontiffs. Then as he began speaking into the microphone, smiling as he warmly greeted the people, my fears melted away and I was instantly won over to the new pope. His words of greeting lasted at least a minute, longer than those of the two previous popes. I was impressed by how he bowed down in front of the whole world and asked us, the faithful, to pray that God would bless him before he gave us his first blessing as our new pope. Once he had done that, he added a few words of farewell, saying he looked forward to seeing the people on Sunday, and wishing them good night. This is a man of profound humility and deep faith, a man of restrained and even temperament who also knows how to communicate with an audience through words and meaningful gestures. I'm sure he will do a fine job of succeeding the two great pontiffs before him.

We are truly blessed to have Pope Francis as our new Holy Father. May God bless him and help him, through the intercession of the Virgin Mary and all the Angels and Saints, to faithfully carry out the task entrusted to him for years to come.

Deo gratias!
Laudate Iesu Christe!

As the Historic Conclave Begins...

...My prayer is that the Cardinals will be given the graces they need to follow the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and elect the man whom God wills to lead the Church as the successor to Pope Benedict XVI, the Successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

What an awesome Church we have--the one true Church of Jesus Christ. And what an awesome responsibility is that of the Pope, and that of the Cardinals who must choose him.

Quote of the Day

If there is one fact we really can prove, from the history that we really do know, it is that despotism can be a development, often a late development and very often indeed the end of societies that have been highly democratic. A despotism may almost be defined as a tired democracy. As fatigue falls on a community, the citizens are less inclined for that eternal vigilance which has truly been called the price of liberty; and they prefer to arm only one single sentinel to watch the city while they sleep. It is also true that they sometimes needed him for some sudden and militant act of reform; it is equally true that he often took advantage of being the strong man armed to be a tyrant like some of the Sultans of the East...But the spirit that endures the mere cruelties and caprices of an established despot is the spirit of an ancient and settled and probably stiffened society, not the spirit of a new one.

--G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man, 1925

(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008, pp. 58-59)

Thought for the Day

"The message of Benedict XVI...is in the end a dramatic appeal to the Church and the world, to each individual: There is no way we can possibly continue as before, he exclaims. Mankind stands at a crossroads. It is time for reflection. Time for change. Time for conversion. And unwaveringly he maintains: 'There are so many problems that all have to be solved but that will not all be solved unless God stands in the center and becomes visible again in the world.'"

--Peter Seewald, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), p. xix.

"Selections from The St. Michael Hymnal" Now Available

My first musical album, "Selections from The St. Michael Hymnal," was released this past week and is now available for sale on the Internet.

This is a two-CD set of instrumental piano music. It features recordings of 48 of the greatest traditional and contemporary Catholic hymns found in The Saint Michael Hymnal, Fourth Edition (Lafayette, IN: Saint Boniface Catholic Church, 2011), an excellent Catholic musical resource that aspires to fulfill the true vision and spirit of Vatican II for Catholic liturgical music and sacred hymns. I highly recommend this hymnal for use in Catholic parishes across the United States. It is available at www.stmichaelhymnal.com.

The CDs are suitable for sing-along purposes for Catholic schools, prayer groups and so forth as well as just for your listening pleasure.
To order your copy of the two-volume set, please click here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=181092603046

If you would like to order a copy of just Volume I, please click here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=181091994702

Or, if you'd like to order just Volume II by itself, please click here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=181092519379

Thank you for your interest. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at justin_86@ntelos.net.

Quote of the Day

God took Abram outside and said: "Look up at the sky and count the stars, if you can. Just so," he added, "shall your descendants be." Abram put his faith in the Lord, who credited it to him as an act of righteousness.

--Genesis 15:5-6

Is a Homosexual Lobby Manipulating the Vatican?

We certainly live in strange times. A few years ago I would never have dreamed of what is suggested in the headline above, much less of writing it. But now it seems we have to face the possibility of answering this question in the affirmative.

Two days ago, in an e-newsletter from Robert Moynihan, editor of Inside the Vatican, I received an unconfirmed news report that a ring of homosexual activists has infiltrated the highest levels of the Vatican and is manipulating the internal affairs of the Church’s government in order to advance its loathsome agenda. Apparently this homosexual lobby has been secretly bribing and even blackmailing various cardinals and other curial officials into complying with its demands.

According to an “unnamed Vatican source” who is apparently close to the Holy Father, this rumor originates from a confidential 300-page report given to Pope Benedict XVI on December 17, 2012. The report was written by a select group of three cardinals whom the Pope had commissioned to investigate the “Vatileaks” scandal that erupted last May. That scandal involved the papal butler, Paolo Gabriele, who had stolen confidential documents from the Pope’s desk and smuggled two of them to an Italian journalist who published them. Paolo and his accomplice, a computer technician named Claudio Scarpetti, were arrested and charged with aggravated theft and aiding and abetting a crime, respectively.

When asked why he did it, Gabriele claimed that he was dismayed by the corruption he witnessed everywhere within the Vatican and by how the Pope was kept in the dark about various important matters he should have known about. Paolo said that he acted for the good of the Church, which he deeply loved.

Naturally, Pope Benedict was deeply hurt by his butler’s betrayal of his trust, although he did a good job of concealing this pain from public view. Gabriele was well known within the Vatican for being very loyal to the Pope. Also, he and his family were close to the Holy Father, and Gabriele was seemingly a pious Catholic by all accounts. Psychological examination of Gabriele following his arrest revealed a sane, sincere, and strongly religious character fully aware of and responsible for his actions who at the same time harbored a deep-seated insecurity that compelled him to draw attention to himself.

In October, Gabriele was convicted of theft and sentenced to 18 months in prison by a Vatican court. Shortly before Christmas, one day after Pope Benedict received the cardinal commission’s report, he officially pardoned Gabriele, forgiving the remainder of his sentence.

The Vatileaks case included several puzzling mysteries. Foremost among these is the fact that the police who raided Gabriele’s home at the time of his arrest apparently confiscated and removed from his house a larger quantity of documents than it could physically hold. In the thirteen hours spent inside the butler’s home, they found and confiscated several computers and hard drives; stacks of books about spying and Freemasonry; and reams and reams of copies of Vatican documents from the Pope’s desk. In all, we are told that the police removed some 80 crates of documents from Gabriele’s modest home. At his trial, one of the police remarked that it was going to be fun sorting through all that material. But none of this vast amount of material was used at the trial as evidence against Gabriele—only the two documents he had actually smuggled to the press were used. Why? And how could all of that material have come from inside Gabriele’s rather small house? Furthermore, given the size of the building, why did it take thirteen hours for the police to search it?

