Olga Fairfax - Requiescat In Pace

On Thursday November 21, 2024, between 5:30 - 6:30pm, a massive fire started suddenly in the Wheaton MD home of Olga Fairfax, a long-time indefatigable pro-life activist.  She was trapped inside and herself caught fire.  She managed to stagger outside where first responders tried to assist her.  However, she soon succumbed to her injuries and passed away.

I've known Olga through many years of being with her in front of abortuaries, in various pickets and in other pro-life events.  However, she was active in the pro-life movement long before I was.  Her parents were Christian but not Catholic.  In her early adulthood, she was an ordained Methodist minister, but soon found herself at odds with that church hierarchy, for they were officially embracing both abortion and the various homosexual perversions.  In 1978, she resigned her post as associate pastor of Glenmont Methodist Church in Wheaton.

She did start a pro-life group within the Methodist church.  While researching material for this post, I discovered that while still a leader of Methodists for Life, she helped 30 women, seeking abortions at Columbia Hospital, to choose life for her children.  This I learned from a Washington Post article in 1985, approximately 39 years ago.

As I said earlier, I worked with her most frequently in front of abortion mills, particularly in front of the Planned Parenthood (now closed) on Spring Street in Silver Spring.  She was not at all shy or demure about chiding the deathscorts or pro-abortion passers-by.  I can still hear her saying to them, "only big babies are pro-choice!" or "why don't you pick on someone your own size?"

Olga, with Jack Ames, giving a talk

She was not at all shy about confronting clergy who were not-so-secretly pro-abortion, or, at best, indifferent to it.  She told me of an encounter with the now-disgraced ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick, when the latter offered a Saturday evening Mass at St. Catherine Laboure in Wheaton.  I forget now just what the topic of Olga's complaint was, but after Mass, she waited until McCarrick left the church and headed for the rectory.  The parish priest saw her and tried to usher McCarrick quickly to the rectory to avoid Olga, but to no avail.  Olga walked right along with them, trying to get a reply from McCarrick, chasing him to the rectory door.

In June 2010, several of us protested the commencement ceremony where Sr Carol Keehan gave the convocation address.  She is a supposed sister who was instrumental in convincing several Catholic congressmen to vote for Obamacare.  We saw that McCarrick was there to offer the Mass.  Olga again let McCarrick hear some truth.  That was caught on this video.  By the way - we found out, years later, that in 2010 McCarrick was under orders by the now-deceased Pope Benedict XVI not to make any public appearances.  So not only was he honoring a pro-abort nun, he was thumbing his nose at the reigning pontiff at the time.  To get to Olga's rebuke to McCarrick, you can advance to the 3:15 mark.

She still continued to maintain a presence at abortuaries, even after she was assaulted in July 2023.   Her last appearance, as far as I know, was her participation in the 2024 Face the Truth Tour sponsored by Defend Life.

Let us pray for her eternal repose, and consolation for her family.  Let us all emulate her tenacity.  She, no doubt, is praying for us.

After The Synod, Bishop Strickland Challenges The US Bishops - What Will It Take?

On Wednesday, November 13, outside the USCCB meeting in Baltimore MD, Defend Life coordinated a Rosary to pray for our bishops.  As he had in previous years, Bishop Joseph Strickland, Bishop Emeritus of Tyler, TX, led the attendees in that day's Rosary.  

Recall that His Excellency was ousted from his diocese by Pope Francis for daring to challenge the bilge that spews forth from the Vatican on a regular basis.  That happened almost exactly one year ago.  That was an insult to not only His Excellency but to all faithful Catholics.  A few days ago, we received word that the Traditional Latin Mass was banned from Bishop Strickland's former cathedral in Tyler.  The Latin Mass was also banned in four other parishes in the diocese.  This move happened exactly one year after Strickland's ouster.  Now, only St. Joseph the Worker parish, entrusted to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, is permitted to celebrate that Mass. I've no doubt this is a direct slap in the face to Bishop Strickland and the Catholics who have appreciated him.  The timing of this move is too coincidental.

Getting back to Wednesday's event, Bishop Strickland led the gathering in the recitation of the Angeles, and then the Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary.

After the Rosary concluded, Bishop Strickland read an open letter to the bishops.  The text appears below, and a video recording of his verbal delivery is embedded in this article.  As you will see as you read below, Bishop Strickland rebukes the great majority of his brother bishops, not only of the US, but from other countries.  In particular, he excoriates them for their silence regarding the synod that just recently ended.  The pope's document is found here.  In his letter, Strickland points out the all-too-obvious truth that the pope has abdicated his responsibility to guard the Deposit of Faith, and is endeavoring to deform it into a monstrous mockery of the same.  Indeed, in this synod, Francis has attempted to shatter the structure of the Church into a disparate conglomeration of local "synods", facilitating Francis' abdication of his God-given responsibility as Guardian of the Deposit of Faith.  Indeed, we now see a so-called "Mayan rite" in Mexico, newly approved by the Vatican, replete with pagan rituals and trappings.  We will be hearing of future similar episodes.

Strickland asked the bishops, "what will it take" for the them to act in accordance with their own Divinely-ordained mandates.

We laity are also likewise challenged to take our responsibilities.  He asks "what will it take" for us to speak out if our shepherds won't.  Let's face it, Marylanders!  That is our situation.  Our shepherds aren't speaking out.  In fact, they are openly contributing to the decay of the Church.  I've written enough about that in this blog.  The latest just happened over this election cycle, with the Maryland bishops deliberately hobbling worthwhile efforts to stop the "reproductive freedom amendment", that sadly became a part of our state constitution.

Bishop Strickland is correct.  No more do we dare, in the face of episcopal malfeasance, look the other way and pretend that we don't see it.  We cannot go merrily along in our own parishes and pretend that this ever-worsening debacle won't impact our children and grandchildren.  We must learn our faith ourselves and teach it to one another ourselves, so that when it is preached from the pulpit that same-sex marriage is just an alternative lifestyle or that hell is not a reality or that the Sacraments are optional and so forth, that our loved ones can discern the error and not be afraid to rebuke the one spreading that spiritual poison.

My lay friends, it will cost us.  It may cost us friends in our parish.  We may find ourselves kicked off the parish council, the choir, religious education, Knights of Columbus councils, etc.  I believe that is what is known as "white martyrdom".  We cannot fear it, for we cannot deny the truth nor Our Lord. 

What will it take?  And now, Bishop Strickland's letter.

The Letter Is Delivered

Dear Bishops, 

You gather here today, present-day apostles, as the Church and, therefore, the world stand perched on the edge of a cliff. And yet you who are entrusted with the keeping of souls choose to speak not a word of the spiritual danger which abounds. Today we stand on the cusp of all that has been prophesied about the Church and the abominations which would come forth in these times, a time when all of hell attacks the Church of Jesus Christ, and a time when the fallen angels of hell no longer seek entry into her sacred halls but instead stand inside, peeking out of her windows and unlocking doors to welcome in more diabolical destruction.

I think that St. Jude had men such as many of you in mind when he described men who feast “together without fear, feeding themselves, clouds without water, which are carried about by winds, trees of the autumn, unfruitful, twice dead, plucked up by the roots, raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own confusion; wandering stars…” (Jude 1:12-13).                     

Many people have asked what it will take for more than a few bishops to finally speak up against the false messages constantly flowing from the Vatican under the leadership of Pope Francis, and I ask myself the same question over and over: 

WHAT WILL IT TAKE? 

Do you not know that Our Lord will send forth His avenging angels to heap coals of fire upon the heads of those who were called to be His apostles and who have not guarded what He has given unto them?

And yet almost all of you, my brothers, stood by silently watching as the Synod on Synodality took place, an abomination constructed not to guard the Deposit of Faith but to dismantle it, and yet few were the cries heard from you – men who should be willing to die for Christ and His Church.

The Synod’s final document has been released, yet with the sleight of hand which is so characteristic of the Francis-controlled Vatican. By drawing attention to the issues which worried many, they have slipped in what was always their real goal without anyone even noticing. What they were after in the first place was the dismantling of Christ’s Church by replacing the structure of the Church as Our Lord instituted it with a diabolically-inspired new structure of “synodality” which in actuality is a new church that is in no way Catholic.

We now see the prophetic words of Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen unfolding before our eyes: “Because his religion will be brotherhood of Man without the fatherhood of God, he will set up a counter church which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content, it will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ …” (Radio Broadcast; January 26, 1947). 

With the push for “synodality,” we see that the enemies of Christ are putting before us, as Archbishop Sheen says: “a new religion without a Cross, a liturgy without a world to come, a religion to destroy a religion, or a politics which is a religion – one that renders unto Caesar even the things that are God’s.”

WHAT WILL IT TAKE? 

