This week, President Obama submitted his budget to Congress. The budget called for 3.6 trillion dollars in government spending; that’s $3,600,000,000,000. He was proud of his work because, he said, he cut $17 billion dollars in government programs, which he said is “real money.” Now, to you and me, $17 billion is a lot of money; but to the Federal budget, it is a real drop in the bucket. Obama’s cuts in programs are ½ of 1% of this budget, or, .005 of the budget. Put another way, the total spending in the Obama budget is $11,613 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The cuts in programs comes to $54.84 for every man, woman and child in the United States. To put this is real terms that everyone can understand, even a Congressman, the spending in government programs is less than one year’s tuition, room and board at Christendom College. The alleged savings of $54.84 will not buy even ONE standard micro-macroeconomics textbook, the price of which usually runs over $100.

Suppose we couple this with the FULL national debt. The national debt clock says that the regular national debt is $11.3 trillion dollars. The unfunded mandates from Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements, coupled with the official national debt, add up to more than $55 trillion dollars—CURRENTLY. How much of the $3.6 trillion dollars will the Federal Government be able to fund with taxes? The national debt after the 2010 fiscal year is expected to be over $12 trillion dollars (see http://www.federalbudget.com). The chart at the above site seems to show that the increase in the budget deficit will be more than $1 trillion dollars. For the sake of argument, let us assume a conservative $1 trillion increase in the national debt (ignoring an increase in entitlements). This will be an increase of $3,226 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

The current interest on the national debt, that is, the tax money we spend to holders of United States government bonds, many of which are held by China, to fund the government accumulated deficits, is $412 billion per year, and climbing. So the interest on the national debt part of the budget alone is $1,329 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

Josef Stalin said that the death of one man is a tragedy; the death of millions is a statistic. Of course, we are not speaking about death here, but do you really think that these numbers are merely statistics? Someone will have to pay for these debts. Every year the interest on the profligate spending of the Federal Government, which, by the way, you the voters, many of whom are Catholic, approve, grows. Suppose the interest you had to pay on your house and/or car grew in this way. How many extra jobs would you have to get to keep up with the payments? When you had no more time to work, then what? Would your whole family have to work, even the little kids? Would you be able to leave your wife and kids any inheritance? How much would you be able to give to charity?

If these trends continue, the ordinary people will have very little money to live beyond a very low standard. This will not happen necessarily in this generation, but what about your children and grandchildren? We are mortgaging their future so that we can be taken care of by a paternalistic government which is more than willing to exchange votes in the short term to ravage the wealth of the nation like a plague of locusts. Where is the outrage? Where even is the common sense? Where did our morality go, that we can stick our progeny with our debts?

This past week, President Obama forced the CEO of General Motors to resign. The real significance of this may be lost on most people. Some might say, “Well, if General Motors is not doing well, the CEO should be replaced.” The major difficulty with this is that this is a special power of the GM Board of Directors, not the President of the United States. Effectively, this makes President Obama the Board of Directors of General Motors, and any other company he wants to control, and makes the Board a mere figurehead. Slowly but surely, this is moving us to a fascist form of government. In fascism, the companies still exist, but the government tells them what to do. This was similar to Mercantilism, which was the predominant economic system in Europe from about the 1600s until 1800, more or less. Mercantilism was the system of economics that Adam Smith wrote against in his famous An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, which most people shorten to the cryptic Wealth of Nations. Smith was trying to show that government control of business impoverishes nations. Instead, he posited “a system of natural liberty,” which allowed people to follow their natural pursuits, take on the risk of doing so, and allow the market, that is, the countless decisions of people, to decide the outcome. It was the realization of the truth that Smith expressed in his work that subsequently brought prosperity to countless nations.

Now we are returning to the old system, under a new guise. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner recently asked Congress to grant him unprecedented power to shut down any company that, in his opinion, is dangerous to the overall economy. Note that there are no specifics to this power—it would be at his discretion. For those who have read my blog entries “The Economics of Politics,” you can see that all of this is a grab for what politicians live for—power, and power alone. Politics attracts those kinds of people. When asked by a Congresswoman where in the Constitution he went to get justification for this type of power, Geithner expressed incoherent babbling. It did not seem ever to cross his mind that he needed Constitutional justification for such an assumption of power. Again, this is typical of fascism. A crisis is, if not created, then hyped, panic flamed up, and people in this panic are willing to trade their freedom for security. Only too late will they realize that the situation was not as bad as the self-interested government officials portrayed it. The power will have been granted, and only a miracle will pry it away from the hands of the government. Once taken, government almost always keeps a power.