If the alleged report about homosexual spies in the Vatican turns out to be true, it would explain a number of things. It would partly explain why Pope Benedict XVI has decided to resign the papacy at this particular moment in Church history; with his advanced age and his declining health, he is ill-equipped to deal with a corruption scandal of this magnitude. It would confirm that Paolo Gabriele was telling the truth about corruption existing everywhere within the Vatican (although even this grave matter does not justify what Paolo did to bring attention to it; it’s always wrong to do evil so that good may result), and why Gabriele was so upset when he heard of the Pope resigning (in his insecure mind, he probably felt that the Pope was “giving up” and running away from the challenge of cleaning up the corruption within the Church). It would explain why God allowed a dramatic bolt of lightning to strike Saint Peter’s Basilica on the day the Pope announced his resignation as a sign of his displeasure with the evils festering inside the Vatican. It would explain why Pope Benedict pardoned Gabriele immediately after receiving the report that revealed the corruption within the Holy See: what Gabriele did was wrong, certainly, but the corruption within the Vatican is far worse, and Gabriele hates it as much as the Pope does. And it would also begin to explain some of the mysteries surrounding the Vatileaks affair.

(To be continued)

Quote of the Day

“Pope Benedict has offered a brave and intelligent defense of truth against a relativist tide.”
--Rev. R. Albert Mohler, president, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Who Will Be the Next Pope?

When the papal conclave unfolds next month in the Sistine Chapel in Rome, who will the cardinal electors choose to succeed Pope Benedict XVI? Of course, we cannot know for certain the answer to this question due to the absolute secrecy of the conclave proceedings and the vast field of possible candidates for the papal office. In theory, any baptized man is eligible for the papacy. In practice, however, a variety of informal qualifications, traditional requirements and longstanding rules govern potential papal candidates, rendering some men much more likely than others to be elected Bishop of Rome. These include:

• membership in the College of Cardinals;
• being well known to the other cardinals;
• being an archbishop;
• excellent education and above-average intellectual abilities;
• experience in the Roman curia (the select group of cardinals who work in Rome assisting the pope with the administration of the Church);
• strong organizational and leadership qualities;
• remarkable diplomatic skills;
• fluency in multiple major languages;
• good PR and media skills;
• remarkable and well-known intellectual, pastoral, administrative, and/or diplomatic achievements;
• an ability to communicate with and relate to ordinary lay Catholics;
• reasonably good health and not too advanced of an age;
• irreproachable personal character;
• a humble and cheerful personality; and
• personal holiness.

Since only a handful of men in the Church today exhibit all or nearly all of these characteristics, we can make some reasonably educated guesses as to who might be chosen to fill the soon-to-be vacant Chair of Saint Peter. With these qualifications as guidelines, I have researched and compiled the following list of papabili or likely candidates for the papacy to succeed Pope Benedict XVI:

1. Cardinal Angelo Scola, 71, Archbishop of Milan, Italy
2. Cardinal Marc Ouellet, 68, former Archbishop of Quebec, Canada, now Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
3. Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois, 70, Archbishop of Paris, France
4. Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, 68, Archbishop of Vienna, Austria
5. Cardinal Pedro Odilo Scherer, 63, Archbishop of Sao Paulo, Brazil
6. Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, 69, Archbishop of Genoa, Italy and President of the Italian Bishops' Conference
7. Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz, 65, former Archbishop of Brasilia, Brazil, now Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life
8. Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, 70, Italy, President of the Pontifical Council for Culture
9. Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson, 64, Archbishop of Cape Coast, Ghana and President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace
10. Cardinal Kurt Koch, 62, former Archbishop of Basel, Switzerland, now President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
11. Cardinal Angelo Amato, 74, Italy, Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints
12. Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera, 67, former Archbishop of Toledo, Spain, now Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
13. Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, 62, Archbishop of Lyon, France
14. Cardinal Mauro Piacenza, 68, Italy, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy
15. Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, 69, Argentina, Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches
16. Cardinal Angelo Comastri, 69, Italy, President of the Fabric of St. Peter, Vicar General of His Holiness for the State of Vatican City and Archpriest of St. Peter’s Basilica
17. Cardinal John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan, 69, Archbishop of Abuja, Nigeria
18. Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera, 70, Archbishop of Mexico City, Mexico
19. Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, 70, Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, Honduras and President of Caritas Internationalis
20. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 76, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina
21. Cardinal Peter Erdo, 60, Archbishop of Esztergom-Budapest, Hungary
22. Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, 64, USA, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura
23. Cardinal Agostino Vallini, 72, Italy, Vicar General of the Diocese of Rome
24. Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, 69, France, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue
25. Cardinal Fernando Filoni, 66, Italy, Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples
26. Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko, 67, Poland, President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity
27. Cardinal Giuseppe Betori, 65, Archbishop of Florence, Italy
28. Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela, 76, Archbishop of Madrid, Spain
29. Cardinal Antonio Maria Veglio, 75, Italy, President of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant Peoples
30. Cardinal Robert Sarah, 67, former Archbishop of Conakry, Guinea and President of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum
31. Cardinal Timothy Dolan, 63, Archbishop of New York, USA and President of the U.S. Bishops' Conference
32. Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, 55, Archbishop of Manila, Philippines

In assembling this list, I have placed those whom I consider more likely to be elected pope nearer the top and those whom I regard as long shots at the bottom. For example, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York may be a widely known and respected leader in the Church today, but his lack of familiarity with the Roman curia and his status as an American are significant disadvantages that make him an unlikely papabile. (The cardinals tend to avoid electing a pope from a powerful country because this could jeopardize the diplomatic independence of the Holy See.) Nevertheless, I have included Cardinal Dolan because I think that his election is not entirely outside the realm of possibility.

Why are so many Italians included here? Because I foresee a possibility that, after two non-Italian popes, the cardinals may at least temporarily revert to the centuries-old tradition of electing an Italian pontiff. Many of the Italian cardinals have extensive experience working in the curia, which is a major plus for a potential pope, and their high-profile positions in the Vatican make them well known to the other cardinals around the world in the process of dealing with Church administrative matters.