A rudimentary understanding of the papacy leaves us with the reality that Pope Francis has abdicated his responsibility to serve as the primary guardian of the Deposit of Faith. Every bishop makes this solemn promise to guard the Deposit of Faith, but the Petrine office exists primarily to be the guardian of the guardians and the servant of the servants. St. Peter received the office which bears his name when, after the Resurrection, Christ asked him three times, “Do you love me?” and St. Peter responded, “You know that I love you,” thus healing his betrayal as Christ endured His Passion. And Who is this Jesus Who Peter professes to love? He is of course Truth Incarnate; thus St. Peter is stating that he loves Truth. This leaves us with this question, “Does Pope Francis love the Truth that Jesus Christ incarnates?” Sadly, his actions and his policies which promote a relativized version of truth that is not truth at all propel us to a devastating conclusion: the man who occupies the Chair of St. Peter does not love the truth and seeks to reshape it in the image of man. 

There can be no bishop who is unaware of statements that Pope Francis has made that are unambiguous denials of the Catholic faith. For example, Francis has stated publicly that God wills the existence of all religions and that all religions are a path to God. In this statement, Pope Francis has denied an integral part of the Catholic faith. How many souls will be lost who will accept his erroneous statement that all religions will lead to salvation? What I find so difficult to understand is that modern-day apostles, men who are ordained to be guardians of the faith, refuse to acknowledge this and instead ignore or even promote this deadly falsehood. Every bishop and cardinal should publicly and unequivocally state that Francis no longer teaches the Catholic faith. Souls are at stake!

Therefore, I ask again: 

WHAT WILL IT TAKE? 

As successors of the Apostles, this situation must force the bishops of Christ’s Church to answer the pivotal question ourselves: “Do we truly love Jesus Christ, Truth Incarnate?” With a Pope who is actively opposing the divine truths of our Catholic faith, the responsibility falls to the bishops of the world to profess their own love of Our Lord, to guard the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and to oppose any attempt to dismantle the Truth.

Let us return to the fateful conversation between our risen Lord and St. Peter. When Peter responds, “Lord, you know I love you,” Jesus responds: “Feed my lambs” and again “Feed my sheep.” How is Peter to feed Christ’s lambs? With the Truth of course – with Jesus Christ Himself who IS Truth. 

And yet, where are those men whom the Lord has called to feed His sheep? Where are the successors of the Apostles who have promised to defend the sheep with their lives? They sit a few feet away, patting one another on the back, listening to words that they know beyond a doubt are not the Truth, frolicking with the darkness, and blaspheming the very Truth that the original Apostles died to preserve.

WHAT WILL IT TAKE?

You have words from those who spoke in Sacred Scripture, wisdom from the Sacred Tradition of the Church, and guidance from former Popes and a great multitude of saints that false teachers would come and that the holy faith would be attacked, and yet most of you have gone out into the battle wearing no armor, and have then reacted as one bewildered that his skin has been pierced by poison arrows. You have been given all that was needed to ensure that your heads were not turned by the lies of Satan. Why then have you gone out without the armor of God? It is YOUR responsibility, when you see poison arrows of falsehood falling upon men, to call out to them and say, “Put on the armor of Our Lord which is Truth, and you shall not be wounded.”  

And to the faithful, I put forth the same question –  

WHAT WILL IT TAKE? 

What if your shepherds do not rally? What if they have all accepted thirty pieces of silver, and they remain silent in the face of falsehood which further pierces the hands and feet of Our Lord? Then what will it take for you to speak up?

Many might say that it is not your responsibility; you can live Truth quietly in your heart. However, to speak Truth can never simply be the responsibility of someone else, because God has etched Truth onto the heart of every person. Therefore, Truth is each man’s property as a sacred gift from God. And never can anyone say that they had no Truth in them – and never can a man claim rightly that to find Truth he had to gather it from the wind, or he could only gather it from the words of another. The soul recognizes Truth and is nourished by it, and those who wither away from lack of Truth do not wither because they were given no portion of Truth in their own soul.

Indeed, Truth has instead been so suppressed again and again by such a person – and has been told so often to “stand down” – until it dares not raise its head. And this is why a man finds himself in such a sad state and why when he cries out, “It is not the fault of my own that I had no Truth or that I knew it not when I encountered it,” he speaks in error. 

Our Lord Jesus Christ, granting free will to those He loves, which is each and every person without exception, has given the gift of Truth to each and every one of us, so that if there is any predisposition in a man’s heart, then it is the propensity of the soul to vibrate to His Truth. Therefore, the soul when deprived of Truth lies dormant until it withers into something cold and hard. Have you not seen how even the angels of darkness recognize Truth and cannot do other than what Our Lord commands them – and yet they strive to hide Truth from every man unto each man’s eternal damnation? 

So I ask again – WHAT WILL IT TAKE? WILL YOU DIE FOR HIM? 

Bishop Joseph E. Strickland 

Bishop Emeritus 

As I bring to a close this letter that asks the question, “What will it take?” I would like to thank my collaborators, the Apostles and Evangelists, especially Saints Nathaniel and Jude. Why these two? Because they are not the most well-known or often cited of the Apostles and, therefore, I feel a kinship with them because I was an obscure bishop who should have remained obscure.

In the ballroom a few feet from here, men are meeting who could be described as a Catholic brain-trust. Many of them are brilliant, talented men who could have been at the top of any profession they chose, but they are bishops, successors of the Apostles.

Sadly, they are for the most part silent shepherds, unwilling to risk speaking up in the face of evil and destructive forces that threaten the Church. These forces have attempted to silence me, but there was no need to silence these men – they never made a sound.

I ask the faithful to pray fervently that all shepherds find their voices and say with me, “Que viva Cristo Rey – long live Christ the King, Truth Incarnate!”

Some Considerations By Archbishop Vigano

The good archbishop issued a lengthy and worthwhile commentary on the elections of last week.  I'll preface with some of my own thoughts.  While in some respects this election was a victory, it is more importantly a reprieve.  Our Lord has given us some more time, some additional breathing room to pray and work for a spiritual revival in this country.  Repentance is sorely needed, most especially when it comes to mocking God outright, slaughtering the unborn and elderly and normalizing all sorts of vile perversions.

I'd like to reiterate the call of Our Lady of Fatima to pray the Rosary daily, to make First Saturday devotions.  By no means, however, is that a be-all-and-end-all.  That is just a start, but I will elaborate later.  For now, here is Archbishop Vigano's letter, linked here and reproduced in its entirety below.

A few days ago, on the eve of the U.S. Presidential Election, the arrogance of political commentators in the United States and all vassal nations had reached unexplored heights. Singers, actors, philanthropists, public figures, and journalists who supported Kamala Harris went so far as to threaten to leave the United States if Donald J. Trump was elected, and in truth many today expect them to fulfill their promises. Even Jorge Mario Bergoglio made a gesture, with his trademark politeness, traveling in a wheelchair to the penthouse of radical Sorosian activist and abortionist Emma Bonino with white roses and chocolates, as if to issue a final, desperate plea to American Catholics not to be too skeevy and to vote for Harris, who shares with Bergoglio the woke religion. The mainstream media, owned by the usual big investment funds, shamelessly endorsed Kamala and ridiculed, indeed criminalized Donald Trump. And the more rude, the more transgressive, the more obscene, the more profane Harris supporters were, the more space they were given on television and social media.

Trucks with millions of already-voted ballots were ready to reach Pennsylvania and those states where the votes of deceased, relocated Democrats and illegal immigrants were not enough to skew the election result. Insidious algorithms embedded in the State Election Commission’s voter registration databases were uncovered by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. These algorithms allowed false voter registrations to be printed and concealed, which could be used in various election fraud schemes, including counting absentee ballots cast by nonexistent voters. By exposing the scheme, Dr. Corsi prevented the creation of millions of fraudulent votes for Kamala Harris. In multiple states in the Union, computer reports revealed that electronic voting registration machines allowed votes to be changed remotely, and in one case access passwords were even leaked online.

 

On the morning of November 5, in short, it seemed that everything was settled. Everyone thought so: some with the arrogance of those who believe themselves to be superior merely because they are progressive, woke, green, resilient, inclusive, sustainable, gender-ideologized; others with that fund of trepidation of those who find themselves like the young David fighting the giant Goliath. Yet in a matter of hours, that whole immense house of cards, that whole mighty electoral machine sagged like a circus tent.

The Globalist Metaverse

The most remarkable element of this presidential campaign, in my opinion, consists in the manifestation of the pride and conceit of the self-proclaimed “good guys”; a pride that has made them deaf and blind to the true, real demands of the people; a conceit that places them above the miserable daily affairs of the vulgar and places them in a virtual world, in a surreal metaverse in which normal people are not allowed. It is the metaverse of the globalist world, with its agenda, its religion, its high priests, its prophets, its rituals, its dogmas, its holy books, and its idols. The only thing Kamala had to do was make this dystopia irreversible by making it the official religion of the United States of America and its ideological colonies.

