|
||
 Email this article  Discuss this article Other Articles by Fr. Frank Pavone Printer Friendly Version |
||
| Yes, the Party Matters | ||
Recent Articles:
>>See more The Edge articles
>>See more Fr. Frank Pavone articles
The Edge
An Open Letter to Henrietta Fore, USAID Administrator
>>See more The Edge articles
Fr. Frank Pavone
"And What I Have Failed To Do..."
Will Women Go To Jail For Abortions?
>>See more Fr. Frank Pavone articles
March 14, 2008
Three years ago, I wrote a column called "The Party Matters," in which I stated, "Voters need to ask how much the election of a particular candidate will shift the balance of power between the parties, and what will happen when a particular party takes control. Voters should know the platform of the party and the official positions of party leadership on the same moral issues on which the individual candidate is evaluated...In short, the party matters."
Some criticized these statements, complaining that they are partisan. Yet it is time to restate and reaffirm that Yes, the party matters.
This is one of the many elements of the moral evaluation of one's vote. Morality deals with human actions, and voting is a human action. The first moral consideration, of course, is whether one votes at all. Voting is a moral duty, as the Church has affirmed multiple times.
Whether one's actual voting choice is morally justified depends on a lot of other factors. After everything is considered, there may be multiple morally acceptable choices. In other cases, depending on who is on the ballot and what positions they take, the morally acceptable choices may be very limited.
The point is this. It is a key role of the Church to teach believers how to make moral decisions. The Church cannot fail in this responsibility simply because the topic touches on politics. On the contrary, as the Second Vatican Council stated, "At all times and in all places, the Church should have the true freedom to teach the faith, to proclaim its teaching about society, to carry out its task among men without hindrance, and to pass moral judgment even in matters relating to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it" (GS n. 76).
Yes, "even in matters relating to politics," and even when the task of moral teaching appears to be partisan.
One of the aspects of evaluating the morality of an act is to consider its consequences. It's pretty predictable what the consequences of driving through a red light are, and that's a key moral factor in evaluating that act.
So with voting, the consequences are that a particular candidate as well as a particular party come into power. Some people don't think about the consequences of a party taking power. We can either let them forget about it, or we can teach it.
To teach that "the party matters," as an aspect of the moral evaluation of a vote, is not to endorse a particular party or candidate. Rather, it is to give the believer the tools necessary for a complete moral evaluation of the act they are about to carry out.
Whether in fact that moral evaluation causes them to embrace or reject a particular party is a conclusion the voter will arrive at. But if we are to teach moral principles only when they have no practical consequences, then we render the Church irrelevant. And that certainly is not an option.
The party platforms (of the current parties) are like day and night on the grave moral and LIFE issues (at the present time).
There is opposition within both parties, that wants to modify these statements to give room for opposing opinions, but it is quite obvious that the leadership's opinions (at least in one party) will not change-unless different people are brought in, but God's laws can't ever change.
If parties change away from God's position, this should make them LESS acceptable to faithful Catholics. All moral people need to remember that loyalty to GOD is more important than loyalty to one's party. The faithful must work to change Party direction if it conflicts with God's rules- and not give room for those who oppose God's Rules.
Submitted by Grace Harman on Sat, 03/15/2008 - 6:36am.
With all due respect you need to cut to the chase Father Pavone and say what's on your mind taking into consideration that most of our Bishops and Priests have failed us for at least one whole generation.
The article gives the impression that everything is so nuanced I wonder how a regular person would ever fugure out how to act.
The biggest and most glaring problem was never touched upon. That ALL the leading candidates are morally unacceptable? I believe this to be the case for very serious reasons which include lack of true concern for issues of life, (even though some candidates say they are, their actions or inaction betray them, who attended the March for Life?) betrayal to their oaths of office to defend the Constitution and the sovereignty of this country, personally benefitting from their office, and so on. All the leading candidates are morally unacceptable, ALL OF THEM! Even the most superficial knowledge of their political careers tells one this is so.
Any one of them will lead us to disaster and ruin. They are all big government, more taxes, more war and policing the world, let the illegals flood the border, lessen the personal freedom of American citizens under the guise of homeland security, thought control, hate speech, gun control idiots. All of them. Though their positions may vary a little on any one issue the bulk of their positions on these issues as a whole are so close as to be indistinguishable in a meaningful way.
Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to God's Mercy. Kent C. Bois
Submitted by kent4jmj on Sat, 03/15/2008 - 8:34am.
Jacko
"Father, we implore you to affect the minds and hearts of the voters so that the candidate that You know is the best to lead our country out of this downward slide of immorality and rejection of Your laws, is elected."
Submitted by Jacko on Sat, 03/15/2008 - 8:54am.
Yes, party matters...the party sets the agenda, the party selects the candidates, the party funds the candidates. Grace Harman is exactly correct that we should work to change the resistance in every party to God's Law, and we do that with our checkbook and our vote. And we need to be ready to abandon a party when it abandons God.
As a registered Republican, I am proud that my party supports the basic right to life of every human being...this is no surprise to me since it was my party that freed the slaves and initiated almost every major civil rights legislation since 1865. BUT...if my party ever looses its way on life issues, I would abandon it in a heartbeat.
