I am a Catholic Christian seeking to apply the principles of the Social
teaching of my Church to my political, economic and social
participation.I offer a few examples of how I have approached evaluating
the
two candidates for the Presidency of the United States based upon
principles derived from my faith. I gratefully accepted the invitation
to become a member of the Catholic
Advisory Group to the campaign of Donald J. Trump for the Presidency of
the United States of America. I did so because I love my country, my
God, my Church and my family. I am honored to serve and will offer the
kind of advice which I have expressed in this essay to the Trump/Pence
campaign.
CHESAPEAKE, VA (Catholic Online) – I write as a private American
citizen concerned about the future of the Nation I love. In this essay I
am expressing my personal political views – and I have a right to do
so.
I am a husband to my wife of forty years, father to our five
grown children and grandfather to seven. I am a “family man”, deeply
concerned about the American family and its future. I am also a
constitutional lawyer. I spent much of my career defending religious
freedom as the first freedom and the right to life as the first right. I
have stood at the intersection of faith and culture for decades in
both ministry and activism.
I am a Catholic Christian seeking to
apply the principles of the Social teaching of my Church to my
political, economic and social participation. I am also a clergyman,
ordained as a Catholic Deacon twenty years ago. I am trying to live my
faith in the real world and apply my theological training to my daily
life in that real world. Though I respect the Academy, I believe this
teaching must move beyond the Academy f it is to bear real and lasting
fruit.
Though I am a convinced Catholic Christian, my heart is
broken over the divisions in the broader Christian community. I do not
believe it was ever the Father’s plan that the Body of His Son Jesus,
the Church, to be separated. But, it is. There is plenty of blame to go
around. It is time for repentance among the brethren. It is time to move
beyond blame to reconciliation. It is time to pray, walk and work
together.
In an age desperately in need of hearing the full
message of the Church in order to find true liberation, I am committed
to doing everything I can to see the prayer of Jesus in the seventeenth
chapter of the Gospel of John fulfilled, “Father may they be one”. I
have worked with Christians from across the Christian confessional
divides for many years. I am keenly aware that they bring great gifts to
me – and I hope to offer gifts in this exchange.
My decision to
choose one major Presidential candidate over the other is rooted in my
love for my Church, my family and my country, the United States of
America. It is also rooted in my understanding of what is called the
Social teaching of the Catholic Church. I have spent years studying
Catholic Moral Theology. The social teaching of the Church is a part of
Moral Theology because we are, both by grace and nature, social beings.
This
treasury of insights called the Social teaching of the Catholic Church
must not remain captive in the Ivy Halls of the Academy. It must be
wrenched away from some who have used it as a mere proof text for left
wing ideology, thereby severing it from its anthropological roots. It is
a gift for the whole world which must be offered as leaven to the loaf
of human culture by the sons and daughters of the Church.
Finally,
I write to explain why I gratefully accepted the invitation to become a
member of the Catholic Advisory Group to the campaign of Donald J.
Trump and Mike Pence for the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the
United States of America.
Catholic Social Teaching
The
Social teaching of the Catholic Church maintains there are unchangeable
truths which can provide a framework for viewing and structuring our
social life. In an age reeling under the destructive influence of what
was prophetically and properly referred to as a dictatorship of
relativism by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, we need to again affirm that
there is such a thing as truth!
As the erosion of the moral
foundations of freedom continues, I am reminded of the encounter between
Truth Incarnate, the Lord Jesus Christ, and Pilate, the symbol of a
corrupted worldly power. Here are the words from the sobering scene as
recorded by John in the fourth Gospel:
Pilate said to him,
“So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this
I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to
the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” Pilate said to
him, “What is truth?” (John 18:37,38)
All Catholic Social
teaching proceeds from the foundation upon which every other truth is
built and from which every principle derives; every single human person
is created in the image of God. Therefore, every human person has human
dignity and a Right to Life.
This primacy of the human person
explains why it is necessary to respect every life, whether in the first
home of the womb, a wheelchair, a jail cell, a hospital room, a
hospice, a senior center or a soup kitchen.