Bergoglio, the Jesuits (with their U.S. leaders, Thomas Reese and James Martin), the U.S. Cardinals in the line of McCarrick, and the entire Bergoglian episcopate were waiting for nothing else, replicating in the ecclesial sphere that irremediable rupture between Hierarchy and faithful that in the civil sphere has been consummated between the ruling class and citizens. On the other hand, even the exponents of the “synodal church” are under blackmail no more or less than the clients of Jeffrey Epstein and Sean Combs. It is not surprising that the outcome of the elections has outraged the exponents of the deep church, which for decades, with the support of the deep state, infiltrated the Catholic Church and worked for her demolition. The Jesuits together with “their pope,” accomplices of the globalist subversive plan, ought to soon suffer the same cancellation that in recent years they have inflicted – also making use of the political support they enjoy – on those who have denounced their betrayal.

“Yes, we can,” Obama said years ago. And we’ve seen it: the deep state has indeed been able to do everything it promised, from protecting the pedo-satanist elite to covering up the most scandalous cases of corruption; from imposing the insane green policies and climate fraud to administering a poison designed to exterminate the population; from genetic engineering to the systematic destruction of agriculture and animal husbandry; from the energy crisis provoked to destroy the economic fabric of the nation to the war in Ukraine and the Middle East. All of this has been done by transferring billions from the pockets of citizens to the offshore accounts of multinational corporations, pharmaceutical companies, arms manufacturers, and “humanitarian” organizations that are always headed by the well-known families of the world’s usurious high finance.

 

The Disconnection from the Real World

 

Those who marvel at the resounding failure of the globalist metaverse show by their surprise that they are totally disconnected from the real world, where men and women literally fight to get to work, and not just to get a job, because our streets are dumps of derelicts and criminals; where parents have to protect their children from the perversions and obscenities of their teachers, or where a woke judge can take your child away from you because you don’t call him or her by the pronouns he or she has “chosen”. In the real world we worry about the cost of living, rising energy prices, the ever-lower quality of large-scale retail products, and the difficulty of finding healthy food. In the real world, the farmer has to think about how to survive after paying taxes and being crushed by unfair competition from multinational corporations, and the rancher feels helpless when the government requires him to cull his cattle for bird flu or because his cows produce CO2.

To hear a fake African-American posing as a former McDonalds server talking about homo-transphobia, white supremacism, abortions up to the ninth month and beyond, the abolition of gasoline cars and green transition in the face of the destruction of the Nation at the hands of the globalist Left is grotesque and mercilessly shows the classism of an élite that exists and thrives only by exploiting the masses and trampling on the basic rights of the people. And this shameless arrogance of the powerful is also common to Canada, Europe, and Australia. A few days ago, the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, emphatically evoked the report “The Limits to Growth” published fifty years ago by the Club of Rome, in which it theorized that world population decline and economic degrowth were needed to save the Planet, or rather: to save the criminal monopoly of big investment funds. The herd led to the slaughter realized that the fine words about environmental friendliness and net zero are colossal lies that hide a terrible truth: the emissaries of the World Economic Forum in the Western governments want to exterminate the population through mass sterilization, wars, famines, droughts, pandemics, abortion, euthanasia, and gender ideology; and that this criminal project was started fifty years ago by means of indoctrination and propaganda work worthy of the worst dictatorships.

Silencing dissenting voices with the smear of being “conspiracy theorists” has not helped; on the contrary, it has been the fierce censorship, ever since the pandemic farce, that has awakened that healthy instinct that makes anyone suspicious of a narrative that contrasts obscenely with reality. A reality that is not perception, when merely because you have white skin, wear a cross around your neck or have the Stars and Stripes flag flying in your backyard someone feels entitled to consider you inferior and therefore deserving of being attacked or killed.

The Significance of this Victory

This round of elections shows us not only the unchallenged victory of Donald Trump. It makes evident a plebiscite vote of the majority of Americans in favor of a worldview completely antithetical to and irreconcilable with the globalist, woke dystopia that we now know is supported by a minority of the nation despite the disproportionate deployment of means and resources to support it.

The result of the polls makes clear the disconnect between the political class of the Radical Left and its electorate, but also and especially that lack of empathy that distinguishes psychopaths. On the other hand, only psychopathic criminals devoted to the worship of Satan can adhere to a neo-Malthusian ideology that theorizes the extermination of one part of humanity, the sterilization of another, and the recurrence of chronic cancers and diseases for the survivors. Only psychopathic criminals devoted to the cult of Satan can claim that destroying agriculture and animal husbandry and producing GMO foods will save nature; or that cutting down trees and replacing them with carbon dioxide-absorbing machines will protect the environment. Only psychopathic criminals devoted to Satan worship can send billions to the most corrupt government in the world – Ukraine – deluding themselves that they can win a war that they provoked and fomented. And there are those among self-styled conservative intellectuals who would like to perpetuate U.S. hostilities with the Russian Federation just to avoid being proven wrong in their self-interested warmongering predictions. Only psychopathic criminals dedicated to the cult of Satan can organize ethnic replacement by indiscriminate immigration, knowing full well that impossible integration is the premise for civil war, especially when citizens are treated as enemies in their homeland. Only psychopaths devoted to the worship of Satan can take children from their families and entrust them to people convicted of pedophilia, or corrupt their innocence with the propaganda of perverted teachers.

We could say that there is no Commandment of God that is not being broken: woke ideology creeps into every aspect of daily life to kill the body and soul, to offend Our Lord, to deny two thousand years of Christian civilization. But this is precisely what they do, and what many have let happen without protest.

The People have had Enough of Wokism

But then November 5 came.

What happened, then? What any “normal” person – but we know that to Dems normality is horrifying – could have foretold: the people are tired of being hostages of a subversive Mafia, of perverted criminals for whom there is never conviction or jail time, of corrupt people who flaunt their dealings in the persuasion that they are untouchable, of people devoted to evil. The people are tired of being trampled on daily, of being humiliated for their honesty, of being mocked for their Faith, of being criminalized because they love their homeland.

In its blinding, the globalist élite has underestimated the strength of that flame that burns in every man, that reminds him that he is called to Good, that admonishes him to avoid Evil, that points him to a destiny of eternal happiness in Heaven. Because the globalists do not know how to love, but only how to hate; and because the hatred in which they are consumed against God and against the man He created in His own image and likeness is sterile, destructive, deadly.

The people who have elected Donald Trump – a number that is far greater than the official figures, if we consider the voter fraud that nonetheless took place –  first and foremost have affirmed their right to remain human. That people is not reactionary, does not hate progress, does not fear freedom. Rather, it does not accept the reversal of the world and reality, it rejects the hell on earth in which the deep state would like to lock it up, and it does not desire to call evil good and good evil (Is 5:20).

 

One Nation under God

 

Each of us has been able to see how the most sophisticated plans of the New World Order have been thwarted by seemingly random events. Providence has dismantled a global threat with small moves, showing us that God is truly all-powerful, and that the destinies of the world are in His hands. It is now up to us not to squander the opportunity we have been given, to draw lessons from the recent past, and not let our guard down. The élite now fleeing to their lairs will regroup so that they can launch a new attack more tremendous than the one we have witnessed in recent years. But in this phase of awakening consciences and retaking the Nation under God, we must not forget that the battle between God and Satan, between the children of Light and the children of darkness continues. Nor must we forget that Our Lord comes to our aid only when we recognize our weakness and His power, and that His help is all the more effective the more we cooperate with God’s plan. This is the true “greatest reset”: to recapitulate all things in Christ — Instaurare omnia in Christo (Eph. 1:10) — because it is to Christ alone that universal Lordship belongs. Christ is King. And he is King not only of individuals and families, but of all earthly societies, of all nations.

 

The four-year term that will be inaugurated in a few weeks may mark a turning point in the history of the United States of America and of all humankind, and this will depend on the firm determination with which President Trump will roll the heads of this Leviathan, knowing that with the Enemy of God and humankind there can be neither dialogue nor compromise. It will depend on who the President chooses as his collaborators, among whom traitors and opponents will certainly try to creep in. It will depend on how the President will be able to conform his actions to God’s Law, mindful of the grace that was granted to him by escaping multiple assassination attempts.

Donald J. Trump has recognized that above him is the Lord. Let him not forget this when he uses the international clout America enjoys to promote peace with Russia and an end to genocide in the Middle East, so that the concord of peoples is founded on the Common Good and is no longer threatened by the deep state’s thirst for power. He must not forget that the defense of life, from the first moment of conception to natural death, must be a priority goal. And in this grand and ambitious project of restoring institutions and society, it will be essential to involve those world leaders who, like President Trump, know the threat of the subversive elite and intend to oppose it. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, and other heads of state and government will certainly be his most valuable allies in fighting the globalist agenda. And I believe the time has finally come to promote an Antiglobalist Alliance, through which the healthy forces of the peoples hitherto hostage to the servants of Davos can be united.