The thirty-two men listed above represent the cream of the crop--the finest and best-known leaders in our Church today. It is highly likely that one of their number will become the next pope. Have I overlooked anyone? That is possible. My experience at guessing or predicting who will be elevated to the papacy is quite limited--after all, this will be only the second conclave of my lifetime. Moreover, as an outsider to the Vatican I am at a disadvantage compared with those who observe the inner workings and dynamics of the Holy See at closer range, and who are therefore more qualified to predict who the next Roman Pontiff will be. Nevertheless, over the past ten years I have done a fair amount of research on the subject of papal elections, and this has given me some idea of what to expect when the conclave of 2013 takes place.

In researching the cardinals and compiling the above roster of papabili, I have attempted to be as rigorous and objective as possible. Of course, it is difficult to be entirely unbiased. I frankly admit that I have placed Cardinal Schonborn so near the top mainly because I personally like him and would like to see him elected pope, despite his relative lack of experience in the Roman curia which could be a minus for his electability. On the other hand, however, he is among the best-known cardinals in the world, well-respected, a brilliant theologian and writer (not unlike Pope Benedict in many ways) with a charismatic personality, and he also has most of the other informal qualifications for a serious papal contender.

But thankfully, it's not up to me to decide who will be the 265th Successor of Saint Peter. The responsibility for deciding that rests with the 117 cardinal electors, who will try to listen to and follow the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in their choice of a successor to Pope Benedict XVI. We should keep them in our prayers as they prepare to undertake this challenging duty of such momentous importance for the life of the whole Church. Regardless of whom the cardinals pick as our new Holy Father, I will gladly accept and embrace him without the least hesitation, fully believing and trusting that the Holy Spirit, through the new Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him, will continue guiding the Church so that it teaches the truth of Christ faithfully and without error as it has done uninterruptedly for the past 2,000 years.


Copyright © 2013 Justin D. Soutar. All rights reserved.

Pope Benedict XVI Is Leaving Us

I just found out this morning that Pope Benedict XVI has announced that he has decided to resign from the papacy for health reasons. Although I am deeply saddened by this announcement, I completely understand the pontiff's reasons for relinquishing the Chair of Saint Peter, and I accept his decision. While he is still in very good health for his age (he will turn 86 in April), the pope's strength has been gradually declining over the eight years of his pontificate, and especially over the past year or so he has been getting noticeably weaker. Unlike most men who reach his age, and unlike Blessed John Paul II before him, Pope Benedict has no serious illness or disease, so despite his growing weakness, he may continue living for years to come. He does not want the Church to suffer as a result of his inability to carry out the functions of his office. Therefore, after several months of thoughtful consideration and prayer, he has decided to give up the papacy for the good of the Church. I think he has made the right decision.

Although initially I was shocked by the news of Pope Benedict's resignation, I am not really too surprised; in fact, I was sort of expecting it, knowing Pope Benedict and having observed his papacy pretty closely. Even the casual observer can tell that this man is not a clone of Pope John Paul II. He has his own personality, his own ideas, his own approach and style, and he is comfortable being himself. He thinks for himself and then he does what he thinks is right, whether it is popular or not, whether it is expected or not, whether it has been done before or not. And he takes full responsibility for his decisions.

It is very rare for a pope to resign. This will be the first time in 598 years and only the fourth time in Church history that a pope has stepped down. The last pope to voluntarily renounce his office was Gregory XII, who resigned in 1415 during the Great Western Schism to allow for the proper election of a successor.


Pope Benedict XVI has set a wonderful example of humility and wisdom for the whole Church. He has fully understood and put into practice the Christian concepts of servant leadership and obedience to God's will. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger never wanted to be pope. Already in his late seventies at the time of John Paul's death, he would have preferred to retire to his native Bavaria and write books in quiet solitude. When elected pope on April 19, 2005, he initially felt that he was not up to the enormous task of governing the universal Church. However, he humbly accepted his election as God's will, setting aside his own preferences, referring to himself as "a humble worker in the vineyard of the Lord," and trusting that God would give him the necessary graces to carry out the papal mission. And God certainly rewarded his trust. Now, as he begins to lack the necessary strength to fulfill his ministry, Pope Benedict XVI has the humility and wisdom to recognize that his time as Supreme Pontiff should come to an end. Both in accepting the papal office and in giving it up, as well as throughout his papacy, he has been a humble servant of God, always putting the good of the Church and of others first.

Our brilliant, scholarly, humble and wise Holy Father has served the Church very well over the past eight years, carrying out his many responsibilities with total dedication and careful attention. His accomplishments are too numerous to list here. He has successfully ushered the Church into the post-John Paul II era. The profound theological riches of his encyclicals, apostolic letters, homilies, addresses, and other writings and speeches will be mined for decades to come.

A very fond farewell to one of the holiest and greatest popes the Church has ever known. May God bless his remaining days on earth. When he passes from this life and stands before God, I'm sure God will say to him, "Well done, my good and faithful servant...Come, share your Master's joy" (Matthew 25:21).

P.S. Of course, Pope Benedict is not really "leaving us," just leaving the papacy. I'm sure he will keep us all in his prayers, and let's do the same for him.

Forty Years of Legal Mass Murder in the U.S.

Today we observe with great sorrow the fortieth anniversary of the unconstitutional, immoral, and tragic Roe v. Wade decision.

On January 22, 1973, seven men on the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a woman has a right to kill her innocent unborn child for any reason whatsoever. In producing this ruling, the Court misinterpreted the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution, which states, “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This passage, along with most of the Fifth Amendment, was written to protect the rights of persons accused of crimes. When our nation’s Founders authored this text, they meant that no one could be executed or deprived of his freedom or land without first being properly tried and convicted of a crime. But the irresponsible activist Court led by Chief Justice Warren Burger chose to ignore the intent of the Constitution’s authors and, through some incomprehensible twist of logic, reinterpreted the Fifth Amendment due process clause to justify legalizing the murder of innocent unborn persons—something the Founders would never have approved of in their wildest dreams. Roe v. Wade represented nothing less than an attack on the integrity and meaning of the Constitution of the United States by the very institution that is supposed to protect it, the U.S. Supreme Court.

