This pastoral letter addressed to his local parish, of which I am a member, has been written and sent by Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon:
The following observations form a pastoral letter to All Saints Orthodox Church in Chicago:
This Year’s Elections
Since political elections normally deal with matters of policy, I do not normally make them the subject of pastoral concern. This year, however, the national elections in our country are not concerned simply with policies but with principles.
My first comment, I suppose, should address that difference.
About policies—most questions of political concern—we may expect some legitimate disagreements among Christians. Among these we should include questions about the application of civil punishments, the funding of public education, the tax code, the authority of federal agencies, this or that social program, and so forth. These matters, properly governed by prudence, leave much room for legitimate disagreements among Christians.
My reference to “principles,” however, pertains to matters on which there can be no legitimate disagreement among Christians. Let me mention three subjects of this sort, which are at issue in this year’s national elections. I do not believe there can be legitimate disagreement among Christians with respect to:
First, the origin of human rights. These, since they come directly from the hand of God, are determined by the moral law. That is to say, no political institution can give citizens a right to do something wrong—not the Constitution, not the Congress, not the Supreme Court.
For example, even though the original Constitution, as well as acts of the Congress and decisions of the Supreme Court, denied full legal equality to Americans held in bondage, no American has ever had a “right” to own slaves. Slavery in our country was always a violation of God-given human rights, and those responsible for that violation have all answered for it at the throne of God.
Second, the unborn child in the womb has an absolute right to be born. This right, which comes from God, is subject to no qualifying circumstances, including the conditions of the child’s conception and the health of the mother. One may not murder an unborn baby. A baby in the womb has the same right to life as its mother and her doctor.
Third, marriage is the union of a man and woman. This principle, rooted in God’s creating act, can be altered by no decision of any institution or agency of government. No one can be given a right to do a wrong. Whatever name is conferred upon it, state-sponsored sodomy is an abomination to the created order. It is a radical offense against the divine Logos.
Inasmuch as these three principles are manifestly at risk in this year’s elections, it is incumbent on all Christian pastors to bring them to the attention of the flock of God.
This year’s elections involve an attempt to usurp an authority that belongs properly to God. Centuries ago, Tertullian warned that political idolatry—the effort to confer on the State an authority that belongs only to God—is the worst and most dangerous sort. Vote wisely, therefore, and in the fear of God. This year—more than any time in my memory—our votes in the election are going to be recorded in eternity.
Fr Pat
“Slavery in our country was always a violation of God-given human rights, and those responsible for that violation have all answered for it at the throne of God.”
Really? Someone should tell that to John MacArthur who has said: “Although slavery was carefully regulated under Mosaic law, neither the Old nor New Testaments condemns slavery as such. Social strata are recognized and even designed by God for man’s good. Some people will be served and some will serve others. That is the nature of human society.”
They should also inform the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention, including Richard Furman.
How is it that something so obvious to most of us now was/is NOT at all to these other very learned and knowledgeable men?
Why are you so fixated on the issue of slavery? It has not existed legally in this country for some time now.
Well said, Father Pat!
As one who is strongly anti-abortion, I find Fr Pat’s statements too simplistic, especially when he says, “This year—more than any time in my memory—our votes in the election are going to be recorded in eternity.” Why “more than any time”? Principles are universal. They don’t change from one election to the next. And why does he leave out the crucial issue of social justice? Our main presidential election choices are between someone who is prochoice but whose policies will reduce abortion rates (free access to contraception has clearly been shown to do so) and someone who claims to be prolife when Romneycare covered abortion costs, who has no definitive plan to criminalize abortion, and who changes stances faster than a chameleon changes color. If “marriage is the union of a man and woman”, why did God so favor the biblical patriarchs of old for whom marriage was often between a man and several women plus a few concubines? And why does he assume their is a clear-cut choice between the main candidates or parties? As governor of Massachusetts, Romney ordered that marriage licenses be issued to same sex couples. Why would he do otherwise as president now that the polls favor legalization of same-sex marriage? I respect Fr Pat’s right to his own political views, but he’s shaping them as a choice of good vs. evil, which is not what we have in front of us. What we have is a choice of two well-intentioned people who are probably fairly similar in outlook and values in just about every area except tax rates.
I beg to differ, at least prudentially. If Congress passes a bill to restrict abortions, even incrementally, a President Obama would almost certainly veto it and a President Romney would almost certainly sign it. Presidents actually write and submit very few bills, you know; they just work with Congress on them, unless they are as disengaged as the current occupant of the Oval Office, who had almost no say in Obamacare and has had his budgets uniformly rejected even by members of his own party, in one case unanimously.
Separately, I’m sure Fr. Reardon can clear up the “polyamorous patriarchs” issue for you if you ask him, so I will just say that none of those cases worked out very well for the man involved, from Abraham to David to Solomon, and more to the point for us, Jesus never said anything about marriage that was not a reference to it involving just one man and one woman.
Finally, our political choices almost never involve questions of absolute evil vs. absolute good, but just the better vs. the worse. In this instance, I simply find it odd that the Mormon certainly appears to be the “better Christian” of the two choices offered us.
A fried posted this so I thought I would take a look and read the letter and comments. First I would like to say thank you Fr. Pat for making your opinions known. I to agree about the slavery thing on all sides, so we will just put that aside. However the comment about social justice….This is a subject that has bothered me for a very long time. Do I believe in the death penalty? Of course not, but when an abortion is committed what do you think that is? A death penalty, but to an innocent. What a women does is between her and God. I am not the judge, God will do all the judging that needs to be done. But I strongly object to paying for murder with my tax dollars. The government is forcing me to sin by contributing the act of abortion. God have mercy on all of us.
[...] than any time in my memory—our votes in the election are going to be recorded in eternity. via Pastoral Letter on Christian Citizenship & Voting – Mere Comments. Google+Share this:EmailFacebookTwitter Newsletter for November [...]