Reformation
Is God Using the Catholic Church to Awaken America?
One of the biggest stories in the U.S. this past week has been the uproar over the Obamacare provisions being handed down by the Department of Health and Human Services. The new mandates force religiously-affiliated organizations to dispense contraceptives against their consciences in violation of long-held religious freedom.
All week national Christian leaders decried the action. On Friday, radio commentator Sean Hannity held a “Crisis Forum” on the issue. The nation’s most watched cable network trumpeted the danger against religious liberty almost every hour. And yesterdy, I attended a private gathering of Washington State leaders to hear a major Republican presidential candidate speak to the issue.
Do you know what these national leaders, Sean Hannity, the cable news network and presidential candidate all have in common?
They are Catholics.
Is God using the Catholic Church to awaken America?
If He is, it would be quite ironic.
The first three spiritual awakenings in America history were led by fervent Protestants whose Bible-based convictions called the nation to repentance, faith and active involvement in the moral issues of their day. During America’s first two hundred years, it was the Protestant side of the Church that promoted strong families, railed against the excesses of alcoholism, and led the charge against the evil of slavery.
There was a reason for this. At the time of the American Revolution, Catholics formed only 1.6% of the population of the thirteen colonies.
But by 1850, Catholics had become the country’s largest single denomination. Between 1860 and 1890, their population in the United States tripled through immigration. By the end of the decade it reached seven million. This influx would eventually bring increased scrutiny for the Catholic Church and a greater cultural presence which led to a growing fear of the Catholic “problem” among America’s Protestants.
In fact, it was quite common in the 18th and early 19th centuries for Catholics to be marginalized in American society as heretics, Papists, and condescendingly described as “anti-Christ.” Some anti-Catholic political movements like the Know Nothings, and organizations like the Orange Institution, American Protective Association, and the Ku Klux Klan, actively persecuted Catholic believers.
In fact, for most of the history of the United States, Catholics were victims of discrimination and persecution. It was not until the presidency of John F. Kennedy in 1960 that Catholics were broadly accepted in the US.
The Philadelphia Nativist Riot, Bloody Monday, the Orange Riots in New York City in 1871 and 1872, and The Ku Klux Klan-ridden South discriminated against Catholics (as they did the Jews and African Americans) for their Irish, Italian, Polish, German, or Spanish ethnicity. Many Protestants in the Midwest and the North labeled Catholics as “anti-American Papists,” “incapable of free thought without the approval of the Pope.”
During the Mexican-American War, Mexicans were portrayed as “backward” because of their “Papist superstition.” In reaction to this attitude, some hundred American Catholics, mostly recent Irish immigrants, fought on the Mexican side. However, the majority of Catholic soldiers (primarily the Irish), along with their chaplains like John McElroy (Jesuit), who later founded Boston College, proved loyal to the American cause.
In 1850, Franklin Pierce, the US Attorney for the District of New Hampshire, presented resolutions for the removal of restrictions on Catholics from holding office in that state, as well as the removal of property qualifications for voting. But these pro-Catholic measures were soundly defeated by the Protestant population.
If you were a Catholic back then, you couldn’t even run for office!
As the 19th century progressed, animosity between Protestants and Catholics began to cool off. Many Protestant Americans came to understand that, despite anti-Catholic rhetoric, Catholics were also people of faith and were on their side of the issues. Another reason was that many Irish-Catholic immigrants fought alongside their Protestant compatriots in the American Civil War.
In the 20th century, and culminating in JFK’s election, Catholic believers moved into the mainstream in American society.
Today, according to a new 2011 study by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, the US Catholic population is currently 77.7 million. The United States has the fourth largest Catholic population in the world, after Brazil, Mexico, and the Philippines. In fact, in 2011, there are more than four times as many Catholics as Southern Baptists and more than eight times as many as United Methodists.
I understand some of the past suspicion over the Catholic Church. Hundreds of years of European Church corruption and persecution had fueled a Post-Reformation hatred of the Holy See. The church’s focus on rituals, perceived idolatry of the Virgin Mary and other patron saints didn’t sit well with Protestants. In the 20th century, evangelicals insisted that followers of Christ needed to be born again and follow the teachings of the Bible–not a fallible Pope.
But today, the tables have turned. It’s the Protestants who are asleep and the Catholics that are living out their faith.