Not only was Roe v. Wade an unconstitutional decision, it was also an immoral decision. In the Declaration of Independence, we the people of the United States declared, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights with which God the Creator has endowed all human beings. This right to life is an “unalienable” right, meaning that it cannot be taken away. Human life is sacred because it is a gift from God the Creator. To deprive an innocent human being of life is a violation of that person’s unalienable right to life. It is also a violation of the Fifth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” Our nation’s devout Christian Founders took these principles for granted. They could scarcely have imagined that, two hundred years later, the judicial branch of government would somehow justify allowing innocent human beings to be killed in their mothers’ wombs right here in the United States of America. They did warn, however, that the United States would not long endure without what George Washington referred to as the “indispensable supports” of religion and morality. If the people of a nation don’t believe that human rights—especially the right to life—come from God, then those rights will be perceived as coming from the state and the state will claim the authority to give or take away those rights as it sees fit. And if people don’t believe that it is wrong to deprive an innocent person of his or her right to life, then human life will not be respected.

Finally, Roe v. Wade was an immensely tragic decision. During the past forty years, some 55.5 million innocent unborn human beings—an average of 1.38 million a year—have been murdered in their mothers’ wombs through legalized abortion. That is an alarming and staggering figure. That’s more than nine times the number of innocent Jews murdered in the Holocaust. It’s also more than the fifty million people killed in World War II, the deadliest conflict in modern human history. It is difficult to comprehend the full magnitude of this loss of life or to calculate the full impact of this massacre of the unborn on our nation over the past forty years. Excluding miscarriages, accidents, disease, and other causes of death outside the womb, our country is currently missing some 55 million inhabitants; in addition, many of those aborted in the 1970s and 80s would now be married and raising children of their own, so our country is really missing around 70 million people, and our nation’s population should be around 385 million instead of the 315 million it is now. Think of how much different—and better—things would be in our country if we had all these missing people contributing to our economy and using their God-given talents to serve our nation in a variety of professions and fields. We will never know how different the United States would be in 2013 if nearly all the innocent unborn had been born and were alive today. The absence of 70 million people is an incalculable loss to our nation.

Pope John Paul II once said, “The condition for the survival of America is to respect every human person, especially the weakest and most defenseless ones, those as yet unborn.” The appalling mass murder of the unborn in our nation must be brought to an end. Roe v. Wade must be overturned so that the unalienable, God-given right to life of every innocent unborn human being in the United States is once again protected by our Constitution and guaranteed by our laws. We must not rest until we achieve that goal.

Quote of the Day

Every Christian--as he explores the historical record of Scripture and tradition and comes to a deep, abiding faith--experiences that Christ is the risen one and that he is therefore the eternally living one. It is a deep, life-changing experience. No true Christian can keep it hidden as a personal matter. For such an encounter with the living God cries out to be shared--like the light that shines, like the yeast that leavens the whole mass of dough.

The true Christian is a living gospel. That does not mean he is a disciple of a doctrine that is far away in time and foreign to the reality of life. He does not repeat powerless formulas. No, he is convinced and tenacious in asserting the relevance of Christ and the unceasing newness of the gospel. He is always eager before anyone and at any time to give reason for the hope which he harbors in his heart (see 1 Peter 3:15).

--Blessed John Paul II

And the Word Was Made Flesh...

...and dwelt among us,

(and we saw his glory,

the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,)

full of grace and truth. 

--St. John 1:14

Wishing you and yours a blessed and joyful Christmas season.

Quote of the Day

The question is: Is the humanity of our time still waiting for a Savior? One has the feeling that many consider God as foreign to their own interests. Apparently, they do not need him. They live as though he did not exist and, worse still, as though he were an "obstacle" to remove in order to fulfill themselves. Even among believers--we are sure of it--some let themselves be attracted by enticing dreams and distracted by misleading doctrines that suggest deceptive shortcuts to happiness. Yet, despite its contradictions, worries and tragedies, and perhaps precisely because of them, humanity today seeks a path of renewal, of salvation; it seeks a Savior and awaits, sometimes unconsciously, the coming of the Savior who renews the world and our life, the coming of Christ, the one true Redeemer of man and of the whole of man.

--Pope Benedict XVI

Thought for the Day

Enmity with God is the source of all that poisons man; overcoming this enmity is the basic condition for peace in the world. Only the man who is reconciled with God can also be reconciled and in harmony with himself, and only the man who is reconciled with God and with himself can establish peace around him and throughout the world.

--Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 85.

Quote of the Day #2

With the recent murder at a school in Connecticut, I felt that the following passage from Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI would be very pertinent. This passage is set within the context of the Holy Father's brilliant and penetrating analysis of the hidden meaning of the Beatitudes and of the interconnections between them, which is one of the great highlights of the book. Here the Pope is discussing the second Beatitude, "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted" (Mt. 5:4):

The sufferer is not truly comforted, his tears are not completely wiped away, until he and the powerless of this world are no longer threatened by murderous violence; comfort is not brought to completion until even past sufferings never previously understood are lifted up into the light of God and given the meaning of reconciliation by his goodness; true comfort only appears when the "last enemy," death (cf. 1 Cor. 15:26), and all its accomplices have been stripped of their power. Christ's words about comforting thus help us to understand what he means by "Kingdom of God" (of the heavens), while "Kingdom of God" gives us in turn an idea of what consolation the Lord holds in store for all those who mourn and suffer in this world.

--Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Doubleday, 2007), p. 88

Quote of the Day

But they that hope in the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall take wings as eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint.

--Isaiah 40:31 (Douay-Rheims Version)

Thought for the Day

Hope is a state of mind, not of the world. Hope, in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously heading for success, but rather an ability to work for something because it is good.

--Vaclav Havel

Election 2012: What Happened?

by Justin Soutar

December 10, 2012

Like many other Americans, I was taken by surprise and deeply disappointed when Barack Obama was re-elected President of the United States. For several months prior to the election, I had been seriously expecting Republican challenger Mitt Romney to unseat President Obama. I envisioned the latter as the Jimmy Carter of 2012, a sitting duck just waiting to be blown out of the water by the Ronald Reagan of 2012. And I wasn’t the only one: other, more seasoned political observers than I such as noted libertarian Wayne Allyn Root were also predicting a landslide Romney victory, and for the same reasons I was. We noted that Barack Obama has presided over the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, and history shows that no incumbent president wins re-election amidst an economic crisis (take Herbert Hoover, for example). Furthermore, President Obama has utterly failed to deliver on his 2008 campaign promise to help the average struggling American in these difficult economic times. Rather, under his administration the middle class has continued shrinking; unemployment rates have been double to triple what they were during the Bush administration; the gap between rich and poor has grown to unseemly proportions; and the number of Americans in poverty has climbed from 12 to 14 percent.

