Google+
Close

The Corner

The one and only.

Re: Baltimore Archbishop



Text  



Kathryn: finally, a Catholic prelate willing to employ the “e-word” — evil — in defense of religious teaching. The Church really needs to grasp that it’s in the fight of its life with the Obama administration, which by any means necessary will employ all the powers of the presidency — real, implied, and invented — in order to marginalize religion and create the fully secular state of its dreams. If you thought the HHS mandate was bad, wait till you see what’s coming in a second term.

The question to ask is this: Are any of the candidates of either party, or independents, standing for something that is intrinsically evil, evil no matter what the circumstances? If that’s the case, a Catholic, regardless of his party affiliation, shouldn’t be voting for such a person.

I can hear the shrieks already. And I can also feel the involuntary protective shudder that passed through even some committed Catholics and other Christians, who have been trained to regard such frank outspokenness as somehow rude. But if religion is not about defining good and evil, what is it about? And to apply those distinctions in making political choices in the privacy of the voting booth is not zealotry but responsibility.

In any case, the radical Left may be largely atheist, but it has a well-defined — if morally inverted — canon of things good and evil, and its adherents cling more closely to it than the right-wing troglodyte nuts do to their God, guns and religion. If the old trick of the devil was to make the world believe he did not exist, the new trick is to make religious folk believe they don’t have any right to exist, except in their catacombs and priest holes, and that for them to define political actions as either good or (especially) evil is hate speech.

So good for the archbishop. Finally, someone is channeling Dagger John. More, please.



Text  


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review