The success of the “greatest reset” represented by the election of Donald Trump and the defeat of the radical Left will also depend on how well the people and their rulers can conform to God’s will. Our prayers have reached the Throne of the Divine Majesty and have been heard: let us make ourselves worthy of God’s Mercy by exemplary living and bear witness to Our Lord Jesus Christ by a life consistent with the Gospel. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Rom 12:21).

 

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America

November 8, 2024

NeverTrumpers! I Defy You To Refute This!

Our country is posed to either vote for hell or to vote for at least more time to repair the societal rot that plagues us.  Yet some, who call themselves Christian and pro-life, dare to snub the second alternative, making their egos and defective consciences into de facto idols.  Enough!  Below is an excellent treatise on why your vote for Donald Trump is a moral imperative, binding on pain of sin.  I challenge you to read it in its entirety.  If you have any objection based on logic and reason and not on some cockamany exaltation of your own conscience as the sole reason, please state in the comments section.  Else, dump the insipid bravado and cast your vote for Donald Trump and the GOP ticket.

The original source is here. I reproduce it below, courtesy of Catholics for Trump.

I decided that this article was very sorely needed, as I have encountered some Traditional and Conservative Catholics who are making it a badge of honor to either not vote in the coming presidential election, or else proudly advocating throwing our votes away on third party candidates with no chance of winning.

In past years you may have heard from well meaning Traditionalist or Conservative Catholics that although we are morally prohibited from voting for a candidate who is diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching on moral issues (Kamala) we have no positive moral obligation to vote for the only man who can keep this evil out of office (Trump), because we have no moral obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils.

This advice, however well intentioned it may be, is wrong. I will explain why in detail. I also believe this election to be the most important election of our lifetimes as it may determine whether our country continues to exist as a Constitutional Republic with freedom of speech and religion as well as whether our democracy can even continue to function. It is the most important American Presidential election in history as far as rights of the Church and of Catholics are concerned.

I believe the words of Maureen Mullarkey, spoken in 2016 in response to my support of Catholics voting for Donald Trump at that time, apply equally if not moreso, today:

Jackson’s initiative is addressed specifically to Catholics because so many of us are invested in the theater of ourselves as high moral theologians. Catholics twist themselves into hangman’s knots with deliberations on the lesser of two evils. Which is the lesser, Trump or Clinton? Catholics are enjoined from choosing any evil. If Trump is as horrid as Clinton, the principle of double effect does not apply. Should not commitment to right behavior keep us home and away from the shabby compromises of the voting booth? Do we not put ourselves in moral jeopardy voting for Trump?

Oh, please! There comes a time to grant a bit of credit to Mae West: “Between two evils, I always choose the one I haven’t tried before.”

The Catholic blogosphere is sodden with Prufrockery: Do I dare to eat a peach? Do I dare descend the stair? Dare disturb the universe of my own fine preferences? It is a masturbatory game destined to finish with the election of a vile, traitorous woman greedy for power and money. A woman with a squalid history of shady dealings, evidence gone missing, and lies with calamitous consequences.

Jackson is making the point that refusing to choose is, in fact, a choice. It is a self-admiring one that permits the chooser to gaze on his own clean hands instead of on the outcome of his decision-by-default. Abstention from this election is the vain choice of moral cowards.

I hope by the end of this article that sincere and open-minded Catholics will vote on Tuesday to help save our nation from the existential evil represented by anti-Christian forces, and not end up like the poor souls the Prophet Obadiah described, when he said:

On that day you stood aloof,

the day strangers captured his wealth,

And foreigners entered his gates

and cast lots for Jerusalem,

you too were like one of them.

The Theological Principles of Voting

Principle 1: All Catholics are bound to vote in an election.

This is proved through:

(a) The Teaching of the Roman Pontiffs

Pope Leo XII (1878-1903): “And the Church approves of every one devoting his services to the common good, and doing all that he can for the defense, preservation, and prosperity of his country.”[i]

Idem: “It is fit and proper to give support to men of acknowledged worth and who pledge themselves to serve well in the Catholic cause and in no way may it be allowed to prefer to them such individuals as are hostile to religion.”[ii]

Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914): “All should remember, that when the religion or the republic is in danger, it is not licit for anyone to be idle.”[iii] Thus, failure to vote in an election would constitute this idleness, as one would not prevent the fruition of the aforesaid danger.

Idem: “Is it not the duty of every Catholic to make use of the political arms which he has in his hands to defend her, and also to compel politics to remain in their own domain, and beyond rendering what is her due, to leave the Church alone?”[iv]

Pope Pius XI (1922-1939): “Thus a Catholic will take care not to pass over his right to vote when the good of the Church or of the country requires it.”[v]

Pope Pius XII (1939-1958): “The exercise of the right to vote is an act of grave responsibility, at least when there is question involved of electing those whose office it will be to give the country its constitution and its laws, particularly those laws which affect, for example, the sanctification of feast days, marriage, family life and school …”[vi]

Idem: “Tomorrow the citizens of two great nations [Italy and France] will be crowding to the voting booths. What is the fundamental issue in these elections? The question is whether these two nations, these two Latin sister nations which have more than one thousand years of Christian history behind them, will continue to be established on the firm rock of Christianity, on the acknowledgment of a personal God, on the belief of man’s spiritual dignity and immortal destiny, or, on the contrary, will choose to place their future in the inexorable and totalitarian power of a materialist state, which acknowledges no ideals beyond this earth, no religion, and no God.   One or the other of these alternatives will be verified, according as the champions of Christian civilization or its enemies are retuned at the head of the poll. The decision lies with the electors, and the responsibility, an exalted but serious one, is theirs.”[vii]

Idem: “It is strictly obligatory for whoever has the right, man or woman, to take part in the elections. He who abstains, particularly through indolence or from cowardice, thereby commits a grave sin, a mortal offense … Everyone has to vote according to the dictates of his own conscience. Now it is evident that the voice of conscience imposes on every sincere Catholic the necessity of giving his own vote to those candidates or to those lists of candidates, which offer them truly adequate guarantees for the protection of the rights of God and of souls, for the true good of individuals, of families, and of society, according to the laws of God and the Church’s moral teaching.”[viii]

Therefore, from the aforementioned texts above, we can ascertain just how crucial voting is. By voting, Catholics promote the common good. However, in order to accomplish this, Catholics are forbidden to vote for any candidate who would harm the Church. A Catholic cannot abstain from voting either, especially when the Church or the country is in endangered. To refrain from voting in this instance would constitute a grave offense, a mortal sin. Thus, all Catholics are obligated to vote, most especially in elections when the Church or the country is endangered.

(b) The Reasoning of the Theologians

(i) Justice and Legal Justice.

Theologians hold that the duty to vote is contained within the notion of “legal justice”. Firstly, St. Thomas Aquinas (1224/5/1274) defines “justice” as, “A habit according to which someone, by a constant and perpetual will, grants to another his due.”[ix] Therefore, justice deals with one’s relation to another. However, the phrase “relation to another” can be understood in two ways.

Again, we invoke St. Thomas who writes, “Justice … orders man in comparison to another … in one way, considered to another singularly. The other way, to another in common, namely, according to that in which he serves some community, serving all men who make up the community.”[x]

Thus, there is a distinction between what we owe to one another as individuals (e.g. what Mary owes to John) and what each member owes to society. For this article, we are dealing with justice in relation to the community/society.

This sort of justice is termed by theologians as legal justice. It is defined as, “A supernatural habit through which one renders what is owed to the state in which he is a part of …”[xi] Theologians utilize this concept in their statements on the obligation of all men to vote when they are given the opportunity. But why? Legal justice has for its object the common good.[xii]

(ii) Society, The Common Good, and Voting.

The common good is what society aims for.[xiii] Thus, as members of a society, we have a duty to promote the common good. In a representative democracy, this is accomplished through the process of voting.

As voters, we elect officials who create laws. “It pertains to law”, writes St. Thomas, “to order the common good.”[xiv] Therefore, it is our job to elect officials who will create good laws, which in turn will promote the common good.

Hence, the importance of voting is evident. If one fails to vote, be it through laziness or indifference, he fails to uphold his duty in society to promote the common good. In an election wherein the Church and the common good may be harmed by a candidate, it is even more pertinent for Catholics to exercise their voting rights. Hence …

(iii) Conclusion.