Another unchangeable
truth is the teaching on the nature and ends of marriage. Marriage is
solely possible between one man and one woman, intended for life and
formative of family. Marriage between one man and one woman is the
foundation of the family which is the first society, first church, first
school, first economy, first government and first mediating
institution.
Marriage is not some mere social construct which
can be redefined by courts or legislatures. It is written in the Natural
Moral Law and has guided human society, cross culturally. In the words
of Saint John Paul II “the future of the world passes through the
family.”
Catholic Social teaching affirms the truth that the
human person is by social by nature – and grace. We are made for
relationship and community. The first community which humanizes,
educates and civilizes all of us is the family.
If you want to
know more about the truths and principles offered by Catholic Social
Teaching, go right to the best explanatory Source, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church.
In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “The Church’s
social teaching proposes principles for reflection; it provides criteria
for judgment; it gives guidelines for action.” (CCC #2243)
These
truths are not simply “religious” positions, in the sense that only
religious people need assent to them. They are revealed by the Natural
Moral Law which is knowable by reason and written on every human heart.
Thus, they are true for all people and for all time.
The social
teaching of the Catholic Church also offers principles which are derived
from these truths. These principles are meant to be offered by the sons
and daughters of the Church to the whole world so they can be worked as
leaven into the loaf of human culture.
This also includes
principles to inform how we order our economies. Though the Church does
not endorse or even propose a particular economic theory, Catholic
social teaching insists that the economic order must be at the service
of the human person, the family and the common good.
Because
these are principles, they leave room for the application of prudential
judgment in their application. I will attempt to offer some of those
principles in this article. My intent in writing is to explain why I
accepted the invitation to participate in the Catholic Advisory group to
Trump/Pence 2016.
Further, I want to explain how I am
approaching my obligation of citizenship by voting in the upcoming
Presidential election as a Catholic Christian citizen. Of course, I will
not cover every major issue of concern to Catholics and other
Christians. I will only address the ones of most importance to me and
consistent with a shorter essay of this sort.
First, some background concerning my political affiliation.
Political Labels
I
do not consider myself first a Republican, or even a political
“conservative”. The word “conservative” has become hyphenated, with
paleo, neo, alt, and traditional prefixes often attached. The Republican
party is multi-faceted, breaking into factions, and in a state of flux.
However, I believe the Republican party platform is clearly superior to
the Democratic Party concerning the fundamental truths and principles
of Catholic social teaching.
My friend, the great Pro-Life
Priest Fr. Frank Pavone offers an excellent side by side comparison of
the two platforms through Priests for Life. It is entitled “A Comparison of the 2016 Republican and Democratic Platforms A non-partisan guide on issues of concern to the electorate.”
I am a Catholic Christian first, last, and all in between. I want to be what the Bishops of the United States refer to as a faithful citizen.
I
reject the growing effort to separate social or moral issues from
fiscal and international issues. You cannot separate moral, social and
economic issues in the body politic any more than you can separate the
spirit, soul and body of a person.
Human society is a form of
corporate person, a body politic. Political, economic and international
concerns all have a moral dimension because they concern the human
person and our social relationships.
I am certainly not a
political “liberal”. The very word liberal, as it is used in current
political parlance, has undergone sweeping changes in the last fifty
years.
The liberal label and the Democratic Party were stolen by
those who promote abortion on demand, substitute libertine excess for
ordered liberty, and promote an approach to governance which is always
top down. They propose federalized solutions to every social need, while
failing to solve the root problems of poverty or respect the primacy of
the family as the first government and the proper role of the other
mediating institutions.
Finally, I am not what calls itself
“progressive” in the political lexicon either. The dictionary defines
progressive as “moving forward; advancing.” The progressive agenda is
regressive. The misuse of the word is an example of what C.S. Lewis, in
his “Studies in Words” called verbicide. In “The Abolition of Man” he warned of “progressive” governing schemes wherein a collectivist ideology built upon moral relativism is unleashed.
