Fr. Charles Nalls has given me permission to post this here. He wrote it today for his Facebook timeline. For our readers in other countries, this is the picture here in the United States, where we face, as every Leap Year, the spectacle of presidential politics on top of all the other campaigning that goes on here every two years. I agree with Fr. Nalls that moral issues have been absorbed into politics, and that Christians should make decisions always with moral considerations outweighing other concerns.
______________________________________
______________________________________
I have never felt the need to post a profile, assuming that those who choose to friend me actually understand something about me and where I might stand on various issues. In view of recent remarks by a purported religious in response to an opinion piece on Mrs. Clinton, I feel it might be appropriate to add some clarity, particularly in a political season.
As a citizen, veteran, attorney and member of the clergy, I am firmly committed to the rule of law equally applied and to upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States. Is it perfect? No. But it is demonstrably the best antidote to tyranny going. Anyone who has lived under a Marxist or "democratic socialist" regime, Mohammedan rule, or other assorted repressive experiments incorporating their features, or who has witnessed the crimes of these entities, surely would agree. I am a strict constructionist who does not believe in "penumbras", judicial activism, executive orders or other manufactured avenues to attain socio-political goals while vitiating the role of our elected officials.
With respect to elected officials, the corrupt and dishonest need to be gone. Strict term limits and an absolute ban on super-PACs, lobbying of any kind, and contribution caps will go a long way to removing the stench of corruption currently creating the miasma that is Washington.
Finally, the crisis of our culture is moral. I find support, especially by anyone claiming to be in holy orders or a religious, for any politico such as Madam Clinton highly problematic. If one professes and calls oneself a Christian and who flacks for an avowed and vocal partisan for abortion on demand, for the vendors of parts of the unborn killed in the womb, for homosexual marriage and for other abominations contrary to the teachings of the church and antithetical to a culture of life you deserve outright rebuke.
Is that modern? No. Is it "nice"? No. Is it intolerant? Absolutely. I cannot be tolerant of that which is evil, of that which destroys.
At the same time, does it mean despising the sinner? Heaven forbid! Reproof with forbearance and above all charity is the only way to encourage amendment of life and, ultimately, transformation. However, to enable those who would engage in these behaviors or to actively encourage them, is unacceptable and must be vigorously resisted. Quailing from this imperative or whoring for votes is beneath contempt.
Can we disagree? Certainly. That is the beauty of the First Amendment. I am willing to take my stand in the "marketplace of ideas", the public square. However, please do not attempt to silence that speech or drive politically incorrect thoughts from the public square. Therein is beauty of the Second Amendment.
If these notions prove tiresome or offensive to you, you are most welcome to unfriend me. Much like the "off" button on the telly or radio or the "favorites" selector on the browser, social media offers a great free market avenue to render oneself immune from those who might annoy or provoke in any way. I am reasonably certain that the reasonably clever user can restrict their content solely to rainbows, bunnies and videos of kittens.
To quote my personal hero Popeye the Sailor, "I yam whats I yam!" Imperfect, a sinner, impatient, every so often (mind you rarely) irascible, and always in need of the prayers of others. Yep. On those large issues, though, I am unyielding, intransigent and uncompromising--perhaps even fierce at times-although age does temper ferocity. If that fits the bill, let's have a great 2016, praying one for another, standing squarely against the prince of this world and his accomplices, and at all times rejoicing in that which now is and more in that which is to come.
As a citizen, veteran, attorney and member of the clergy, I am firmly committed to the rule of law equally applied and to upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States. Is it perfect? No. But it is demonstrably the best antidote to tyranny going. Anyone who has lived under a Marxist or "democratic socialist" regime, Mohammedan rule, or other assorted repressive experiments incorporating their features, or who has witnessed the crimes of these entities, surely would agree. I am a strict constructionist who does not believe in "penumbras", judicial activism, executive orders or other manufactured avenues to attain socio-political goals while vitiating the role of our elected officials.
With respect to elected officials, the corrupt and dishonest need to be gone. Strict term limits and an absolute ban on super-PACs, lobbying of any kind, and contribution caps will go a long way to removing the stench of corruption currently creating the miasma that is Washington.
Finally, the crisis of our culture is moral. I find support, especially by anyone claiming to be in holy orders or a religious, for any politico such as Madam Clinton highly problematic. If one professes and calls oneself a Christian and who flacks for an avowed and vocal partisan for abortion on demand, for the vendors of parts of the unborn killed in the womb, for homosexual marriage and for other abominations contrary to the teachings of the church and antithetical to a culture of life you deserve outright rebuke.
Is that modern? No. Is it "nice"? No. Is it intolerant? Absolutely. I cannot be tolerant of that which is evil, of that which destroys.
At the same time, does it mean despising the sinner? Heaven forbid! Reproof with forbearance and above all charity is the only way to encourage amendment of life and, ultimately, transformation. However, to enable those who would engage in these behaviors or to actively encourage them, is unacceptable and must be vigorously resisted. Quailing from this imperative or whoring for votes is beneath contempt.
Can we disagree? Certainly. That is the beauty of the First Amendment. I am willing to take my stand in the "marketplace of ideas", the public square. However, please do not attempt to silence that speech or drive politically incorrect thoughts from the public square. Therein is beauty of the Second Amendment.
If these notions prove tiresome or offensive to you, you are most welcome to unfriend me. Much like the "off" button on the telly or radio or the "favorites" selector on the browser, social media offers a great free market avenue to render oneself immune from those who might annoy or provoke in any way. I am reasonably certain that the reasonably clever user can restrict their content solely to rainbows, bunnies and videos of kittens.
To quote my personal hero Popeye the Sailor, "I yam whats I yam!" Imperfect, a sinner, impatient, every so often (mind you rarely) irascible, and always in need of the prayers of others. Yep. On those large issues, though, I am unyielding, intransigent and uncompromising--perhaps even fierce at times-although age does temper ferocity. If that fits the bill, let's have a great 2016, praying one for another, standing squarely against the prince of this world and his accomplices, and at all times rejoicing in that which now is and more in that which is to come.
Epiphany blessings to you and yours!
1 comment:
Well said Fr. Nalls! You explained some of this better than I have been able to.
Post a Comment