I noticed the change in the 1980s while living in Washington, D.C. After the infamous Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, my young family attended many of the large pro-life rallies that marched against abortion. I expected to find my fellow evangelicals leading the procession.
Didn’t happen. What we did find was a passionate and powerful Catholic Church that was leading the way. In the early days, the Protestants and evangelicals were AWOL. Today they are more involved, but the Catholic Church is still the champion against abortion in this nation.
And when the brouhaha broke out this week over the Obamacare mandates, it was the Catholic Church that rose to speak for religious liberty. New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan said that he felt betrayed by President Obama and vowed that the Catholic Church would fight the new regulations even if they had to do it “in the streets.”
After President Obama blinked and modified (but didn’t really change) the rules, Archbishop Charles Chaput had even harsher words for the insurance-company-as-middleman approach. “Many Catholics are confused and angry. They should be… The HHS mandate, including its latest variant, is belligerent, unnecessary, and deeply offensive… We cannot afford to be fooled–yet again.”
Protestants and evangelicals are now joining the issue, but it is the Catholics who are really taking up the prophetic mantle. It’s as if the evangelical church–pre-occupied and neutralized by trying to be seeker-sensitive in the modern world–has abandoned its prophetic call and commitment to be salt and light in the culture.
So the Catholics have arisen to awaken the nation and Church.
- The national leaders I mentioned at the beginning are primarily Catholics. Many read a letter in their parishes last week calling the people and nation to fight for freedom of conscience.
- Sean Hannity is a Catholic believer. He hosted a leader’s summit on prime-time television that was primarily manned by Catholic clergy.
- Fox News was founded by Roger Ailes, a Roman Catholic, and many of its commentators including Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and Megan Kelly, are Catholics.
- And Rick Santorum is a rising Catholic Republican presidential contender.
C’mon my Protestant and Evangelical friends! The Catholic Church is putting us to shame while we twiddle our thumbs and tip toe around the great moral issues of our day.
Maybe Penny Young Vance is right: We’re all Catholics Now. Or maybe we better be.
Because God seems to be using the Catholic Church to awaken America.
Time to Unite Behind Mitt Romney for President
I serve on the board of the National Association of Evangelicals–the largest leadership consortium of churches and Christian leaders in the United States.
Nine months ago the organization sent a questionnaire to its members asking us which person we favored for president of the United States. At that time there were twelve different candidates in the race–plenty of good people to choose from.
This may surprise some of you, but without hesitation I voted for Mitt Romney.
It looks like the people of Florida agree with me. Because of their decisive vote, and what will follow in the month of February, it is time for people that care about America’s future to unite behind Mitt Romney and propel him to the White House. Here’s why.
First of all, let’s mention the qualities that are crucial for a US president or any elected leader. I believe that two areas are paramount:
- Good Character–including experience, competence, elect ability, judgment and associations. A person’s character includes faith, but it is not the defining issue. We are not electing a pastor. We are electing a leader who is proven, trustworthy, and competent in the area of governing.
- Right Policies– on economics, foreign affairs, and moral/social issues. This is the leader’s worldview which flows from their faith and character. These policy principles should be based on the biblical understanding of God-given rights, faith and morality, free enterprise, hard work, personal responsibility, compassion for the needy, and a strong national defense.
Now let’s look at the three major candidates that have risen to the top of the Republican field. I have met one of them personally, have carefully followed the career of another, and have grown to appreciate the candidacy of the third.
Rick Santorum
I met Rick Santorum in the mid-1990s when he was a young senator from Pennsylvania. We worked on some projects together and I enjoyed spending time with him in his office on Capitol Hill. I admire his strong faith (Catholic) and firm commitment to family values. His own personal family is both a model of grace and good example to the nation.
In policy areas, Rick is a steady conservative on most issues–probably the most principled of the three. He has his weaknesses which include a penchant for earmarks, his support of labor unions (Pennsylvania is not a Right to Work state), and tendency to some big government solutions.
His biggest weakness is his lack of executive experience and national stature. He lost his last senatorial election by double digits. And until recently, he was nationally unknown–which is one of the reasons for his lack of a credible organization and fund-raising prowess.
Rick Santorum’s day will come. But he hasn’t paid his dues yet to claim the prize of president of the United States.