Lewis
astutely observed that “a dogmatic belief in objective value is
necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an
obedience which is not slavery.” In one of his Essays in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics entitled Is “Progress Possible? Willing Slaves of the Welfare State”, he warned:
“Let
us not be deceived by phrases about ‘Man taking charge of his own
destiny.’ All that can really happen is that some men will take charge
of the destiny of others. . .. The more completely we are planned the
more powerful they will be.”
An integrated approach
Political
and economic concerns both have a moral dimension because they concern
the human person and our social relationships. The reason we should
care about expanding economic opportunity is because we respect the
dignity of every human person. We should want all people to flourish.
That means opening up the means for their economic advance.
The
reason we should care about, and for, the poor is because they have
human dignity and fundamental rights. They are created in the Image of
God. And poverty is much broader than economic poverty. And, we really
are our brother and sister’s keeper. Solidarity is a duty.
However,
the proper manner in which we discharge such an obligation to the poor,
can lead well intended people to very different approaches to the role
of government. The Church’s social teaching proposes principles for
reflection; it provides criteria for judgment; it gives guidelines for
action
A hierarchy of rights
There is a
hierarchy of rights in our social participation as there is a hierarchy
of truths in our doctrine. That hierarchy begins with the Right to Life.
When there is no recognition of a preeminent right to life, what
follows is the erosion of the entire infrastructure of all human rights.
Human rights do not exist in a vacuum; they are goods of the human
person.
When a society fails to recognize that human persons
are more important than things, and loses sight of the inviolable
dignity of every single human person at every age, every stage and of
every size, it embraces a form of practical materialism and begins to
worship a new golden calf. The deluded may dance around that calf
mouthing slogans of freedom and liberation, but they are forging their
own chains and losing their soul.
Without the freedom to be born,
all of the talk about compassion for the poor and economic freedom is
hollow. Our failure to recognize that our first neighbors in the womb
have a right to be born is a fundamental failure in our obligation in
solidarity. It is also an open rejection of the entire ethic of being
our brothers (and sisters) keeper and its implications.
There
can be no enduring, lasting solidarity upon which to build a future in a
culture that kills its own innocent children and calls it a right. It
can never be right to do what is always wrong. Freedom is much more than
a freedom from; it is a freedom for responsible and virtuous living.
The American founders spoke of the pursuit of happiness with reference
to virtue as a key to living a happy life because they came out of the
Western Christian tradition with its roots in two mountains, Calvary and
Sinai. There is a moral basis to a truly free society.
Principles for Evaluation
I
will now offer a few examples of how I have approached evaluating the
two candidates for the Presidency based upon principles derived from my
Catholic Christian faith. Yes, I said two candidates, because those
running as third party candidates are both completely unacceptable to me
based upon their espoused positions.
Additionally, I have
determined that not voting for President is to throw your vote away at
best or worse, to help elect the wrong candidate. Finally, I reject the
notion that the choice we face in this Presidential election is a
“lesser of two evils” choice.
“Freedom makes man a moral
subject. The morality of human acts depends upon the object chosen, the
end in view or the intention and the circumstances of the action.”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church #1749,1750) I believe that the current
Presidential race in the United States presents two candidates between
which we can decide. One will soon be sworn in as the President of the
United States and lead this Nation for at least four years.
Freedom
is not only about having a right to choose – but choosing what best
points this Nation along the path of what is true and good. What most
contributes to the true common good of society and is in keeping with
the cardinal virtue of justice. (See, Catechism of the Catholic Church #
1807)
Freedom must be exercised properly, in order to promote
life, human flourishing, the family and this real common good. Freedom
must acknowledge our obligations in solidarity to one another – because
we are our brother and sister’s keeper. It must recognize the poor as
another self and reach out to our neighbor.
That obligation in solidarity must be fulfilled with a respect for the principle of subsidiarity. “The
political community must be “inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision
of man and his destiny, from which it derives its point of reference
for its judgement, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church #2244)
The Right to Life
Though
abortion is currently legal in the civil law of the United States, that
does not make it moral. While restrictions on the practice are being
enacted in the States, the federal law has not changed. Our youngest
neighbors in the first home of the whole human race can be killed by
surgical instruments, chemical weapons or suction, at any time and for
any reason.