Getting back to General Motors, its problems go all the way back to government-imposed protective tariffs, which are a remnant of Mercantilism. Corporations seek to be protected from foreign competition so they do not have to work to keep up. The government, bowing to pressure and false economic theories, puts tariffs and quotas on imports to raise their prices higher than those of the domestic product; in this case, cars. The car makers then can do whatever they want because consumers face a choice of either us or nothing. In the 1970s, when we began allowing imports, the American car companies were caught, and almost went out of business. They finally got their act together when a new wave of government regulation on cars was imposed, thus raising the cost of domestic cars. To boot, the latest situation is that the Federal government is dictating to the car companies what types of cars to make, all in an effort to be “green.” The problem is that the market does not want these cars, so the company is forced to spend millions on cars they cannot sell. Then the government says, “Oh, it would be terrible if the companies failed; so many would be put out of work. So we have to bail them out again, and since we are ponying up the money, we now have a controlling interest in them, we can call the shots, we can tell the company what to produce, we can fire the executives, and when the company comes in with a loss, we blame the company again, bail them out again . . . .” And the circle continues. Remember, this government is the same one that has brought us the Post Office, the Department of Motor Vehicles and the public school system. All those who believe that the government can bring us out of a recession should remember that it was the government that caused it in the first place. Remember the housing bubble?

What a racket!

In this series, we have seen the pattern that has been the lot of nations that have abandoned God. God is truly the protector of those nations who believe in him, trust in him, and do his will. Even though salvation is of the individual soul, salvation takes place in the context of social units—family, neighborhood, country. God can protect the milieu within which we and our families and our politicians flourish, but he does so because the people want him to. God does not force himself on anyone. If a person or a society generally, by coldness or immorality, tells God that they want him out of their lives, he will get out. But this does not mean he totally abandons them. God is the “Hound of Heaven.” His constant baying never ceases to call us back to the source of all truth and of all love. He raises up saints in all walks of life to be prophets to continue this call. And of course, suffering comes on the society which no longer wants his protection because of his holiness.

There have been some recent studies showing that the United States’ society suffers from a Narcissistic personality disorder. Those with this disorder focus on themselves—their views, their needs, their ideas. They are supremely confident of their own abilities, and when they fail, they blame others. I have no idea how accurate these diagnoses are, but there is obviously some truth to them. A Narcissistic person would reject any need for God, nor would they care about others. These people tend to think that they are experts in things that others have spent their lives studying, but they have not spent five minutes studying. Hence, they have no need to listen to others; they have no need to pray. They are self-saved. They can defy God’s teachings and remain among the “pure.”

If this sounds like the behavior of some so-called Catholic universities recently, this is no coincidence. These universities are merely mirroring the Narcissism in the society. They do not need obedience to Church teaching; they do not need humility; they are immune from the Divine guidance that the Church gives. The same with Catholic politicians who openly defy clearly stated Church teachings as well as the public admonition of the bishops and even the Pope.

One can possibly excuse the non-Catholic and non-Christian for such behavior. The world lives in darkness. But Our Lord told us that we are the “light of the world,” and the “salt of the earth.” If we Catholics do not illumine the world, who will? If we do not flavor the earth, how will it be flavored?

The main way to perceive the will of God is prayer and listening to Church authorities on matters of Faith and morals. I believe from my own experience that many, many Catholics do not know how really to pray. Outside of vocal prayer, few know how to have a personal, interior relationship with God, and the Church in this country has always been remiss in teaching Catholics not only how to do this, but in teaching the very need for it. And if it was bad when I was a kid growing up in Catholic schools in the 1950s, it has been much worse since then. This has contributed to Catholics adopting the Narcissism of the society at large. Forgetting about God creates a vacuum into which we, you, me, are sucked. The vacuum also opens the door to secular saviors like Hitler or Obama (note: I am not saying that Obama is Hitler), and the massive growth of state power and manipulation of the people under the guise of helping others. For instance, most recently, the “Global War on Terror” phrase has been dumbed down to the “Overseas Contingency Operation.” If you have read Orwell’s 1984, you may perceive this as “newspeak,” as was President Clinton’s talk of taxing and spending as “investment.” (Take a look at a member of the English Parliament tell-it-like-it-is to the British Prime Minister on this link.)

