Catholic Priest: 'Your Soul Will Be In Grave Danger' If You Vote For Pro-Abortion Politicians

Citing the 5th Commandment, "thou shall not kill," the Catholic Rev. John Lankeit said he was bound to speak out in defense of the most innocent and vulnerable in society -- babies in the womb -- and that faithful Catholics must do the same, especially in this election year. He added that if a Catholic votes for a candidate who supports abortion, then that Catholic's "soul will be in grave danger."

"Make no mistake!" said Fr. Lankeit, the pastor of the Saints Simon & Jude Cathedral in Phoenix, Ariz. "There is no single issue that threatens innocent human life more directly, consistently, imminently and urgently than the deliberate killing of baby boys and baby girls in their mother’s womb. No issue!"

"If a priest doesn’t speak up for the most vulnerable in our society, and if the Catholic faithful don’t actively protect the most vulnerable in our society by refusing to enable their deliberate destruction with their vote, then such Catholics are condoning the killing by their cowardice," said Fr. Lankeit in his Oct. 2 sermon at the cathedral. His sermon, or homily, was broadcast on local television and posted on YouTube, and is going viral.

At the start of his homily, Fr. Lankeit said, “The Devil is a divider who will use almost any tactic to separate Christians from Christ -- except for one tactic. He doesn’t typically come right out and say, ‘Deny Jesus Christ!’ because he knows that someone who loves Jesus would immediately reject the suggestion. So, he tends to use more subtle means and subtle words. But more on that later."

"For now, let’s deal with something closer to home, and very much in the forefront of many people’s minds: the 2016 presidential election," said Pastor Lankeit. "But let’s do so from a Catholic perspective. Let’s consider the intersection of the practice of our faith and the exercise of our civic duty, especially when it comes to voting. Let’s first acknowledge that there has never been a political party in the United States that is perfectly aligned with Catholic teaching on every issue."

"But that does not mean that we are therefore automatically free to vote for either major party," he said, "because one party can be much further from Catholic principles on the most important issues than the other party. As a result of that, we are often faced with the task of discerning which party and which policies are most in line with Catholic teaching, and which ones are not."

Although Catholics may disagree on how best to address certain issues such as immigration or affirmative action, said Rev. Lankeit, there are some issues, such as the taking of innocent human life -- abortion -- that are non-negotable.

“There are other issues, however, which touch on matters of intrinsic evil," said the pastor. "These are actions that can never, at any time, under any circumstance be committed, promoted, or even enabled by a faithful Catholic. ... Many want to treat abortion as merely one issue among many but that requires that a person pretend not to know what abortion is and what abortion does."

"Ignorance in this area is unacceptable, because ignorance in this area costs millions of babies their lives and jeopardizes the souls of many Catholic voters," said Rev. Lankeit. "On the other hand, if you DO know which candidate and party want to promote and expand abortion, and you still intend to enable them to continue their war on the unborn with your vote, then it is my duty as a priest to tell you that your soul will be in grave danger, especially if you present yourself for Holy Communion after casting such a vote with the full knowledge of what you’re doing."

Later in the homily, the pastor said, "There are plenty of Catholics who, quite rightly, have criticized bishops and priests in recent years for not having spoken out more forcefully against the sexual abuse of children by priests. Why then do many of these same Catholics want to silence bishops and priests who speak out forcefully against killing innocent children?"

"Why is opposing sexual abuse of children a matter of justice, but opposing the murder of children a matter of ‘preaching politics’?" said Rev. Lankeit.

"A priest is not only protected by the 1st Amendment (at least for now)," said the pastor. "He is also bound by the 5th Commandment—Thou Shalt Not Kill. If a priest doesn’t speak up for the most vulnerable in our society, and if the Catholic faithful don’t actively protect the most vulnerable in our society by refusing to enable their deliberate destruction with their vote, then such Catholics are condoning the killing by their cowardice."

"Make no mistake!" he said. "There is no single issue that threatens innocent human life more directly, consistently, imminently and urgently than the deliberate killing of baby boys and baby girls in their mother’s womb. No issue!"

"In the time since this homily started, at least 30 children have been deliberately executed in the womb in the United States of America—and that’s just the ones that are reported," said Rev. Lankeit.

It's past time that citizens--Catholic, Protestant, and others who understand their Constitution, with its foundations in Creator-endowed rights and liberty--speak out to defend against this outright assault from Clinton's campaign and her entire "progressive" movement whose ideology makes population control the centerprise of their coercive agenda.

Understanding the ideology, and all that it incorporates, sheds light on the grave threats to freedom for individuals.

Until now, there has been a strange silence on the subject of her absolute insistence on promoting "destroying" of human life in the womb. Does no one ask the question, "Why is abortion, even late-term, the most important item on the agenda of a woman who claims to speak for the children?"

On the underlying question moral question discussed here, nothing addresses it better than the simple logic of this quotation from Mother Teresa, who, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC on February 3, 1994, as cited above, stated: "And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"

Mother Teresa's declaration may be the most powerful statement in 2016 from which to begin discussions of where a candidate stands on all the questions of life and liberty.

In America, our constitutional protections rest on the Founders' premise that each and all individuals are "endowed by their Creator" with the unalienable right to both life and the liberty to enjoy it, or, in their words, "the pursuit of happiness."

The sole reason these rights were deemed unalienable is that both are derived from the Creator--not from the mother or father, and not from government or judicial decision. What is "granted" by human decision also can, by implication, be withheld.

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them (life and liberty)," said Thomas Jefferson.

"The world is different now. . . and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address

That understanding underlies every other consideration embodied in our Declaration of Independence and every protection of our Constitution. It is the very basis of our rights to life and liberty, of laws to protect them, and it distinguishes ours from other forms of government.

When we fail to acknowledge that foundation of our liberty, then we risk liberty itself for future generations, for where does the right to choose who lives and who does not really end?

That is why the question is of vital importance in each election. Already, we have deprived millions of their Creator-endowed rights to life and liberty, and our nation must be weaker for their loss. We need leaders who understand the implications and potential consequences of departing from our founding principles.

In recent decades, technological advances have enabled us to observe the characteristics and actions of God's tiniest creations in the womb. Unlike previous generations who could not see, we have no excuse for imagining that these are mere blobs of tissue labeled "fetuses." In their early weeks, we now can see that they are living babies who will continue on to possess life and liberty if we do not "destroy" both. Indeed, they are simply smaller versions of ourselves.

Questions on the economy, taxes, threats from terrorists, health care--all are considerations at this election time. One, however, may be basic to all others. Who will best protect the underlying premise of our Constitution--and the lives and liberties of millions yet unborn?

Promises are illusive and cheap. One fact is indisputable, however: Hillary Clinton is committed to the Far Left's agenda on this matter, and that agenda is not compatible with our Constitution's premise.

Some time ago, my attention was drawn to a late-1800's essay which helps to explain the absolute, unbending positions "progressives" hold on what that writer called "population control" and its necessity to "socialism"--the essential position being that without such mechanisms, socialism cannot work in a society.

There is an oft-overlooked imperative for the Democrat Party's hard stand on abortion, as declared in the first paragraph of a late-1800's analysis of "The Impracticability of Socialism." In that paragraph, the writer's point seems to be that under Socialism, ordinary human population growth cannot be economically supported.

The following is quoted from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":
Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. . . .
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON

With Hillary, isn't this the choice we must make--a path to tyranny or a possible path back to freedom in America?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.