Newt Gingrich
I’ve never had the privilege of meeting Newt Gingrich but I have followed his career and love his boldness, big ideas and clarity on issues. But his volatile personality and marriage failures are a major weakness. He was involved in a number of affairs, two failed marriages, and was forced to leave his House leadership due to character issues and poor leadership style. He paid a $300,000 fine for one charge of ethics violations.
Newt is a gunslinger that left some collateral damage from his years as House Speaker. To his credit, he now purports to have experienced salvation through his Catholic faith and I have no reason to doubt him. We Americans believe in redemption.
But forgiveness and trustworthiness are two different things. One is immediate and the other is earned. Newt may have found his way back to national popularity, but his potential violatility is a gamble for all who vote for him. Time will tell whether he has truly matured or is just doing a good job of covering his weaknesses.
His experience in government is vast. The Contract with America, the four budgets he helped balance as Speaker of the House, and his championing conservative principles are laudable. But he has no real executive experience. Well–he has a qualified version as House Speaker, but his record there was mixed at best and destructive at worst. And his judgment should be questioned for things like working with Fannie Mae, supporting global warming, giving lip service to Cap and Trade and a healthcare mandate, and numerous other political indiscretions.
Elect ability is the biggest issue. I believe he could beat Barack Obama under the right circumstances, but his unfavorable rating of 57% is a potential albatross. Even if he made it to the White House, would an unpredictable President Gingrich make some mistakes that would discredit conservatives for decades? It’s a big risk. Don’t forget this fact: He is the ultimate Washington insider. Is that who we need in the White House in 2012?
On the other hand, Newt would probably be the boldest president of all with a consistent conservative agenda. He’d fire the czars, dismantle Obamacare, change the tax code, and go after big government entitlements. He’d be tough on Iran and move the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem. He would also lead the charge against anti-Christiian bigotry in the nation.
He would probably make a great president–if he didn’t make a disastrous one.
Mitt Romney
That brings us to the man I am growing to appreciate and believe is our best choice for president. He is probably not my natural pick, but I believe he is right for America at this crucial time in our history.
First of all, let’s mention the negatives. His Mormon faith is not as “clear” as evangelical faith, but it’s God-fearing and family-centered. Mormonism is outside the Christian mainstream, but it often produces hard-working, moral, and family-oriented people who make good leaders. He should not be rejected for his faith.
Mitt Romney also has past moderate views. But to be fair, that’s also true of Newt Gingrich who began his career as a “Rockefeller Republican.” He changed–and Mitt Romney did too (so did Ronald Reagan). It is no small feat that Governor Romney was elected governor in one of the bluest states in America and led that state in a variety of conservative successes.
Today, Mitt Romney stands squarely behind the Judeo-Chrisian principles of life, liberty, marriage, economic freedom, and national security.
“Romneycare” is a problem. It takes away a big issue from the debate with Obama. But I agree with the governor that state choices are different than national ones. Mitt Romney has promised to give waivers on Obamacare to all fifty states his first day in office and work to repeal it. There are enough differences here with Barack Obama to give Governor Romney an edge–but not a pass.
So what are the main reasons to vote for Mitt Romney?
1. His national stature. Romney has earned the right to represent the Republicans this year. He came in second to John McCain in 2008, and has used his time since then to build a national organization and campaign that is without equal on the Republican side.
The other campaigns can complain about the inequality of money and organization. But that’s the same argument as Barack Obama’s class warfare rhetoric. Mitt Romney has the money and professional team because he earned it--he built it from the ground up and attracted the support. National stature is earned, not inherited. He’s the only R that has it.
2. His business experience and background. This election will ultimately hinge on the dismal economy. Mitt Romney is the only man in the race who is sharp on economics, was immensely successful in the private sphere, and will have the authority to speak and lead on these issues. In the economic debate, he will clean Barack Obama’s clock because our current president has never had a real job nor knows how to generate them. Mitt Romney is a wise and successful businessman who can turn around an Olympics and hopefully do the same for a nation.
3. He is the only Washington outsider in the race. Think about that. Rick Santorum has spent most of his adult life among Washington elites. Newt Gingrich is the poster child of a Washington insider. Barack Obama knows nothing but government service–and community organizing.
Mitt Romney is a business leader and governor who will come to a city he has never lived in to take on the powers that be. Yeah, he may not be a pit-bull like Newt, but despite his wealth, he is one of us. He has never resided within the Beltway.