It appears that the United States, and Europe before us, is now living in a big dream world. Folks, it’s not just bad economics—it is bad on every level, and most of all on the spiritual! Let’s not replay the past.

I have just gotten the news that the man I studied under for my doctorate at Fordam University, Rev. Francis P. Canavan, S.J., Ph.D. has passed away.

This is truly a sad loss, not only for me and his former students, but for the Catholic world and the world in general.  He was a solid, orthodox Catholic priest, a great scholar, a world-class expert on the thought of Edmund Burke, and exceptionally humble.  As former associate editor of America magazine, and through his writings and later books, he attacked liberalism in all its trappings, and was firm defender of life. 

Besides changing my life for the better, there were two reletively recent events that gave some of the recognition he deserved.  The first was a celebration at Christendom College where scholarly papers were given in his honor and a dinner was held for him and his 50th anniversary as a priest.  The second was that my youngest son asked Father Canavan to come down and be the celebrant at his wedding, which he did. This was the last time I saw Father.

But even though we who knew him are greatly saddened, he, on the other hand, I am sure, is rejoicing as Our Blessed Lord says to him:  "Welcome, Oh good and faithful servant; enter the joy of your Lord!"

What a gift he was!  Let us thank God for his presence among us.

WRL

Part I – Introduction

In the Gospel of St. Matthew, Our Lord says the following: 

"When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times."

Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes asks us to try to interpret the signs of the times in the light of the Gospel. Obviously, interpreting the signs of the times is very important, but not easy.

Today, as in other times, the United States is confronted with many serious problems. A failing economy, the imposition of many socialist measures which purport to deal with the failing economy, the growth of statism here and in Russia, and declining morality, which seems to be picking up some speed lately. Our young people have profligates and libertines in the entertainment industry as heroes. We have a society loaded with cheaters: cheaters on taxes in the President’s cabinet; cheaters on spouses so common that almost no one is shocked by it; liars as governors of states and senators; clerics living double lives; and an epidemic of cheating on examinations. Islamic fascism still threatens us, but so many politicians, lawyers and media personnel act as if this is all in our heads.

Now, economics and political science are real sciences and successfully attempt to explain many of these phenomena. The problem is that at times another science needs to be brought in to help us to understand the reality behind these distressing things. That science is sacred theology.

What does theology tell us? It tells us that there is a whole sub- and super-strata surrounding the visible world. As for the sub-strata, St. Paul tells us, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Eph 6:12). In other words, behind the visible life we see is a struggle going on between Satan and his minions and God and his angels, with us the living as the battlefield. We Catholics cannot afford the luxury of working on our personal salvation only. The whole cultural and unseen spiritual milieu affects the spiritual life of everyone. To ignore this, as most of us do, is to let the forces of Satan triumph.

In his famous book The Apostleship of Prayer, Father Ramière, S.J., writes that just as God will not save us without our cooperation, neither will he save our brothers and sisters without our cooperation. The world lives in darkness (see 1 Jn). In order to dispel the darkness, Jesus Christ must be brought into the world. God has entrusted his Church—all of it—clergy, religious and especially laity, to bring the light of Christ into the world. (See John Paul II’s encyclical Christifidelis laici.) But the signs of the times demonstrate clearly that this is not being done.

This will be a five-part series that will examine the signs of the times and hopefully will evoke severe soul-searching among us Catholics who tend to look on the natural side of current affairs. We will look at events in the Scriptures and in history, and then at spirituality to provide food for thought and prayer, so that we can do all in our power to turn things around toward the Truth.

Ann Coulter recently published a book entitled Guilty. I have not read the book, but what I do know is that it has generated some controversy on at least two TV shows, namely, The View and The O’Reilly Factor. The essence of the controversy, at least as it was shown on these shows, had to do with statistics Coulter cited in the book about social problems and single mothers. It turns out that many if not most of social offenders, that is, criminals, delinquents, druggies and others, were raised by single mothers. The women on The View and an actress who is a single mother interviewed on The O’Reilly Factor seemed to be accusing Ms. Coulter of blaming single mothers for this social aberration of their children, as if they intended bad outcomes for their children. I do not believe that Ms. Coulter defended herself well verbally. That being said, let’s analyze the situation.