There is no such thing as an “abortion right” even
if American civil and criminal currently protects the act of choosing to
abort a child, even using the police power of the State to enforce it.
Abortions have no rights, only human persons do. Every procured abortion
takes that right away. It is a violation of the Natural Law and thus an
unjust law.
We actually know what occurs in every procured
abortion; an innocent human person is killed. Medical science has
exposed the rhetoric of choice once used to deceive people. We routinely
reach into the womb and offer surgery to these same children to help
them live fuller lives after birth. The contradiction is clear to any
decent person.
It must also be clear to any political candidate,
unless they have deadened their conscience and shut down their brain
for the sake of being elected. We prosecute a criminal offender who, in
the course of committing another felony, takes the life of a child in
the womb as well as their mothers. We take 4D and 3D images of these
children and send them to our friends. Yet, the same technology guides
the abortionist in executing those children who are simply unwanted.
That
child in the womb is our neighbor. There is a Natural Moral Law written
in every human heart. It gives us the basis for our criminal codes and
guides our obligations to one another. The real Right at issue is the
Right to Life. Without life there can be no other derivative rights and
the entire infrastructure of human rights is placed in jeopardy.
Defending
the intentional killing of children in the womb is grounded in a
counterfeit notion of freedom as a power over those who are vulnerable. I
can only choose the candidate who affirms the Right to Life and pledges
to help to do the most to ensure that it once again becomes the law of
the land. I do not care when that candidate came to recognize the truth
about this first Right to Life.
The next President of the United
States will name four Justices to the United States Supreme Court. I
have been to that Court as co-counsel in cases of great constitutional
significance. There is little doubt that the consequences of those
appointments will determine whether the scourge of killing innocent
children in the womb under the subterfuge of a court manufactured,
counterfeit “right” to abort the innocent will continue – or be
jettisoned to the dust heap of atrocities allowed by past regimes gone
astray.
One candidate affirms the Right to Life of children and
the other denies it. The candidate who acknowledges the Right to Life is
Donald Trump. He is explicit in his support of the Right to Life and
has committed his administration to restoring this Natural Law Right to
the Civil Law of the land.
Religious Freedom
From
1991 through 1997, I served as the first and founding Executive
Director of the American Center for Law and Justice, a public interest
law firm engaged in religious freedom, pro-life and pro-family work.
During that time, I wrote a booklet entitled “Religious Cleansing in the
American Republic”.
I was accused by some of overstating the problem. I did not.
The
soft persecution of faithful Christians, across the confessional
spectrum, is obvious to anyone who cares about religious freedom.
The
growing hostility toward the symbols of our religious heritage, the
mocking of the values informed by religious faith and the overt and open
hostility toward people of faith and religious institutions is
increasing. Religious freedom is called the first freedom for good
reason. It ensures that the leavening role of revealed truth helps us to
form our conscience and shape the choices we make as individuals,
families and, as a society.
The American founders fled coercive
approaches to religion which compelled adherence to a particular sect of
all citizens. An incorrect interpretation of the Establishment Clause
has arisen in the American polity which promotes a notion of a
Church/State separation that is hostile to religious institutions,
discriminates against people of faith and seeks to censor religious
speech and expression in the public square. Such a hostility does not
serve the common good.
John Adams, in a speech to the military in 1798, proclaimed, “We
have no government armed with power capable of contending with human
passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was
made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to
the government of any other.”
Religious faith should be encouraged and accommodated by the federal and/or state government, not treated with hostility.
Rightly
understood and applied, religious freedom means a freedom for religious
expression; not a removal of such expression. Religious faith,
religious institutions and religious speech are protected by the First
Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The Birth Certificate of our Nation,
the Declaration of Independence, affirmed the existence of inalienable
rights and self-evident truths.
The Rights of Life, Liberty and
the Pursuit of happiness are endowed by our Creator and not conferred by
a Federal Government. Implicit within the classical understanding of
happiness is the pursuit of virtue – and virtue requires religion.