Meanwhile, President Obama’s rampant fiscal irresponsibility, with massive spending contributing to an out-of-control national debt, has contributed further to his negative image in the minds of many Americans. In 2010 he and his Democratic cohorts in the U.S. House and Senate forced on our country the infamous $1.2 trillion health care reform law known as Obamacare, the most expensive and controversial reform legislation in American history, which sent President Obama’s approval ratings plunging into the 40s and resulted in a spectacular Tea Party victory in the 2010 midterm elections in which Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives, increased their strength in the Senate, and swept governorships across the nation.

The Tea Party movement succeeded in focusing public attention on President Obama as the most radically pro-abortion president in American history at a time when a majority of Americans identified themselves as pro-life; it also raised the suspicions that Obamacare would mandate “abortion coverage” and fail to sufficiently protect the conscience rights of health care workers, employers and insurance carriers who refused to be involved in abortion or contraception. In January of 2012, our worst fears were realized with the advent of the HHS mandate, which forces all businesses and charitable organizations that serve the general public to cover or dole out immoral “preventive services for women” in violation of the First Amendment. At the time, I felt that this flagrant attack on the religious liberties and conscience rights of the American people would seal Obama’s fate as a one-term president and carry the Tea Party to a Republican landslide in November of 2012. Judging by its remarkable performance in 2010 and the outrageous behavior of the Obama administration since then, I reasonably expected the Republican Party to take full control of Washington in this election. That didn’t happen. Why not?

A combination of related factors are to blame for the results of this election. The most significant (and unfortunate) factor is that the Catholic vote went the wrong way: by a margin of 50 to 48 percent—the same margin as the general electorate—Catholic voters chose four more years of President Obama in open violation of clear and consistent teaching from their own bishops against voting for a pro-abortion candidate. It would appear that half of Catholic voters don’t even listen to their Church leaders or practice their faith in the voting booth when it comes to the extremely serious matter of the murder of millions upon millions of the innocent unborn. Shame on those so-called “Catholics” who voted for Obama. They will have a lot to answer for come Judgment Day. The bishops have been very clear that the right to life of the innocent unborn human being is the most fundamental voting issue at stake in our country today and that voting for a pro-abortion candidate is a gravely immoral act that makes one complicit in the evil of abortion. For the second presidential election in a row, the better part of the Catholic electorate has ignored the voice of its religious leaders and deliberately chosen to collaborate with Barack Obama’s radically pro-abortion agenda.

What’s even more unfathomable is that Catholics voted to re-elect an administration that has declared open war on their Church and the Constitution by passing a law that forces Catholic institutions to provide contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs in violation of Catholic moral teaching and the First Amendment. As with the issue of abortion, our Catholic bishops have spoken out clearly, forcefully and consistently on the issue of religious liberty, but it appears that many Catholics have been listening more to the propaganda dished out by the Obama administration than to the message of their own Church hierarchy. A poll taken in mid-2012 showed that a majority of Catholics—mainly those who don’t fulfill their obligation to attend Sunday Mass each week—were actually oblivious to the clash between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church over the HHS mandate, and had heard little or nothing about the bishops’ nationwide religious liberty campaign. Even if these non-churchgoing Catholics knew about this particular issue, polls suggest that they probably would not be too concerned about it because for years these same Catholics have been using artificial contraception in violation of Church teaching. A profound crisis of faith has infected the American Catholic Church, and it is now showing up in the direction our nation is moving. As the great Catholic preacher Father John Corapi used to remind us, immorality is un-American and a threat to national security. The only thing worse than immorality is when a Catholic supports or participates in it. Catholics must stop betraying their religion and indulging in such scandalous behavior. They need to get their act together and start forming their consciences properly and start voting their faith in unison—not only for the salvation of their own souls, but for the wellbeing of their Church and the good of their country. Catholics who don’t want to vote pro-life or stop using artificial contraception should either repent and change their ways or leave the Church and quit pretending to be Catholic.

On a related note, I think it was smart of the devil to take Father Corapi out of action well ahead of this presidential election. His defection to the Evil One has been a tremendous loss for the Church in America and for our country in general. As a popular and effective Catholic preacher who reached millions through the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN), he would have been at his best during the 2012 presidential campaign season, loudly decrying the HHS contraceptive and abortifacient mandate and the direct attack on the Catholic Church which it represents, and rallying the Catholic faithful to defend the rights to life and religious liberty on which their nation was founded. He would have considerably amplified the voice of the bishops on the fundamental issues of abortion and religious liberty and made more Catholics fully aware of the choice they were facing in this election. Had he remained faithful to God and to his calling, I think the election result would have been quite different.

I can also point an accusing finger at myself in one respect. As a Catholic author, I could have—and should have—written more about abortion, religious liberty, and President Obama’s radically secularist agenda in order to help shape public opinion in the months prior to the election. I was busy working on a book and other projects, but I should have made more time to write about these current issues of such momentous importance to our Church and our nation.

Moving on to another factor that influenced the election, it seems that Americans in general actually like President Obama and are not as dissatisfied with his performance as we imagined, judging by fairly steady approval ratings of around 50 percent over the last four years. Despite his radically secularist agenda and grossly irresponsible behavior, President Obama manages to convey a respectable image of a president who is doing his best in spite of everything. With the mainstream media firmly on his side, the propaganda power and communication skills of the Obama administration have proven effective. People believe what President Obama tells them on TV, whether it is true or not, because they like him personally. As the old saying goes, “If you tell a lie long enough, people will believe it.” So when Obama and Biden kept lying that the HHS mandate does not force religious institutions to violate their moral convictions or that Obamacare does not really raise taxes by a trillion dollars, people started to believe those lies because they liked and trusted their elected officials who were telling them.

Another factor in this election that we just hinted at was the incumbent advantage. When people like and trust their familiar elected officials, they tend to re-elect them, which is what they did last month. When a new and unfamiliar candidate breaks onto the scene, be it Bob Dole in 1996 or John Kerry in 2004 or Mitt Romney in 2012, people are a bit suspicious. They know that they like and trust their current president, but they’re not sure about this challenger guy who claims he can do a better job. Why elect a new president when you’re happy with the one you have now? Furthermore, Barack Obama significantly augmented his incumbent advantage by spending a record-breaking one billion dollars on advertising for his reelection campaign. Romney spent nearly as much on advertising but Obama had the incumbent advantage.