According to the reasoning of the theologians, all Catholics are bound by their duty to promote the common good in society through the exercise of their vote. This is the sententia communis / common opinion held by theologians.[xv]

Principle 2: Catholics are not allowed to vote for candidates
who would be hostile to religion, the country, or the Church

This is proved through:

(a) The Teachings of the Roman Pontiffs.

In response to Question 1, we elucidated a proof by providing various teachings from past popes on the obligation of voting. However, some of the texts also added to this notion, especially in regards to whom the vote should be cast for. In some teachings, the popes explicitly condemn the idea of voting for certain candidates. We reproduce the pertinent ones below.[xvi]

Pope Leo XIII: “It is fit and proper to give support to men of acknowledged worth and who pledge themselves to serve well in the Catholic cause and in no way may it be allowed to prefer to them such individuals as are hostile to religion.”

Pope St. Pius X: “All should remember, that when the religion or the republic is in danger, it is not licit for anyone to be idle.”

Idem: “Is it not the duty of every Catholic to make use of the political arms which he has in his hands to defend her, and also to compel politics to remain in their own domain, and beyond rendering what is her due, to leave the Church alone?”

Pope Pius XI: “Thus a Catholic will take care not to pass over his right to vote when the good of the Church or of the country requires it.”

Pope Pius XII: “The exercise of the right to vote is an act of grave responsibility, at least when there is question involved of electing those whose office it will be to give the country its constitution and its laws, particularly those laws which affect, for example, the sanctification of feast days, marriage, family life and school …”

Idem: “ … Everyone has to vote according to the dictates of his own conscience. Now it is evident that the voice of conscience imposes on every sincere Catholic the necessity of giving his own vote to those candidates or to those lists of candidates, which offer them truly adequate guarantees for the protection of the rights of God and of souls, for the true good of individuals, of families, and of society, according to the laws of God and the Church’s moral teaching.”

Therefore, Catholics are not allowed to vote for candidates who would be hostile to religion, the country, or the Church

(b) Common Sense.

The notion of “hostility” can be twofold. Firstly, a candidate can “be hostile” to the Church by promoting policies that would force the members of the Church to act against their teachings. For example, if a candidate forced Catholic doctors to perform abortions, that would violate the Church’s teaching “Thou shalt not kill.” Secondly, “hostility” can be judged by the promotion of the policies themselves. Thus, if a candidate promotes the return of abortion as a Constitutional right, the arrest of pro-life protesters, the teaching of transgenderism in schools, making Knights of Columbus membership disqualifying for a federal judgeship, and having the FBI investigate Traditional Catholic Chapels as “extremist organizations,” this would entail our notion of “hostility”, as the common good would be gravely damaged.

Principle 3: In an election between one candidate who would be hostile to religion, the country, or the Church, and another who is not hostile but holds an imperfect platform, Catholics must vote for the candidate who would do less harm.

Fr. Titus Cranny writes:

When unworthy candidates are running for office, ordinarily a citizen does not have the obligation of voting for them. Indeed he would not be permitted to vote for them if there were any reasonable way of electing a worthy man, either by organizing another party, by using the “write in” method, or by any other lawful means. On the other hand, it would be licit to vote for an unworthy man if the choice were only between or among unworthy candidates; and it might even be necessary to vote for such an unworthy candidate (if the voting were limited to such personalities) and even for one who would render harm to the Church, provided the election were only a choice from among unworthy men and the voting for the less unworthy would prevent the election of another more unworthy.[xvii]

This is certainly understandable, seeing as how a vote for a less evil candidate would prevent a more evil candidate, causing less harm. Further, it is important to note Cranny’s usage of the word “necessary”. When faced with two such candidates, by necessity, we are to vote for the less evil candidate.

However, people still may have doubts about this. Thus, we prove Principle 3 through the application of two more principles:

(a) The Principle of Double Effect.

The Principle of Double Effect is commonly attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae.[xviii] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, quoting from The New Catholic Encyclopedia, lists four conditions for applying this principle.[xix] These are:

(1) The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.

(2) The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.

(3) The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.

(4) The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect.

Thus, in an election with two candidates we have described, voting for the candidate with the less evil platform would:

(1) Be morally good. As it would prevent a greater spread of evil.

(2) Attain the good effect through his voting of the less evil candidate.

(3) The good effect is produced through voting.

(4) Permitting less evil greater than permitting more evil. This is even more evident in an election, where the (a) Church and (b) the common good are at stake.

Thus, voting for the less evil candidate fills the requirements of the Principle of Double Effect.

(b) “Lesser of Two Evils” and the Common Opinion of the Theologians.

Further, the Catholic blogosphere, more commonly around election times hold that, when presented with two evils, one must choose the lesser of the two. In common speech, this is, obviously, known as “The Lesser of Two Evils”. Ironically, informed Catholics seem to wholly disregard this principle as mere folly. Applying this to an election, these aforesaid Catholics jeer that “voting for an evil is still evil”.

However, statements such as these are completely alien to Catholic theology. This principle is even more pertinent to the matter at hand, namely, voting. The theologians are unanimous in their acceptance of voting for a candidate who is “less evil” as a moral good in an election between two imperfect or flawed candidates. [xx]

(c) Corollary on Voting Third-Party candidates/write-ins.

In the beginning of this section, we quoted from Fr. Cranny who stated, “[The voter] would not be permitted to vote for [unworthy candidates] if there were any reasonable way of electing a worthy man, either by organizing another party, by using the “write in” method, or by any other lawful means.”[xxi]

It is important to note here the world “reasonable”. Certainly, if one could muster a substantial amount of a population to vote for a third party over two unworthy/harmful candidates, Catholics would be obliged to vote for that candidate. However, if the third party/write-in candidate had virtually no chance at attaining victory, the vote would be utterly pointless.

Hitherto Cardinal Amette, Archbishop of Paris, who wrote in 1921 regarding this situation. He stated:

It would be better to cast [your votes] for candidates who, although not giving complete satisfaction to all our legitimate demands, would lead us to expect from them a line of conduct useful to the country, rather than to keep your votes for others whose programs indeed may be more perfect, but whose almost certain defeat might open the door to the enemies of religion and of the social order.[xxii]

Thus, while voting a third party candidate/write-in candidate is licit in principle, when the situation arises that they would be certainly defeated, we are obliged to vote for the less evil of the two prominent candidates. Further, voting for a candidate with no chance of winning would do more harm than good. In doing so, the more evil candidate of the two prominent candidates would have an even greater chance of being elected. Thus, it would be harmful to vote for a third party/write-in candidate who lacks the chance of winning, as it would allow a greater evil to come from it.

Application of Theological Principles to the 2024 United States Presidential Election

Thus far in this article, we have enunciated three principles of Catholic theology in regards to voting. To repeat them:

(1) All Catholics are bound to vote in an election.

(2) Catholics are not allowed to vote for candidates who would be hostile to religion, the country, or the Church.

(3) In an election between one candidate who would be hostile to religion, the country, or the Church, and another who is not hostile but holds an imperfect platform, Catholics must vote for the candidate who would do less harm.

Now we are tasked with applying these principles to the election to take place on November 5, 2024 between the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and the Republican candidate President Donald J. Trump. Hence, with these principles in mind, how are we to approach this election?

Application of Principle 1: All Catholics are bound in the 2024 United States Presidential Election.

This is straightforward, and little explanation is required. We have seen numerous quotes from popes and theologians regarding the matter, who state that, under pain of mortal sin, Catholics are bound to vote in an election.

Application of Principle 2: Catholics cannot vote for Kamala Harris in the 2024 United States Presidential Election. If they do so, they sin mortally.

Kamala Harris advocates a plethora of policies that are not only in clear contradiction with the teachings of the Church, but that harm the Church directly, and are hostile to religion and the country. In addition there is an option who will do far less harm (and a lot of good) as we shall see shortly.

(1) As Vice President, Kamala Harris has been a prominent advocate for abortion rights and has criticized pro-life laws at both the state and federal levels. For example, she led campaigns to codify Roe v. Wade’s standards, promote federal abortion protections, and challenge state laws restricting abortion. She has also praised efforts to limit the operations of pro-life pregnancy centers, which provide alternatives to abortion, and was the first sitting Vice President to visit an abortion clinic​

(2) As California attorney general, she also sponsored the Reproductive FACT Act, which required pro-life pregnancy centers to inform clients about state-sponsored abortion services, a mandate that was later struck down by the Supreme Court on religious freedom grounds

(3) In the Senate, Harris supported the Equality Act, which would expand protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This bill could force religious institutions to act against their beliefs, particularly regarding hiring practices and facility use. In addition, she promoted gender identity policies in schools and healthcare which conflict with Catholic doctrines on family and marriage.