4. His elect ability. The polls have consistently shown that Mitt Romney has the best chance of beating Barack Obama. And that is the number one goal. I have nothing personally against the president. He seems to be a nice man with a good family and he excels behind the teleprompter and on the stump.
But President Obama lacks executive skills and his quasi-socialist policies are killing this nation. The Democratic Party, in control of the US Senate, has not produced a budget for over 1000 days. The president has no idea what to do about creating jobs, he’s tearing down the Christian fabric of the nation at many turns, and he’s emboldened our enemies around the world.
Barack Obama is a great politician but an incompetent leader. Mitt Romney has the best chance of stopping the damage.
5. And for fun, let’s throw in one more: Romney looks presidential. Hey, in the age of 24-7 media, that ‘s a pretty big deal. Can you imagine Mitt Romney, his family, and his policies representing the United States around the world? I can–and that image will benefit our nation.
Now that Romney has decisively won Florida, it’s possible that he may run the table in the coming month. Key primaries and caususes include Nevada, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado and Arizona. After that, he is the only Republican candidate with the money and organization to compete on Super Tuesday, March 6.
We must get behind him and stop the in-fighting. We also need a Republican (conservative) House and Senate to complete the change in direction. We need to focus like a laser beam on building a movement that can bring some hope to a nation that is running out of time.
There are no perfect candidates. But we have a good one in Washington outsider, successful businessman and governor Mitt Romney.
It’s time to unite behind Mitt Romney for president.
A Sinister US Senate is the Problem
sin·is·ter [sin-uh-ster], adjective
1. Threatening or portending evil, harm, or trouble; ominous: a sinister remark. 2. Bad, evil, base, or wicked; his sinister purposes. 3. Unfortunate; disastrous; unfavorable: a sinister accident. 4. Of or on the left side; left. (Dictionary.com)
The theme for Barack Obama’s re-election campaign is now clear. He can’t run on “hope and change” because though he is trying to change America into a European social democracy he’s decreasing hope at home. He can’t campaign on his economic achievements–unemployment is 8.6% and federal deficits are exploding.
He can’t run on his foreign policy successes. Despite the one positive of killing Osama bin Laden, it is the premature removal of troops from Iraq, his waffling on Iran, and thumbing his nose at Israel have made the world a far more dangerous place.
So here’s the campaign theme that the president and his media allies will trumpet throughout 2012: We have a “Do Nothing Congress” headed by the House Republicans that is preventing America from going forward.
That’s a lie.
What we really have is a “Sinister US Senate” that desperately needs replacing.
Yeah, I know that a week ago the House Republicans were stupid and lost the PR campaign on the payroll tax. They were right to resist the “two month” gimmick–but they messed up the negotiations with the Senate, then blinked and capitulated when the Democrats and their media allies successfully branded them the enemy of middle class tax cuts.
But who are we trying to kid? Tax cuts? It’s twenty dollars a week for the average American–for two measly months? Total = $160.
That’s a tax cut? You can’t even buy half an iPad with $160.
But the Senate was craftier at this legislative game and now the President Obama can perpetuate the myth that this is a “Do Nothing” Congress and that both Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame. His campaign theme will be to “elect an outside like him (!)” who does not vote up on dysfunctional Capitol Hill and can get on his white horse (War Horse?) and lead us to victory.
Don’t believe the spin.
Here’s the reality: We do not have a “Do-Nothing Congress.” We have a sinister US Senate that is recklessly dragging our nation in a wrong direction. On the other hand, the House of Representatives is desperately trying to get us to change course–to head us the right way.
But they are currently losing the battle to the bad guys. That’s because the US Senate has become a very sinister institution.
Don’t believe me? Let’s look at the facts.
November 2010 was a watershed election in which millions of everyday Americans who were laughingly labeled “the Tea Party” woke up and realized that America was in deep trouble. We were spending too much; We were growing the government monster and moving toward European socialism; Illegal immigration was out of control; The institution of the family was under attack.
So rallies took place all across the country and many patriotic Americans stepped into the electoral process. The result in November 2010 was a “re-born” House of Representatives that was the biggest shift from liberal to conservative in over seventy years. It was a mandate from the people that the nation needed to change direction.
Then Tea Party Representatives-elect came to Washington, D.C. to right the ship of state.