The
First Amendment prohibition against the establishment of a National
Religion was never meant to be used to justify governmental hostility
toward religious faith, religious persons or religious institutions. It
was intended to protect against the establishment of a National Church
and a forced adherence to its doctrine. It was more aptly understood as
an Anti-Establishment Clause.
It should be interpreted in light
of the Free Exercise and free Speech clauses of that same First
Amendment. The Right to Religious Freedom protects people of all faiths
to participate in the public square and to be a part of the daily social
interactions that constitute the very tapestry of our social life.
Religious faith is a human and social good.
The drafters of the
First Amendment used the phrase “Free exercise of religion” for a good
reason. The protection which it guarantees to American citizens goes
beyond the freedom to worship within the four walls of our church
buildings. Exercise involves action. So does living faith. The First
Amendment protects our fundamental right to bring the values informed by
our faith into the social, economic and political arena as good and
faithful citizens.
The Free Exercise Clause has been turned on its head.
The
errant interpretation is increasingly being used to silence the Church
and the religious speaker and actor. There is a dangerous trend of
labeling anyone who supports the value of the undeniable Jewish and
Christian roots of the West as backward, bigoted or, worse yet, trying
to impose a theocracy and undermine freedom. The fact is, the Church was
and is the guarantor of authentic freedom. Hostility toward the role
of faith in our life together and efforts to censor the vital role it
has played in our history and founding, is corrosive to true freedom.
The
Free Speech clause has also been subverted when applied to speech
deemed by an increasingly hostile regime when the message and the
messenger being examined under its increasingly hostile scrutiny is
determined by the State to be speaking a religious or moral message.
Then, its important protections no longer apply. Such hostility is
repugnant to the very concept of ordered liberty and fundamental human
rights. The free exercise of religion is not only a constitutional right
in the American polity, it is a fundamental human right in Catholic
teaching.
I support the candidate who affirms religious freedom
in the richness of what the American founders and the western Christian
tradition affirmed and will protect it. That is Donald Trump. He has
pledged to correct the abuses unleashed by the Johnson Amendment which
gags the speech of the Church and to support the First Amendment Defense
Act.
Marriage and Family
Marriage is
only possible between one man and one woman because only such a
relationship can achieve the ends of marriage. This is not only a
religious position. It is an ontological truth. The Natural Moral Law
reveals – and the cross cultural history of civilization affirms – that
marriage is between a man and a woman, open to children and intended for
life.
The society founded upon the institution of the family is
best secured by recognizing the uniqueness of faithful monogamous
marriage above all other relationships. In addition, the rights of
children are best secured by such an approach. Marriage is the
foundation for the family which is the privileged place for the
formation of virtue and character in children, our future citizens. The
family is the first society, first economy, first school, first
civilizing and mediating institution and first government.
Certainly,
all men and women have a fundamental human dignity, including those
with same sex attraction. They also have rights which must be recognized
and protected. However, no Court, executive, or legislature has the
right or authority to redefine marriage.
In rejecting marriage
as a unique institution which preceded civil government and
institutional religion, the majority of the United States Supreme Court
in its horrendous Obergefell opinion has now become a willing
ally of a cultural revolution. In the scathing dissent written by Chief
Justice Roberts he referred to the majority as “five lawyers”, noting
that “the majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment.
The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s
precedent.” He was absolutely correct.
The natural law is
the basis for the positive or civil law of every Nation. It places
limits upon the civil or positive law. It is the foundation for taking
the position defending marriage as solely between one man and one woman,
intended for life, open to new life, and formative of family. I
support the candidate who affirms this understanding of the nature and
ends of marriage and will protect the Church and people of faith to live
and advocate for this position, free from governmental coercion and
persecution. That candidate is Donald Trump.
School Choice
It
is time to move beyond the ineffective top down federal educational
model and enact real educational Reform. Education outside of the home
is an extension of the parent’s primary educational mission. The family
is the first school. We have forgotten that objective truth as a Nation
and we are reaping the consequences. Good government is always bottom
up, not top down, deferring first to the smallest governing unit; not
usurping but empowering families.
Those who oppose school choice
often argue that it will detrimentally affect the public school system.