(4) Harris also co-sponsored the Do No Harm Act, which would have curtailed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), limiting protections for religious organizations in cases involving gender identity or sexual orientation. This act would restrict religious freedom outside of worship contexts, potentially impacting hospitals, schools, and other religious institutions in matters like hiring and health services​

(5) While serving as a U.S. Senator, Harris questioned the qualifications of judicial nominees based on their membership in the Knights of Columbus. During these hearings, Harris asked if the nominees’ association with the group, which opposes abortion and supports traditional marriage, might interfere with their judicial impartiality. Her line of questioning was criticized by some lawmakers as potentially infringing on religious freedom and led to a Senate resolution underscoring that membership in such organizations should not be grounds for disqualification from office.

(6) Kamala Harris has supported legislation that could impact doctors’ ability to refuse performing abortions based on conscience or religious beliefs. As a senator, she was a co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would have nullified state restrictions on abortion and removed various conscience protections for healthcare providers opposed to performing the procedure. This act was criticized for potentially forcing doctors, including those with religious objections, to provide abortion services against their will. Moreover, Harris supported the Do No Harm Act, which aimed to narrow religious exemptions in cases related to healthcare, thus further limiting protections for medical providers opposed to abortions for religious reason

(7) Harris has opposed the Hyde Amendment, which restricts federal funding for abortion services. She has argued for taxpayer funding of abortions. Her support for the Equality Act, which includes provisions that could affect healthcare providers’ rights to opt-out of procedures that conflict with their beliefs, aligns with her stance on reducing exemptions based on conscience claims​

(8) The Biden-Harris administration has actively supported measures to protect and expand access to abortion services. For instance, the administration repealed the “Mexico City Policy,” which restricted U.S. funding for NGOs that promote or perform abortions internationally. Additionally, the Biden-Harris administration has worked to expand contraceptive access under the Affordable Care Act.

(9) The Biden-Harris Department of Education has prioritized policies related to LGBTQ+ rights in schools. These policies include guidelines for the treatment of transgender students, which could require schools to adopt practices that might conflict with their religious beliefs. Additionally, the Biden-Harris administration has increased focus on public education funding, sometimes at the expense of private and religious schools.

(10) In early 2023, the Biden-Harris FBI’s Richmond Field Office issued a memo suggesting that “radical-traditionalist Catholics” could pose a domestic terrorism risk due to alleged links to extremist ideologies. The document proposed monitoring certain Catholic communities, suggesting that undercover agents could be used to gather information.

(11) The Biden-Harris administration’s Justice Department has prosecuted pro-life activists under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. Several pro-life activists were recently convicted for organizing and participating in a blockade at an abortion clinic in Washington, D.C., and face potential prison sentences of up to 11 years each. One 75 year old pro-life woman in Massachusetts was sentenced to two years in prison. The Biden-Harris administration also sent an FBI swat team to the home of a pro-life Catholic father at six in the morning to arrest him in front of his terrified family. FACE Act prosecutions under the Biden-Harris administration target nonviolent pro-life actions while overlooking violence toward pro-life facilities.

(12) Vice President Kamala Harris has signaled openness to discussions about Supreme Court reforms, including potentially expanding the number of justices, commonly referred to as “court packing.” During the 2020 campaign, Harris expressed willingness to consider various options, stating that “everything is on the table” regarding the Supreme Court’s composition. If elected she could nominate enough pro-choice justices to overturn Dobbs and reinstate legal abortion until birth (and in some cases allowing the baby to die after birth) as Constitutional law. Her lower level judge appointments will be deciding cases against pro-lifers and will continue to sentence them to jail time for protesting abortion clinics as well as approve of and allow FBI investigations into Catholics.

(13) The Biden-Harris Administration has turned gender theory into foreign policy, requiring all diplomatic missions to push trans activism and funding “LGBTQI+” NGOs in at least 73 countries.

(14) Vice President Kamala Harris attended San Francisco Pride in 2019, where she appeared on stage with members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. The Sisters, a 501(c)3 Order of queer and trans “nuns,” is made up of performers in drag in lewd imitation of Roman Catholic nuns that intentionally mock and degrade Catholics.

(15) Vice President Kamala Harris snubbed the Al Smith dinner, a bipartisan fundraiser for Catholic charities typically attended by both major party candidates.

The list could certainly go on and on, but suffice it to say that Kamala Harris is the exact opposite of a pro-Catholic candidate. Voting for her would be mortally sinful.

With the application of Principles 1 and 2, we now proceed to our conclusion with the application of Principle 3.

IV. Conclusion

Application of Principle 3: All Catholics are bound to vote for Donald J. Trump in this 2024 United States Presidential Election.

President Trump provides the better platform and record for Catholics in this election by far. He:

(1) Kept his word and appointed three pro-life justices to the United States Supreme Court who overturned Roe v. Wade as unconstitutional. This was an epic event that Catholics in the pro-life movement had been fighting for since 1972 and that many thought would never become a reality. The Dobbs case in 2022 allowed every state the freedom to restrict abortion up to the point of banning it completely if it so desired. It finally ended the barbaric “Constitutional right” to an abortion. All but one previous “pro-life” Republican President since Nixon had failed to nominate 100% pro-life justices which would have ended Roe much earlier.

(a) Justice Harry Blackmun – Appointed by President Richard Nixon in 1970, Blackmun authored the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, which established a constitutional right to abortion.

(b) John Paul Stevens – Nominated by President Gerald Ford in 1975, Stevens consistently supported abortion rights throughout his time on the Court. He voted to uphold Roe v. Wade in cases like Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which reaffirmed the core principles of Roe while allowing for some state restrictions.

(c) Sandra Day O’Connor – Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, O’Connor became known for her “undue burden” standard in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision which upheld the fundamental right to abortion established in Roe.

(d) Anthony Kennedy – Nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1988, Kennedy co-authored the plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which preserved the essential holding of Roe. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), he sided with the Court’s liberal justices to strike down restrictive Texas abortion laws.

(e) Justice David Souter – Nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, Souter aligned with the Court’s liberal wing on abortion issues. He joined O’Connor and Kennedy in the Casey decision, supporting the right to abortion. Souter remained a reliable supporter of Roe throughout his tenure on the Court.

(2) President Trump has expressed his desire to repeal the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including religious institutions, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. The amendment restricts free speech for religious leaders and churches, effectively silencing them on political matters. This is why you don’t see Catholic priests or Bishops in the US explicitly telling congregations which candidate to vote for by name. Unfortunately only Congress has the power to repeal the Amendment. However, in 2017, Trump signed an executive order instructing the Treasury Department not to penalize religious organizations for engaging in political speech.

(3) President Trump expanded religious exemptions under federal law, particularly through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This included updates to guidance that favored religious employers, allowing them to discriminate against employees on religious grounds in some situations​.

(4) President Trump worked to support faith-based organizations receiving federal funding, easing requirements that mandated secular alternatives for services provided by religious organizations, such as food banks and job training programs.

(5) President Trump frequently touted religious liberty as a fundamental right. He emphasized the protection of religious expression in schools and the workplace and sought to roll back overreach by previous administrations in regulating religious entities.

(6) President Trump has stated his intent to enact policies that make it easier for religious organizations to operate without fear of federal interference and to strengthen protections against discrimination based on religious beliefs in various aspects of public life.

(7) President Trump has suggested tax deductions for families with newborns to further encourage childbearing

(8) President Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services created a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division and advocated for stronger enforcement of legal protections for Americans with religious and moral objections to certain health care services.

(9) President Trump established the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative to advise the White House on faith-based concerns and find ways to partner with faith-based organizations.

(10) In 2018, President Trump became the first president to address the March for Life rally and declared January 20, 2019 the National Sanctity of Human Life Day.

(11) President Trump has received the endorsement of numerous faith leaders and religious organizations in the 2024, including CatholicVote.

(12) President Trump will keep men out of women’s sports, ban Taxpayer funding for sex change surgeries, and stop Taxpayer-funded Schools from promoting gender transition, reverse the Biden-Harris administration’s radical rewrite of Title IX Education Regulations, and restore protections for women and girls.

(13) President Trump respects the Right of every American to follow his or her deeply held Beliefs. To protect Religious Liberty, President Trump supports a new Federal Task Force on Fighting Anti-Christian Bias that will investigate all forms of illegal discrimination, harassment, and persecution against Christians in America.

(14) President Trump will champion the First Amendment Right to Pray and Read the Bible in school, and stand up to those who violate the Religious Freedoms of American students.

(15) President Trump will will reinstate the 1776 Commission, promote Fair and Patriotic Civics Education, and veto efforts to nationalize Civics Education. He will support schools that teach America’s Founding Principles and Western Civilization.

(16) President Trump will ensure children are taught fundamentals like Reading, History, Science, and Math, not leftwing propaganda. He will defund schools that engage in inappropriate political indoctrination of our children, including Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Gender Indoctrination, using Federal Taxpayer Dollars.

