The following letter, sent to Chris Ferrara by Hugh Akins, is being posted at this site because "The Remnant" did not see fit to share it with its subscribers. We think it is unfair and even deceptive to deny traditional Catholics the opportunity to consider a far more integrally Catholic view on the 2008 elections than the one Chris Ferrara provided in the pages of "The Remnant," which was utterly one-sided and terribly misleading, to say the least. A good number of Catholics, including several priests, wrote in support of Akins' position, saying that a third party alternative to the Zionist two-party scam is, as Akins and others have long argued, more in line with the faith than the "lesser" evil trap advocated by Ferrara & Co. If you agree with us, and with a growing number of other Catholics, many of whom have chosen to cancel their subscriptions to the increasingly-compromising"Remnant," then please share this open letter with fellow believers in your circle. Although the '08 elections are over, the issues remain the same, as do the Christian principles, as do the Church's guidelines for voters, even if Ferrara and "The Remnant" choose to completely disregard them.
See also "Voter's Guide" and "Vote NO on McCain."
I know you said you don't have the time to engage in an e-mail dialogue, and that's fine with me. I don't have the time either. I'm writing back to you only (1) because I owe you the courtesy of a reply, and (2) because I'm duty-bound to correct what I perceive as some dangerously faulty thinking. I really don't care to engage in an on-going debate with you over this and have no intention of dragging it on indefinitely. And yet, I think it would be wrong to deny The Remnant readership an alternative viewpoint that is far more in line with the mind of the Church and more conducive to both the cause of Christ the King and the common good. Hopefully, Michael Matt will see fit to print this follow-up rebuttal [he did not].
I know you are doing many good works, Chris. Many of us admire your dedication and zeal. That is why a year ago when I established an online presence I promptly linked your website to my own [which I have since found it necessary to remove due to the appalling manner in which you degraded yourself and maligned the entire traditional movement by publicly trashing the good name and reputation of His Excellency Richard Williamson, a faithful Prince of the Church], to assist you in your apostolate, truly a social crusade as well as a work of mercy. However, in good conscience, I must take issue with your argument favoring Senator John McCain for president. Wow! I can hardly believe a traditional Catholic could even contemplate such a thing. Could it be true what some have said about you, that you are no traditional Catholic but a Novus Ordo Catholic hiding behind a traditional veneer? Your recent tirades in the pages of the increasingly disappointing Remnant newspaper would certainly suggest so.
Yes, I know you've asserted that it is not McCain but the "pro-life" Republican Party that you - and through you, at least indirectly, The Remnant - are endorsing. Really, Chris. Can the two be separated? McCain IS the Republican Party; he and his partner in crime, George Bush II. And doesn't it strike you as just a wee bit suspicious that, after all these years of being pro-life in name only, the Republican Party suddenly has become integrally pro-life? Are we so naive as to dismiss the strong likelihood that this is nothing more than a desparate last-minute strategy to win the election?
And even if you say you detest McCain the man (the stereotypical unscrupulous demagogue-politician), still you are urging others to vote for him. Right there is a strange and striking inconsistency that you must be challenged on.
Just as you say that I must not have read your articles very carefully (had I not read beyond the title of the most recent one, "Why I Am Voting Republican This Year," it would have been enough), I would say the same of you: based on your response to my initial rebuttal, I submit that you've completely missed the main thrust of my argument.
I do understand what you are saying. I even agree with you in much of what you've presented. Of course an Obama administration would be a horrific nightmare for all of us. No one in their right mind would dispute that point. Why would you even bother bringing that up? My argument is that a McCain administration would be just as horrific, albeit in a different way.
Even if you are not willing to concede that the two candidates are equally evil, surely you cannot deny that Bush, McCain & Company are nonetheless evil. The lesser perhaps, rather than the greater - on that point I would be willing to concede. It's relatively inconsequential anyway, given the fact that, in this particular case, even the lesser evil is still exceedingly evil. My goodness, Chris! Just look at the past eight years under George Bush II of Skull & Bones; eight tumultuous and torturous years which had Senator McCain serving as one of the administration's head cheerleaders. Have they - these eight years - not been a nightmare also? And that is precisely my point: how anyone can advocate endorsing and voting even for the lesser evil, when the magnitude of his evil is almost incomprehensible to sane and moral-minded people! It's almost as futile as arguing over which one is more of a madman, Charles Manson or Joseph Stalin. All would concur that Stalin was by far the worse of the two, judging from the sheer number of his victims. But does that make Manson any less abominable in view of his gruesomely sadistic atrocities? BOTH men were repre-hensible monsters. And the same may be said of Obama and McCain, and for many of the same reasons - both madmen, both monsters, both baby killers! - despite the brilliantly groomed public image to the contrary.
As all good Catholics are in agreement that the Church must be our guiding light, let's consider some passages from the minds of the Popes and Saints which may be applied to our discussion, keeping in mind that there is more to our Catholicism than the fight against abortion, important as this is. Let's relate the following quotations specifically to the question of voting for - as opposed to merely tolerating - a man like Senator John McCain. Time allows for only a select few.
On the Integrity and Moral Uprightness of our Elected Officials:
Our representatives and civil authorities, Pius XII insists, "should be selected because of their solidly Christian convictions, their straight and steady judgment, and their grasp of what is practical as well as equitable ... They should have clear and sound principles, healthy and definite policies. Above all, they should have that authority which springs from unblemished consciences and inspires confidence" (Christmas Message, 1944).
Each one must vote according to the dictates of his own conscience. But every sincere Catholic is bound in conscience to vote for those candidates who offer sufficient guarantees for the upholding of the rights of God, of souls, and for promoting the true good of individuals, the family, and society (Pius XII, Una ben intima, 1948).
Leo XIII, in a letter to the Bishops of Brazil of July 2, 1894, wrote: "Every Catholic must bear in mind that the choice of men who compose the legislature [or the executive or juridical branches] is of the highest importance to the Church. Accordingly, Catholics must not spare the use of every legitimate means to bring about the election of men who join to the care of the common good the legitimate care of religion."
On the State, the Common Good and our Supernatural End:
The Church informs us that the State exists to promote the highest common good, regulating "social life according to the dictates of ... universal principles ... [by facilitating] the attainment in the temporal order, by individuals, of physical, intellectual and moral perfection, and should assist them to reach their supernatural end" (Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus).
On Just and Unjust Government:
(THIS PAGE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.)