However, there was a problem. The Senate also became more conservative in 2010, but Harry Reid, the Democratic leader was re-elected, and the Democrats barely held on to a majority. And this majority of socialist-leaning progressives have been the thorn in America’s side for the past three years.
What we really have is a sinister Senate and a White House in collusion. And if America is to survive our careening-out-of-control 15 trillion dollar debt, then we need to elect a conservative majority Senate in 2012 and also a conservative president.
A sinister Senate is a bridge to nowhere (no good).
I’m not being extreme in using the label “sinister.” Look again at the above definition.
1. Threatening or portending evil, harm, or trouble
The Senate has been the true “Do Nothing” political body for two years now. Though the House passed 24 bills that would have helped bring down the deficit and create jobs in America, the Senate rejected them all. For over one thousand days they refused to approve a budget. And when it came to negotiating some desperately needed changes in entitlement programs, they refused to give in and brought the government to a standstill. There is no question this brought great harm and trouble to our nation and “threatens'” our very future.
Why is the Senate stalling everything? Why are they rejecting all the House bills and refusing to pass no legislation on their own? Because they know their radical agenda is out of step with the American people. They know it won’t fly and they don’t want to reveal their true nature by attaching themselves to “bad” votes. This is selfish, cynical politics at its worst.
2. Bad, evil, base or wicked. Not doing the peoples’ business is bad. Failing to deal honestly with the American debt crisis is absolutely evil in its ramifications. Three hundred and ten million people could be plunged into poverty and ruin by their neglect. Astronomical debt is immoral. It is slavery. The Senate is also the greatest proponent of anti-family, anti-security policies that threaten America’s social fabric such as the weakening of our defense capabilities and the promotion of homosexual marriage.
3. Unfortunate; unfavorable; disastrous.
It is completely unfortunate at this point in our history that the US Senate refuses to deal the immense problems this nation faces. They won’t seal the borders. They won’t scale back the size of government. Their lack of a job program that highlights de-regulation, freedom, lower taxes and smaller deficits is totally “unfavorable” to our families and economy. The sinister United States Senate is holding the entire nation hostage to their Big Government utopian dream. Their inaction–their wrong actions–are absolutely disastrous to future generations.
4. Of or on the left side.
It was quite enlightening to realize that the original definition of the word “sinister” related to being “left of center.” Quite an appropriate analogy. I didn’t make it up. It’s in the Dictionary. It’s high time for the America people to realize that “leftist” policies are hurtful and un-American. They are a sinister attempt to take that which is right and corrupt it for the purposes of power and control.
The definitions say it all. We have a House of Representatives that are trying to do the right thing, and a sinister Senate that is holding up the turning of the American ship back to the right path of greatness. Unfortunately, we have a president who also could wear the sinister label..
Here’s an analogy of our current situation in Washington, D.C.
Imagine a boat heading toward a steep waterfall where all will lost is they plunge over the edge.There are four oars in the boat. One oar is the presidency. The second is the Senate. The third is the mainstream media. The fourth is the House (backed by the Tea Party and other patriotic Americans.)
From 2008 to 2010, all four oarsmen were furiously paddling in the wrong direction toward the waterfall of doom. In the 2010 election, the oar of the House was taken back, and now that one oar is desperately trying to slow down the speed of the out-of-control vessel or even turn it around.
This fight should never be likened to gridlock. Gridlock occurs when there are two many boats all going the same direction, with too little space for them to keep up their speed. Everything bottlenecks and slows down to a stop.
Our current political fight is not like traffic flow. It’s more like a sports contest where one group wants to advance the ball their direction and score a touchdown. The other team is resisting their efforts and wants to get the ball in their hands and score the other way.
In reality, we are engaged in a cultural fight to the death over the expiration or resurrection of the United States as a nation.
For the next twelve months, the pro-left American media will say that the problem is “gridlock,” the “extreme” House of Representatives, and that the Republican presidential nominee is not up to the task.
Don’t believe them.
Our problem is a sinister Senate and its ally in the White House. Fortunately, with the retirement of Senator Ben Nelson D-FL yesterday, there are now seven of the sinister ones that will not running next year. That’s a positive sign.
Because what we really need in 2012 is a “change” of personnel in the US Senate and presidency that will bring a renewal of “hope” for the American future.