(17) President Trump has pledged to parents who homeschool their kids that he will eliminate taxes on up to $10,000 a year per child on all costs associated with their children’s education. “I will also work to ensure that every homeschool family is entitled to full access to the benefits available to non-homeschool students, including participating in athletic programs, clubs, after-school activities, educational trips, and more.”

Catholic Nevertrump Objections & Refutations

1.) Even with this track record, some Catholics point to President Trump’s personal belief in exceptions to abortion bans in the cases of rape and incest as a reason not to vote for him. Obviously, Catholic teaching is that it is wrong to kill the unborn baby no matter what the circumstances of conception were. However, there are two reasons this objection fails.

(a) The objection is irrelevant. Thanks to President Trump’s justices overturning Roe v Wade, it is now irrelevant what President Trump’s personal opinions are on abortion laws. Each state has the right to completely ban abortion from conception until birth if it so desires and Catholics are free to support elected representatives in each state to make that a reality if they so desire. In fact, this is where all pro-life efforts should be focused right now.

(b) The objection is disingenuous. The same people objecting to President Trump’s support of exceptions had no problem voting for Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and some even voted for President in Trump in 2016 and 2020. Every one of these candidates personally believed in the exact same exceptions to abortion law as President Trump.

2.) Others object to the fact that President Trump seems content to leave the decision for abortion restrictions to the states and his unwillingness to sign a national abortion ban as reasons not to vote for him. There are four reasons this objection fails.

(a) First, Trump has never said he would veto a national ban if it got to his desk. As CBS news reported:

…when asked by debate moderator Linsey Davis whether he’d veto a ban, he responded, “I won’t have to,” but did not say he would veto a ban if it were passed by Congress.

Davis tried again: “But if I could just get a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ because your running mate, JD Vance, has said that you would veto if it did come to your desk.”

Trump again declined to say whether he’d veto a national ban, responding, “I didn’t discuss it with JD, in all fairness.”

(b) Second, every GOP presidential nominee since Roe v Wade has been in favor of overturning Roe v Wade, which President Trump finally did. The repeal of Roe v. Wade means states are no longer bound to recognize abortion as a Constitutional right and can restrict it or ban it however they see fit. No GOP presidential nominee in history has ever proposed a national legislative abortion ban. Yet the same people using this as an excuse not to vote for Trump voted for other GOP presidential nominees with no qualms of conscience.

(c) Third, Traditional Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was the most conservative justice in history. He also thought the abortion issue was an issue for the states under the Constitution. In his dissent in Planned Parenthood v Casey, he wrote:

…by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.

We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.

Are there any Catholics opposed to Trump on this basis who would have refused to vote to confirm Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court because his abortion views were so morally abhorrent? Especially if the alternative they would install by voting against him was Ruth Bader Ginsberg? Of course not. This argument is thus, absurd.

(d) Fourth, this objection is completely unrealistic. As a practical matter, a national abortion ban is completely off the table and only exists in our wildest fantasy. National opinion has swung hard in the pro-choice direction after Dobbs as evidenced by the Democrats unusually strong showing in 2022 when the party who holds the presidency typically loses seats. Data indicated that abortion was a top issue among Democrats and even influenced some independents who disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision. In a YouGov poll taken on October 31, 2024, Kamala polled a whopping 18 points higher than Trump on the abortion issue. The only issue she polled higher on compared to Trump was LGBTQ rights. Kamala has been campaigning almost exclusively on abortion rights as she knows that is a big motivator to get her demographics to the polls. Trump proposing a hopeless complete national abortion ban in this climate, which would not have a prayer to pass Congress anyway, would have been political suicide and energized Kamala’s base even more.

3.) Still others object to a more recent proposal President Trump has made that the government or private health insurance cover the cost for couples to obtain fertility treatments including IVF. Obviously, IVF is against Catholic teaching as it involves conception outside the marital act as well as the creation of embryos that are often frozen or disposed of. President Trump sees it as “pro-family” assisting otherwise infertile couples to have children. There are two reasons this objection fails as a reason not to vote for him.

(a) First, this proposal will almost certainly not happen if Trump is elected. The federal government currently lacks the authority to directly require private insurers to cover specific medical treatments unless through federal legislation. Catholics could petition their congressmen to vote no to any such proposal. For public insurance like Medicaid, covering IVF would be difficult due to budgetary constraints and differing state policies. Regardless, if the legislation requiring coverage for IVF somehow passed, President Trump recently told EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo that exceptions for religious organizations and employers who claim that IVF violates their religious freedom would be a “good idea.” In addition, health insurers would resist mandates for IVF coverage, citing high costs and increased premiums for members.

(b) Second, many health insurance plans already cover things opposed to Catholic moral teaching such as contraception, sterilization procedures, such as tubal ligation and vasectomies, abortions, IVF, and sex-change procedures and operations. If these objectors are consistent, they could not morally vote for any candidate who doesn’t oppose these items being covered by private or public health insurance. Yet no presidential nominee has ever called for the end to such coverage.

The False Premises of the Catholic Nevertrumps

There are two fundamentally flawed premises underlying all of the Catholic Nevertrump arguments.

First, the logic of their arguments would only make sense if we lived in a Catholic society or Catholic confessional state where we have the luxury as Catholic voters to vote for the most perfect Catholic candidate among many, or to simply not vote because no matter who wins they will more or less uphold Catholic principles. Or that we have the luxury to vote for third party or unpopular candidates who we think are the best in order to slowly help build their vote count for the future knowing that our nation will be run by good-enough Catholics in the meantime.

In contrast to this Utopian fantasy world, we live in an increasingly hostile secular state where our liberties and rights as practicing Catholics are quickly and frighteningly being curtailed. We are literally fighting for our own survival. In such a situation we are like drowning men looking for any piece of driftwood to hold onto to keep from going under. Pro-life peaceful protesters exercising their first amendment rights are being thrown in jail and having SWAT teams sent to their houses, the FBI is infiltrating Traditional Catholic chapels which are considered extremist gatherings, Catholics are being told they are unworthy of being judges for belonging to the Knights of Columbus, and proposals are being made to throw Catholic doctors in prison for not performing abortions.

This reality, the actual reality of the United States of America in 2024, is not one where we have the moral luxury to sit back and passively allow pure evil to take over the nation for another four years because we don’t think their only opposition, which is vastly more friendly to our cause, is quite up to par with our standards. It would be like a drowning man choosing to drown if he is not rescued by a yacht instead of a fishing boat. Except in this case it is worse, which brings me to the next flawed premise.

The second flawed premise is that the Catholic Nevertrump ideology is at its heart, inward looking and selfish. The entire focus is about me and what the proper and best moral choice that I can make for my own conscience’s sake. This ideology tends to look at things in a vacuum where I am presented with two choices on paper and if neither lives up to my moral standards I have the right to select neither.

Taking this logic to it’s extreme, I could be presented with the choices of Joseph Stalin or Ronald Reagan as the leader of my country. Obviously, I’m not voting for Joseph Stalin because he is a mass murderer and would turn the US into a Communist dictatorship. Reagan looks better so let’s examine his policies. Whoa there! Looks like he was divorced so that is against Catholic teaching. Also looks as if he is for rape and incest exceptions to abortion, therefore he is basically promoting the legalization of the extermination of innocent human life. Therefore, in principle at least, he is fundamentally no different than Stalin in that aspect. In addition, Reagan is fine with allowing intrinsic evils such as contraception and civil divorce to remain legal. Therefore, both candidates are “evil” and “bad” to varying degrees. My conscience tells me that voting for the lesser of two “evils” is still “evil” therefore, the most moral thing I can do in this situation and to keep from sinning is to vote for neither candidate.

This navel gazing and scrupulosity filled misguided moral analysis completely misses the point that there are most dire consequences that this decision has not just on me, but on hundreds of millions of my fellow countrymen who stand to be consumed by an oppressive and irreversible and corrupt anti-Catholic machine. This is not some sort of morality exam in a university ethics class, it has real life and very serious consequences.

The True Catholic Teaching

The true Catholic teaching regarding a political situation such as ours has never been so narrow minded, myopic, self-centered, and self-defeating. The Church has never mandated us to be so completely unreasonable and cowardly in failing to preserve our own rights and those of the Church within increasingly hostile secular democracies.

In fact we have a perfect example in 1948 Italy. As Fr. Cranny says, “But even more important… were [the elections] of 1948 in Italy when the Communists, bolder than before, openly vowed to gain control of the government and threatened to harm the Church.” In 1948, there was a significant threat of a communist takeover in Italy, and Pope Pius XII took an active role in opposing it. In the aftermath of World War II, Italy was politically polarized, with the Italian Communist Party (PCI) gaining considerable influence and forming a coalition with the Socialist Party. Together, they posed a serious challenge to Italy’s Christian Democrats in the upcoming parliamentary elections. This was concerning to the Vatican, as the PCI was allied with the Soviet Union and advocated for policies that were antithetical to Catholic teachings and the Church’s influence in Italy.