They claim that supporters of school choice are against public schools.
This is not true, the proponents simply call for all parents to have
access to good public, private, parochial, virtual, classical, charter
and home schools.
That can be accomplished through enabling
legislation which makes it possible for all parents, no matter what
their socio-economic situation, to choose where to send their children
to school. As a constitutional lawyer I know this can be done in a
constitutionally sound way through properly drafted voucher legislation,
tax credits, or opportunity scholarships.
I grew up in a blue
collar home in the inner city of Dorchester, Massachusetts. My parents
struggled to give me the first four primary educational years in a
parochial school. The remainder of my education was in a public school.
My parents moved, at great sacrifice and hardship, to make sure I
attended a good public school. School choice will give parents greater
say in their local schools and make such disruptive moves less
necessary.
The origins of the public school system began with
families pooling resources in small community schools. Now, parents and
local communities have an increasingly smaller role in the educational
process. Public schools were first local, community schools. School
choice educational reform will return the leadership to parents and the
local community.
Some opponents allege that supporters want to
“privatize” education. However, it is an effort to “parentize”
education, by again affirming that the family is the first school and
parents are the first teachers. Parents and not federal bureaucrats
should make the choices concerning the education of their children
outside of the first school of the home.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the right of parents to choose a school for their children:
“As
those first responsible for the education of their children, parents
have the right to choose a school for them which corresponds to their
own convictions. This right is fundamental. As far as possible parents
have the duty of choosing schools that will best help them in their task
as Christian educators. Public authorities have the duty of
guaranteeing this parental right and of ensuring the concrete conditions
for its exercise.” (Catechism #2229)
In “The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World” John Paul II wrote:
“The
right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is
connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and
primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the
uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; it
is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being
entirely delegated to others or usurped by others.”
In “Letter to Families“, he wrote:
“Parents
are the first and most important educators of their own children, and
they also possess a fundamental competence in this area; they are
educators because they are parents. They share their educational mission
with other individuals or institutions, such as the Church and the
State. But the mission of education must always be carried out in
accordance with a proper application of the Principle of Subsidiarity.
This implies the legitimacy and indeed the need of giving assistance to
the parents, but finds its intrinsic and absolute limit in their
prevailing right and actual capabilities. The principle of subsidiarity
is thus at the service of parental love, meeting the good of the family
unit.”
School Choice is a matter of true social justice –
not leftist ideology masquerading as social justice. The opposition by
some in the leadership of teachers’ unions shows how these mediating
associations have strayed from their proper social role.
Some of
these leaders seem less concerned about poor children getting a good
education than they are about maintaining control over a system which is
failing. I support the candidate who wholeheartedly endorses school
choice. That candidate is Donald Trump.
Finally, I want to
briefly mention two other areas which guide my choice. I understand that
some of my fellow Catholics and other Christians can and do disagree
with me. They are issues of prudential judgement. I offer them as an
example of how social teaching principles can lead to policy positions.
Good Government
I
am an advocate for smaller government. However, I am not
anti-government. As a Catholic citizen, I affirm the application of the
principle of subsidiarity. The word is derived from a Latin word which
means to give help. It stands for the principle that governing should
first be done at the lowest level and any other governing entity should
defer and assist the smallest governing unit, not usurp their role.
Certainly, self-governance is key for understanding individual liberty. However, we are by both nature and grace social.
We
were made for relationship and society. The first government is the
family. All other governing should seek to assist and not usurp the
family. Flowing out from that first government are the mediating
associations, local governments, State and Federal Government. All of
these forms of ordering our life together participate in governance.
Each has their proper role.
I support the candidate who affirms
this understanding of good government and will best apply the principle
of subsidiarity in honing in the abuses caused by the federalizing of
governance. Hillary Clinton is a huge advocate of an increasingly large
and federalized approach to governing. What I personally believe is a
statist model. Donald Trump is committed to devolving government back to
the State and local level, while recognizing and affirming the role of
mediating associations in the governing enterprise.