Another factor in the election outcome was that the economy is not as bad as we sometimes make it out to be. We need to keep things in perspective. Even with the serious economic issues noted above as well as underemployment and the precipitous drop in median household income over the last four years, the average American in 2012 is still much wealthier than the average American during the 1930s, and 8 to 12 percent unemployment pales in comparison to the 30 percent unemployment that America suffered during the Great Depression. Nine out of ten Americans currently have a job; furthermore, most Americans eat three meals a day, have plenty of clothes to wear, live in heated and air conditioned homes with running hot water and electricity, and have a washer and dryer, a dishwasher, a TV (with Obama on it), a stereo, a computer, an Internet connection, a cell phone, and a car or two in the garage. Life is pretty good for most of us, and when we’re comfortable, we don’t want change. As Thomas Jefferson famously wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable.” Most Americans apparently feel that the current economic crisis is not insufferable, so they have opted to maintain the status quo. The American middle class is “doing fine,” says President Obama on the TV tube, and many people seem to agree.

Part of what did in Mitt Romney was his campaign strategy of focusing mainly on the economy. This was the same strategy employed by John McCain in 2008 and it didn’t work for him either. Romney’s plan to foster job creation and economic growth through free enterprise and opportunity instead of big-government bailouts, taxation and redistribution certainly did resonate with and appeal to many people. However, Romney failed to take into account the relatively contented nature of the American middle class or the fact that the economy was not a serious enough issue in enough people’s minds to sufficiently motivate them to replace President Obama. I think Romney should have focused primarily on the great moral issues of our time such as abortion, religious liberty, traditional marriage, and the radical secularist takeover of our country. His stances on these fundamental issues were clearly distinguished from those of Obama, but as a presidential candidate he should have articulated them more clearly and communicated them more effectively. Taking a strong stance on these moral issues and speaking out strongly about them makes good sense even from the strictly political point of view. Most Americans are pro-life, religious, Christian, and see marriage exclusively as the union of a man and a woman. Focusing on the right to life of the unborn helped sweep the Tea Party to victory in 2010. Despite raising much less money than Romney, Rick Santorum did well in the Republican presidential primary contest because he passionately defended the rights of the unborn while Romney was passionately defending his business career.

Americans know instinctively that abortion is morally wrong. It has been a uniformly negative experience for all those involved in it. It has hurt the lives of tens of millions of women, many of whom are now fervent pro-life advocates. The pro-life movement in America is now very strong and continues to grow stronger. Abortion rates are down to what they were in the 1970s and continue to decline while voters continue to enact additional state restrictions on abortion. Romney should have taken advantage of all these facts and tapped into the enormous reserve of political capital hidden in the pro-life movement and built his campaign on that, even more than President George W. Bush did. He should have spoken passionately about the horror and magnitude of the abortion holocaust, in which more than 55 million innocent Americans have been legally slaughtered over the past forty years since Roe v. Wade. He should have reminded Americans incessantly of Barack Obama’s criminal record on abortion as an Illinois state senator, as a U.S. senator and as president, and drawn attention to the unholy alliance between Planned Parenthood and the Obama administration. He should have reminded people of the draconian Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) that President Obama promised to sign upon taking office in 2009; FOCA would have done away with all state restrictions on abortion and compelled all physicians to perform abortions (among other things), and it was only defeated by a massive outcry from the American people. He could have also fostered discussion on the broader negative impact of abortion on American society and the economy, from single-parent families and low marriage rates among young people to economic stagnation, and how things might be different if those 55 million Americans murdered in their mother’s wombs were alive today. And he should have billed himself unapologetically as the pro-life candidate for president who would work aggressively to end the scourge of legalized abortion in America forever. To his credit, Romney did pledge to defund Planned Parenthood and declared his support for overturning Roe v. Wade—two things President Bush never ventured. But had Romney given the right to life of the innocent human being in the womb the center of attention it deserves as the most important issue facing America today, I think he would have won the election.

But perhaps this was not to be expected of Mitt Romney, a wealthy businessman and politician from Massachusetts with a somewhat weak record on the crucial moral and social issues. Here we come to another reason why President Obama was re-elected: his challenger was a somewhat liberal candidate from the American political establishment who failed to present a credible conservative alternative to Barack Obama. People didn’t trust Romney and weren’t quite sure about him because of his mixed record. Had the Republicans nominated a strong candidate like Rick Santorum with impeccable conservative credentials, he would have soundly defeated Barack Obama—no question about it.

Romney was not a genuine Tea Party candidate, although we wishfully tried to make him so and although he tried to be so for us. He might have partially defunded Planned Parenthood, repealed the HHS mandate, got the economy going again, and done a few other good things for our country. However, he would not have significantly changed the dynamics of the deeply entrenched and deeply corrupt Washington political establishment, comprised of movers and shakers from Planned Parenthood and homosexual rights activists to the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and insurance industries to the big multinational corporations that run Wall Street.

That establishment—allied with the mainstream media—is what promoted Romney’s candidacy and defeated the attempts of genuine conservative candidates like Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to win the Republican presidential nomination. Such candidates, although more favored by the American people, would have upset the D.C. status quo too much. Romney bagged the Republican nomination, not because he was the most qualified candidate for president, but because he spent the most money on advertising and because he was the least threatening candidate to the Washington establishment. Romney tried to solve his conservative problem while remaining friendly with the establishment by picking a true conservative running mate. But that strategy of compromise didn’t work for him, just as it didn’t work for John McCain. Romney was Obama’s saving grace—the opposition candidate whose nomination would help assure his own re-election. Deep down this past summer, I suspected that the establishment wanted Romney nominated, and that his nomination would probably lead to a close presidential contest in which Obama would just squeak by. But I refused to listen to my hunch because I was strongly biased against Obama and willfully blind to the realities of the American political landscape as suggested by the polling data.

Ultimately, the reality of the 2012 election came down to three things: communication, compromise, and corruption. President Obama won re-election because he is a great communicator and because he’s in bed with corrupt special interests in Washington. Romney lost the election because he failed to communicate himself as well as Obama did, but he won the Republican nomination over his conservative rivals because the corrupt establishment helped him to do so. And the Tea Party movement compromised its core values and became complicit in the very corruption it decries by abandoning true conservative presidential contenders and surrendering to Romney as the only alternative to Obama.