Pope Pius XII was deeply concerned about the potential for a communist government, fearing it would suppress religious freedoms and align Italy with the Soviet bloc. In response, he spoke directly to Italian Catholics, urging them to support the Christian Democrats and to reject the communist-socialist alliance. The Pope’s appeals were made through various speeches and messages, in which he emphasized the incompatibility of communism with Catholicism, framing the election as a choice between preserving Christian civilization or falling under atheistic communism. The Church also took practical steps to sway the vote, including organizing parish-based efforts to encourage Catholics to participate in the election and support anti-communist candidates.

Now who were the Christian Democrats? Were they all perfect Catholic candidates? No. In fact, the Christian Democrats were involved in the establishment of laws regarding divorce and family rights that contradicted Catholic teaching. The reason is that the party was tasked with governing a secular state, which meant they sometimes had to support policies that were not strictly Catholic in nature in order to be elected. Nevertrumps would gasp in horror at this notion, but this was simply the pragmatic political reality of the time and this is the point the Nevertrumps continually fail to grasp. All politics in secular states is pragmatic! That is the nature of the game. If your party never wins elections, you could have the most pristine Catholic moral platform in the world and it won’t mean a thing or help preserve the Church, Catholics, the country, or the common good whatsoever. So outside of a Catholic monarchy, which we don’t live in, we can never expect such unrealistic perfection in government.

Instead of this self-defeating, navel gazing, perfectionism, Pope Pius XII already gave us a sterling example of what to do in such a situation. Faced with the reality of a Communist takeover of Italy in the 1948 elections, Pope Pius XII commanded Italian Catholics to vote for the only imperfect opponent candidates (the Christian Democrats) who had a chance to beat the Communists in order to save the Italian people from the devastating consequences of failing to vote or voting for hopeless pie in the sky third party candidates. This is the Catholic moral obligation: to preserve and protect as much in your society and country that is ordered towards the truth as you can. And just as that could only be accomplished by voting for the imperfect Christian Democrats in Italy in 1948, it can only be accomplished in the United States in 2024 by voting for President Trump.

The Moral Consequences of Failing to Stop a Kamala Victory

The Moral Consequences of Failing to Stop a Kamala Victory can be seen very starkly in the words of Dominican moral theologian Fr. Benoit Merkelbach who stated, “Voters who, through grave fault by abstaining from voting do not stop an evil decision, election, or law from coming to pass, if they are bound by a specific duty to stop a foreseen harm which follows, are cooperators in evil.” [xxiii]

Who can deny that the parade of horribles that Kamala Harris has enacted and will enact are evil decisions and laws? Who can deny that all Catholic voters have a specific duty to stop the foreseen harm that would follow? Who then, could deny that failing to vote to stop this candidate from inflicting these evils on society would be a grave fault and a cooperation with evil? And who can deny that the only way to effectively stop Kamala Harris from winning is to vote for the only candidate who has a chance of defeating her?

As Cardinal Costa of Florence once said in 1951:

Even township elections can cause enormous damage to our institutions. To realize the importance of this it is enough to observe that whoever abstains from voting, or who votes for individuals who oppose Christian faith and morals, automatically makes himself responsible for all the damages that come after that to souls and to consciences. He thus makes himself guilty of a sin much greater than missing Mass on Sunday or not making the Easter Duty. The latter are individual sins, whereas a badly given vote or a neglected vote is a social sin which damages – and oh how gravely it damages – the community, the countryside and the very state itself. [xxiv]

And as Pope Pius XII said in 1947:

Consequently, there is a heavy responsibility on everyone, man or woman, who has the right to vote, especially when the interests of religion are at stake; abstention in this case is in itself, it should be thoroughly understood, a grave and a fatal sin of omission.

On the contrary, to exercise, and exercise well, one’s right to vote is to work effectively for the true good of the people, as loyal defenders of the cause of God and of the Church. [xxv]

THEREFORE, from what has been enunciated and described in this article, following the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs and the theologians, coalescing into theological principles, Catholics have a moral duty to vote for President Donald J. Trump in the 2024 United States Presidential Election. [xxvi]

Endnotes:

            [i] De Libertate Humana; Cranny, 56. Translations of papal documents are Cranny’s, unless noted otherwise.

            [ii] Sapientiae Christianae; Cranny, ibid. Italics are our emphasis. N.B. the phrase “idem” is a Latin intensive pronoun meaning “the same”. Thus, “idem” here refers to the same author, namely Pope Leo XIII. Also, the abbreviation “ibid.” comes from the Latin “ibidem”, which in English means “the same place”.

            [iii] Inter Catholicos; cf. Cranny, 57. Our emphasis and translation.

            [iv] Notre charge apostolique; Cranny, ibid.

            [v] Firmissimam Constantiam; Cranny, 58. Our emphasis.

            [vi] Cranny, ibid. Cranny cites the journal The Catholic Mind, 44:1001 (May 1946), 301 for this. This quote from Pius XII was a speech given to the pastors and preachers who came to Rome during Lent, warning them about the upcoming Italian election.

            [vii] Ancora una volta; Cranny, 59. Our emphasis.

            [viii] Discorso di sua santità Pio XII ai parroci e ai quaresimalisti di Roma; Cranny 60-61.

            [ix] Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 58, a. 1, co. “[I]ustitia est habitus secundum quem aliquis constanti et perpetua voluntate ius suum unicuique tribuit.”; cf. Cranny, 78. Our translation. “Summa Theologiae” hereafter abbreviated ST. N.B. the word “habit” can be a bit confusing for those with no philosophical or theological experience. It is not understood as “habit” of smoking. Bernard Wuellner, in his Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy, defines habit as, “A permanent quality according to which a subject is well or badly disposed in regard to either its being or its operations.” Thus, habit here means “disposition”.

            [x] ST II-II, q. 58, a. 5, co. “Iustitia … ordinat hominem in comparatione ad alium … [u]no modo, ad alium singulariter consideratum. Alio modo, ad alium in communi, secundum scilicet quod ille qui servit alicui communitati servit omnibus hominibus qui sub communitate illa continentur.”; cf. Cranny, ibid. Our translation.

            [xi] Waffelaert, De Iustitia. “Iustitia legalis seu generalis est … habitus supernaturalis per quem unusquisque reddit quod debitum est rei publicae cuius ipse pars est …”; cf. Cranny, 77. Our translation.

            [xii] Cf. Cranny, 79; cf. ST, II-II, q. 58, a. 5, co.

            [xiii] Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Sententia libri Politicorum, Iib. I, lect. 1, n.3. “[The political society] is the connector of the most principal good between all human goods: it aims for the common good …”. “[Communitas politica] est coniectatrix principalissimi boni inter omnia bona humana: intendit enim bonum commune …” N.B. it is outside the scope of this work to discuss what exactly the common good is. For a brief discussion of Aquinas’s notion, click here.

            [xiv] ST, II-II, q. 58, a. 5, co. “Et quia ad legem pertinet ordinare in bonum commune …”; cf. Cranny, 79. Our translation.

            [xv] See Cranny, 77-90 for a more detailed account of this. He states blantatly, “Most moralists hold that voting is of obligation.” The unanimity is pertinent. One does not need every single theologian to hold this position to be true. Hence the axiom in Catholic theology: “Concordm omnium theologorum sententiam in rebus fidei aut morum reiicere, si non est haeresis, est tamen haeresi proximum.” “To reject the common opinion of all theologians in things of faith or morals, if it is not heresy, it is proximate to heresy.” See also Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, found in Denziger-Schonmetzer #1684.

            [xvi] For the sake of brevity, we will note reproduce the same citations for each text. Please refer to the above endnotes to locate the specific document. The emphases will also remain.

            [xvii] 93-94. Our emphasis.

            [xviii] Cf. II-II, q. 64, a.7, co.

            [xix] Found here.

            [xx] Cranny cites the following: Lehmkuhl, Tanquerey, Prümmer, Ubach, Merkelbach, Iorio, Piscetta-Gennaro, Sabetti-Barett, and Genicot. See 94-95.

            [xxi] See footnote 19.

            [xxii] Cranny, 63-64.

            [xxiii] Douay Catholic Catechism of 1649, q. 925 and q. 926.

[xxiii] Summa Theologiae Moralis, Tomus Secundus, Tractatus De Virtute Cardinali Justitiae, Tertia Pars, Sectio A, De Justitia Commutativa, n. 316

[xxiv] New York Herald Tribune, May 15, 1951, 5.

[xxv] Allocution to the Congress of the International Union of Catholic Women’s Leagues, Rome, Italy, September 11, 1947.