Economic Freedom
To
acknowledge our obligation in solidarity to one another, and to the
poor, is not to condone the modern approach of big, federalized
government as the best answer to all social needs. Nor is improperly
restricting a free and expanding model of economic participation through
a fair but free economy the answer. In fact, both impede enterprise and
stifle creativity and participation.
However, the free market
is made for man and not man for the market. Economics is not only about
monetary capital but about human capital and human flourishing.
Expanding economic participation is among the most important goals of a
truly human economic order. Markets can only be truly free when more and
more free people are engaged in them.
A free economy should
continually expand by opening the way for the participation for as many
people as possible in it, while promoting enterprise and awarding
initiative. A free market should not be controlled by either a massive
federal bureaucracy or a massive corporatist elitist class who control
the power.
Yes, we have an obligation to the poor. However, this
principle of solidarity is to be applied through the principle of
subsidiarity, rejecting all forms of dehumanizing collectivism, either
of the left or the right. Subsidiarity in government – as well as in
economic policy – rejects the usurping by a larger entity of
participation what can be done at the lowest practicable level.
Larger
governing entities must never usurp families and the mediating
structures of society such as religious institutions, associations,
businesses, charities and small self-governing structures between the
family and the institutions of civil government. I support the candidate
who comes closest to inculcating these principles of economic freedom.
That is Donald Trump.
Conclusion
Hillary
Clinton refuses to recognize the Right to Life of our youngest
neighbors in the womb, wants no restrictions on procured abortion, and
will direct federal funds to pay for it. She will repeal the Hyde
Amendment. Donald Trump recognizes the Right to Life and has pledged to
appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who will overturn the egregious
decisions of Roe and Doe which opened the door to killing of sixty million children. He will de-fund Planned
Parenthood and support the Hyde Amendment.
Hillary Clinton is a
vocal opponent of the positions espoused by the Church on marriage. She
wants to keep people of faith from advocating for marriage as solely
possible between one man and one woman. She is an advocate of using
federal law to squeeze people of faith out of participation in commerce,
public service and full social participation if they remain faithful to
the Bible and the teaching of the Church. Donald Trump will defend the
Church in her right to advocate for marriage as a unique institution,
solely possible between one man and one woman and ordered toward the
rearing of children.
Hillary Clinton carries forward the
growing hostility toward the Church which has been evidenced by the
Obama Administration, associating orthodox Christianity with bigotry.
She has a horrible record on religious freedom. Donald Trump respects
religious freedom and the role of the Church. He will defend the free
exercise of religion and provide the Church with the maximum freedom to
be leaven, light and salt in society. He will repeal of the Johnson
Amendment which, in its application, has been used to silence the Church
in her prophetic vocation to speak to the Moral Issues of the hour. He
also supports the First Amendment Defense Act which Clinton opposes.
Hillary
Clinton is an ardent opponent of school choice, openly committed to
opposing any form of school choice. Donald Trump is a strong advocate of
school choice. His support ids open, dynamic and unequivocal. He will
surround himself with able advisors and a strong cabinet who will
implement this vital educational reform.
Hillary Clinton is in
favor of a command and control economy and an ever expanding role for
the Federal Government. Donald Trump respects the market economy. He
rejects both big government and big business manipulation of free
competition. He will expand economic participation, bring industry back
to the United States and revitalize the inner cities through vibrant
initiatives which will be geared toward economic and social recovery.
I
gratefully accepted the invitation to become a member of the Catholic
Advisory Group to the campaign of Donald J. Trump for the Presidency of
the United States of America. I did so because I love my country, my
God, my Church and my family. I am honored to serve and will offer the
kind of advice which I have expressed in this essay to the Trump/Pence
campaign.
—–
Deacon Keith Fournier is the Editor in Chief of Catholic
Online and the Founder and Chairman of Common Good Foundation and Common
Good Alliance. Both are dedicated to the conversion of culture. An
ordained minister, a married Roman Catholic Deacon of the Diocese of
Richmond, Virginia, he and his wife Laurine have five grown children and
seven grandchildren. Attorney Fournier is a constitutional and human rights
lawyer and public policy advocate. He serves on the Catholic Advisory Group of the Trump Campaign