1. There is such a thing as statistical correlation. For instance, 95% of the time I hit my head when getting into my wife’s car. This statement is a fact (it’s really an estimate). The data correlates. If you took count of the times I got into my wife’s car, you would see that 95 out of 100 times I hit my head getting in.

2. Statistical correlation does not prove cause and effect. In the example of my wife’s car and my head, one cannot point to the cause of the hitting of my head merely from the data. More is needed.

3. Folks who talk about these things usually fail to make proper distinctions. To say that Coulter was blaming the single women for poor parenting skills is insufficient to be meaningful. Do some mothers (single or not) have bad parenting skills? Of course. Do some single mothers try their best to raise their children properly? Yes. Do all single mothers succeed in raising good children? No.

The question we have to ask ourselves is, “Are the children of single mothers more likely to become socially aberrant than the children raised by a mother and father both permanently present in the home?” Ms. Coulter’s data seems to say yes. But why is that true?

Firstly, children need the role models of both a male and female in the home. The mother and father show different complimentary strengths which benefit the upbringing of any child. In a single-parent home, half of this influence is missing.

Secondly, when children get to those difficult teenaged years, the mothers frequently have difficulty handling unruly children, where most fathers would have no problem, purely because of their size and temperament. Countless talk shows have shown that when teenagers get out of control, the mothers get physically intimidated by children who are having obedience problems. I was over 6 feet tall at an early age, and my mother was a skinny 5' 1¼". I was a good kid, raised by a mother and a father, but if it was my mom vs. me, there is no way she could stop me from going out, or whatever. Now my father was a skinny, athletic 5' 10" World War II veteran. Even though I was much bigger than he, he had no fear of anything, and I would not have succeeded in my plans.

Thirdly, being a single mother is one of the biggest causes of poverty. Men are the ones who pursue careers and generally get the credentials and experience to advance in jobs, which means in salary as well. Mothers frequently put off career and/or education to start a family. If the husband leaves, and especially if he is not paying proper child support and alimony, the mother has to go to work at low-end jobs. Children end up in day care or with babysitters who are not the mother. This is a further drain on funds, and on the bonding between mother and child. This might not be so bad if there were still extended families, where the mother could leave the children with her sister, or grandma, especially if the relatives shared the same dwelling with the mother and child in question. But these extended families are less prevalent all the time.

Fourthly, a big result of the sexual revolution is promiscuity and illegitimate pregnancies. There was an article in Newsweek years ago where black teenagers were interviewed about their illegitimate children. The boys were proud of fathering, not just a child, but children all over the neighborhood, of different mothers. Many of the fellows did not even care to be around the mothers or their children. The young mothers were almost as bad; they gave in to the desires of these men and to their desires to father children. It is almost as if the girls were so desperate for children at their young age that they would do anything to have them, and to heck with the consequences.

Lastly, the desire to have a man in a woman’s life does not die with the flight of the irresponsible father of her child. This leads many women to have serial boyfriends, many of them sleeping with her, and playing the role of temporary father. This produces confusion in the mind of the child, and frequently worse consequences, where the man is only interested in the woman.

It should be understood that many single women have heroically overcome these barriers, but the data seems to indicate that heroism, because it is heroic, is not that common. The actress who was on The O’Reilly Factor seemed to be saying that because she was successful, anyone can be. The fact that actresses are wealthy, while most single moms are not, pokes a big hole in her argument. Most single mothers obviously could not afford to give the time and care to their children that this actress could.

All of this points to the main issue here. God intended children to be conceived in love, by a male and female parent, both of which are committed for life. Falling short of the standard is a sad fact of life, but has been exacerbated by promiscuity, lack of understanding or even desire for monogamous marriage, irresponsibility, selfishness and heartlessness. To assert that this thinking will not be an influence on the children is foolish, if not outright stupid. Children need love and stability from their mother and father. Not adhering to God’s plan for families will produce aberrations, and the aberrations will be passed on from generation to generation, because the children will think that the aberration is the norm. This will produce misery for parents, children and the society at large, not to mention, put countless souls in jeopardy.