Communication problems and Washington corruption also conspired to prevent the Tea Party from taking over the federal government in this election. The party allowed the economy to distract it from vigorously defending the right to life, traditional marriage and our nation’s fundamental Christian identity and from effectively communicating to the American people the outrage of the Obama administration’s assault on religious liberty and the First Amendment represented by the HHS mandate.

Our nation’s Founding Fathers, especially George Washington, warned that a national political party system would become a tool of corrupt special interests. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened. We now have corrupt private interests ruling our country through the Senate and the White House for their own private benefit instead of honest public servants who govern responsibly for the sake of the common good. The Tea Party movement came into existence precisely as a result of this situation, but it must become much stronger and more courageous if it is to achieve its goal of restoring honest and responsible government to both houses of Congress and the White House.

The corrupt Washington establishment will certainly continue doing all in its power to keep the Tea Party from gaining full control of the federal government because this would spell its own death sentence. However, the 2010 elections demonstrated that this corruption is not an insuperable obstacle to a robust popular movement whose leaders communicate effectively on the moral issues affecting our country. The Tea Party can still achieve its goal—but its future depends on whether or not it learns from the mistakes it made in 2012. If it hopes to bounce back from this defeat to victory in future elections, the Tea Party must do the following:

1. It must give pride of place to the all-important moral issues by which our nation stands or falls—especially abortion, religious liberty, marriage, and radical secularism—and it must articulate and communicate its positions on them clearly, consistently, passionately, and effectively.

2. It must remain committed to its goals of ending legalized abortion, repealing the HHS mandate and all of Obamacare, protecting traditional marriage and the nuclear family, restoring our nation’s fundamental Christian identity, and returning honest and responsible leadership to the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

3. It must remain committed to the traditional Republican ethos of limited government, low taxes, a balanced budget, a strong national defense, and promoting a favorable climate for small businesses.

4. It must remain seriously committed to the long-term goals of abolishing the Federal Reserve, the IRS and income taxes, and restoring the value of our currency through a return to the gold standard on which our nation thrived for more than 150 years.

5. It must return to the “city on a hill” concept of the Pilgrims and Founding Fathers, i.e., to spreading freedom and democracy by the power of our example at home rather than by the force of arms abroad. In line with this principle, it must reject costly foreign wars of national liberation (e.g. Afghanistan) and aggressive “preemptive” wars to eliminate nonexistent WMD programs (e.g. Iraq and Iran)—both of which are driven by corrupt special interests—and commit to bringing all of our troops home and keeping them home to defend our coastlines and borders.

6. It must remain faithful to the above stated core principles—above all to the moral ones in items 1 and 2—and firmly resist the temptation to compromise any of them for short-term political gain. This means it must not back establishment candidates or proposals that are at odds with any of its core principles. This also means that it must clearly distinguish itself from the corrupt Republican/Democratic political establishment currently in control of Washington.

This election has certainly taught us some painful lessons: Moral issues go in first place. Communication is critical. Corruption controls Washington. Compromise is the short road to ruin. And wishful thinking is no substitute for reality. We’d do well to keep these lessons in mind when the next election seasons roll around in 2014 and 2016.



Copyright © 2012 Justin D. Soutar. All rights reserved.

Thought for the Day

"Obedience is not an act of coercion, it is letting go, surrendering oneself to the ocean of the goodness of God."

 —Pope Benedict XVI

The Annunciation

Here's a little poem I wrote recently called "The Annunciation." I thought it'd be appropriate for today's feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary since we had the gospel reading at Mass about the Annunciation (Luke 1:26-38).

The Annunciation
by Justin Soutar
12/2/12


A messenger was sent from God
To a humble girl of Nazareth,
A virgin pure and undefiled,
A maiden meek and mild.

“Hail, full of grace!” the angel said.
“The Lord is with you. Blest are you!”
She found herself disturbed by this
And wondered what it meant.

“Fear not, Mary,” said Gabriel,
“For the Lord God is pleased with you.
You will conceive and bear a child
Who will be God’s Son too.”

“How shall this happen,” Mary asked,
“Since I do not know man?”
“By the Holy Spirit’s pow’r
This will be done,” he said.

“And furthermore, Elizabeth,
Your relative, is now with child
Far past the age of childbirth,
For God can do all things.”

Then Mary meekly bowed her head:
“I am the servant of the Lord.
May it be now done to me
According to your word."

Then the Eternal Word of God
Took flesh in gentle Mary’s womb;
The world would never be the same
Once our Lord Jesus came.


Copyright © 2012 Justin D. Soutar. All rights reserved.

Quote of the Day

The Sermon on the Mount is not a social program per se, to be sure. But it is only when the great inspiration it gives us vitally influences our thought and our action, only when faith generates the strength of renunciation and responsibility for our neighbor and for the whole of society--only then can social justice grow, too. And the Church as a whole must never forget that she has to remain recognizably the community of God's poor. Just as the Old Testament opened itself through God's poor to renewal in the New Covenant, so too any renewal of the Church can be set in motion only through those who keep alive in themselves the same resolute humility, the same goodness that is always ready to serve.

--Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Doubleday, 2007), p. 77

Quote of the Day

In our age, although it has a wealth of human, scientific and technological resources, many have lost the sense of faith and lead a life distant from Christ and his gospel. Blessed Duns Scotus presents himself to us with his sharp mind and extraordinary ability to penetrate the mystery of God. He also demonstrates the presuasive power of his holiness which for the church and the whole of humanity makes him a teacher of thought and life. Pope Paul VI said that his doctrine "can yield shining arms for combating and chasing away the dark clouds of atheism which casts its shadow upon our era." It energetically builds up the church, sustaining her in her urgent mission of the new evangelization of the peoples of the earth....

Blessed Duns Scotus is an example of fidelity to the revealed truth, of effective priestly ministry, of serious dialogue in search for unity....John Gerson said that throughout his life Duns Scotus was always motivated "not by the contentious singularity of winning, but by the humility of reaching an accord."

May his spirit and memory enlighten with the very light of Christ the trials and hopes of our society.

--Blessed John Paul II

Supreme Betrayal: What the ObamaCare Ruling Means for America

by Justin Soutar

December 3, 2012

On June 28, 2012, in a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Obamacare in its entirety. In doing so, the Court allowed an unjust and unconstitutional law to stand, joined the Obama administration in attacking our religious liberties and rights of conscience, and betrayed the American people.

This wasn’t the first time our Supreme Court made a bad decision. In Dred Scott v. Sanford, the Court ruled that slaves were not persons with rights but rather property with no rights. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court upheld unjust state segregation laws. More recently, in Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that women have a “right” to kill their unborn children, resulting in a staggering 55 million innocent Americans being legally deprived of their First Amendment rights to life and liberty over the past forty years.

In each of these three cases, the Supreme Court used a certain rationale based on the Constitution to justify its faulty decision. When we read the written majority opinions in which these rulings were handed down, we’re impressed by their formal tone and struck by how dispassionate, logical, wise, and constitutionally sound they seem to be. Yet however well written and fair to read, these apparently brilliant opinions are all infected with the destructive germ of an erroneous conclusion resulting from one or more incorrect premises.

It’s the same story with National Federation of Independent Business et al v. Sebelius et al. The massive Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)—passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama in 2010—contains provisions that clearly violate our Constitutionally guaranteed rights to religious freedom as individuals, as religious institutions, and as businesses. In these provisions, the Act authorizes the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to require employers to include contraception, sterilization and abortifacients in health insurance plans for their employees, even if they object to providing such coverage—and even if their employees object to receiving it—on moral or religious grounds. Furthermore, the Act imposes heavy fines on those individuals and entities who refuse to comply with the HHS mandate. This unprecedented mandate is in clear conflict with the First Amendment to our Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion and prohibits Congress from making any law that would interfere with the free exercise of religion. Recognizing this, the National Federation of Independent Business along with twenty-six state governments and a host of private religious and educational institutions rightly filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the HHS mandate. In this case, the minimum duty of the High Court was perfectly clear: to strike down those provisions of the PPACA authorizing the HHS mandate.

Yet after reviewing the Act, the Supreme Court somehow decided that everything within it, including the coercive mandate, is, in fact, “constitutional.” How did it come to this outlandish conclusion? Several erroneous premises were involved. The Commerce Clause of our Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce as well as to lay and collect taxes, served as the principal basis of the Court’s flawed ruling. In a nutshell, Chief Justice Roberts argued that the entire PPACA falls within Congressional authority to regulate commerce, and that the fines it imposes on those who refuse to comply with the HHS mandate are a legitimate exercise of Congressional taxing power. As for the mandate itself, the Court made the eye-popping discovery that it does not really violate the First Amendment because it is not really “coercive”: employees and health providers who object to it have a choice between acting against their consciences and paying the fines. The latter two premises are closely related, so we will discuss them together below.

Let’s take the Court’s first premise first: that the whole Affordable Care Act is a legitimate example of Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce. A casual browse through the Act is sufficient to expose the phoniness of this argument. Its ten Titles, hundreds of sections, 900 pages, and $1,200,000,000,000 (1.2 trillion dollar) price tag speak of much more than just a few new regulations for the American healthcare industry. The PPACA represents nothing less than a wholesale takeover and transformation of our healthcare system by the federal government. The Act creates 159 new federal offices, essentially doubling the size of the Washington bureaucracy. It combines federal and state governments, health insurance carriers, pharmaceutical industries, healthcare providers and facilities, private charitable organizations, and individual American citizens into a single, seamless, all-encompassing national healthcare system funded by our tax dollars. Through the Act, our government now defines what “acceptable” healthcare coverage is and levies substantial new tax fines on individuals, employers and insurance carriers who fail to purchase or provide “acceptable” health insurance as dictated by the Act (in addition to the aforementioned fines for violating the HHS mandate). To say that the PPACA falls entirely within legitimate Congressional authority to regulate commerce is pure sophistry and insulting to the intelligence of the American people.

However, the most serious error in the Court’s decision lies in the two related premises that the fines for noncompliance with the HHS mandate are a legitimate exercise of Congressional taxing power, and that the PPACA does not really force employees to violate their religious liberties or conscience rights because they can simply choose to pay the fines if they object to obeying the law. To say that an employer has a choice between obeying the law or paying huge fines is akin to saying that a driver has a choice between obeying the motor vehicle laws or paying traffic fines. The idea that the person in either situation is really free to choose between two equally legitimate options is ludicrous. A fine is not simply a viable alternative to observance of a law; it is meant to ensure compliance with the law and to deter and punish noncompliance. We are only really free to choose to do what is right. If a law is just, the only right choice is to obey it. Under the new healthcare law, however, employers who refuse to furnish their employees with contraceptives, sterilizations and abortifacients for moral or religious reasons—as millions of employers all across America have been doing for decades—will suddenly find themselves forced to either a) obey the law and violate their consciences, b) break the law and pay steep fines, or c) go out of business. Those are not free choices; they are choices forced by the new law, which is an unjust law. Sorry Supreme Court, but this is blatant coercion in violation of the First Amendment. No one should be punished under U.S. law for refusing to violate their religious beliefs and moral convictions.

The PPACA is a huge windfall for the declining abortion industry, drug companies, the medical establishment, and the insurance sector. By ruling in favor of ObamaCare, the Supreme Court caved in to pressure from the Obama administration and from the handful of powerful corporate interests backing it, unjustly sacrificing our God-given, Constitutionally protected religious liberties and conscience rights on the altar of those private interests. The High Court abandoned its solemn duty to interpret the law in light of the Constitution and failed to exercise its proper oversight role with respect to the other two branches of government. Furthermore, the Court showed contempt and disregard for the will of the American people by upholding a piece of legislation that a large majority of citizens have consistently opposed from its inception. The infamous ruling clearly demonstrated that a few powerful corporate interests are now largely in control of our federal government and our court system. I can’t help but think of the following Scripture passage from the Book of Wisdom, chapter 6, verses 2 through 5:

Hear therefore, ye kings, and understand: learn, ye that are judges of the ends of the earth.

Give ear, you that rule the people, and that please yourselves in multitudes of nations:

For power is given you by the Lord, and strength by the Most High, who will examine your works, and search out your thoughts:

Because being ministers of his kingdom, you have not judged rightly, nor kept the law of justice, nor walked according to the will of God.

Copyright © 2012 Justin D. Soutar. All rights reserved.