As to why party matters...let me quote from the party platforms of the two major parties:
GOP:
"That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.", "We oppose abortion" (p84)
Democrat :
"Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." (p42)
The platforms are here:
GOP: http://www.gop.com/images/2004platform.pdf
Dem: http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_2004_democr.php
I pray for the day when we have a real choice between Godly and qualified statesmen to lead our Republic...and no man nor party is perfect...but we must not sacrifice the most weak and helpless among us because we don't like this or that policy.
Submitted by mickeyaddison on Sat, 03/15/2008 - 9:05am.
The following is taken from Chuck Baldwin,
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080108.html
I believe it connects the dots. Fr. Pavone writes about moral foundation that should inform our vote, Pastor Baldwin cites the character of a candiate who meets the criteria.
This is a man who perhaps personifies Christian character and integrity, American patriotism, and family values more than any other public figure. Ron Paul is a committed family man whose marriage to Carol has lasted for more than 50 years. He is a lover of families and children. As an OB/GYN physician, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies into this world. His life demonstrates a commitment to life and marriage.
Furthermore, Ron Paul's devotion to Christ is very personal and deep. Unlike many politicians (especially in the Republican Party), Ron Paul does not wear his religion on his sleeve. He doesn't need to. Anyone who knows him knows his faith is exhibited on a daily basis. His life and family are testaments to his Christian faith.
This is a man who actually takes his oath to the Constitution (an oath every congressman, senator, and President also takes--but then ignores) seriously. So much so that he has never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted for a congressional pay raise, never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership, and never voted to increase the power of the executive branch of the federal government.In addition, Ron Paul has never taken a government-paid junket. Even though he is a 10-term congressman, he is not accepting a government pension. He also returns a portion of his office budget every year to the taxpayers. No wonder Ron Paul was declared to be the "Taxpayer's Best Friend."
Conservative Republican Ron Paul is loathed as much by members of his own party as he is by liberal Democrats. Even though he is the epitome of a Christian gentleman, Ron Paul is despised by Christians and pastors as much as he is by pagans--maybe more. The media despises him--especially Fox News. The so-called conservative Fox News celebrity Sean Hannity practically goes ballistic at the mere mention of Dr. Paul's name.
Ron Paul has been categorized with the Ku Klux Klan, brothel owners, and Skin Heads. He has been called practically every name in the book. Conservatives and liberals alike rail against Dr. Paul in a manner never seen before in modern politics.
Again, why does the Establishment hate him so much? I'll tell you why.The Establishment hates Ron Paul because his honesty and integrity expose the rest of them for the moral reprobates they are. Their own conscience cannot bear the sight of him. His very presence condemns them. Their personal greed and ambition cringe at the very thought of Ron Paul. If Dr. Paul became President, the Gig would be up! It would be Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday at Tombstone all over again. They know it, and they will fight like mad to keep their corrupt stranglehold on American politics.
Deep commitment to Christ,
To Life,
To his Oath of Office,
Never voted to raise taxes.
Never took a paid junkent,
Returns some of his budget money,
Always protects gun rights,
No Congressional payraises, ever!,
Always a gentleman,
You do not have to vote for the nominee of either party. To do so would be to throw your vote away! You will be voting for evil. When the choices are morally unacceptable then CHOOSE someone else.
Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to God's Mercy. Kent C. Bois
Submitted by kent4jmj on Sat, 03/15/2008 - 9:37am.
The party does not matter! More food for thought.
"Regardless of which of the three candidates the voters choose, the next president will take the nation into the global village, not as a sovereign nation in pursuit of national excellence, but as a nation seduced by the U.N.'s idea of sovereign equality under its supreme authority.
Sovereign equality is the idea that all nations are equal – as defined and enforced by the U.N."
"John McCain is reaching out for the green vote by promising to impose some sort of U.N.- approved, Kyoto-type global warming remedy, despite the growing evidence that manmade carbon dioxide has little or nothing to do with climate change. He is also a proud promoter of NAFTA and other so-called "free-trade" agreements that trade only American prosperity for mounting deficits. He was an open-borders advocate, until he realized his position was a brick wall between him and the presidency. Now he says border security must be first, before granting amnesty to more than 12 million illegal aliens."
" Barack Obama, the current Democrat front-runner, is a globalist of the first sort. His recent legislative proposal (S. 2433) is ample evidence. The legislation would comply with the U.N.'s recommendation that the U.S. commit 0.7 percent of GDP to the U.N. for relief of global poverty. The United States already gives far more aid to other nations than any country on earth. The U.N., however, thinks this is not enough, and that the U.S. should nearly triple its giving. Obama agrees. And he agrees that the U.N. is the mechanism through which U.S. tax dollars should flow.
" Hillary Clinton, author of "It Takes a Village," has a clear history of promoting the U.N. and even world government. She went out of her way to congratulate Walter Cronkite upon his receipt of the 1999 Norman Cousins Global Governance Award from the World Federalist Association. Cronkite told the group."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58940
Lord lift up the man of your choosing and may Your disciples, few as they are, surround the camp of our enemies and at the signal blow the trumpets and lift up the torches while our enemies destroy themselves.
Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to God's Mercy. Kent C. Bois
Submitted by kent4jmj on Sat, 03/15/2008 - 10:38am.
Read the following very carefully.
The U.N.'s idea of sovereign equality requires 35 developed nations to impose energy restrictions, while 150 developing nations are free to use as much fossil fuel energy as they wish. This is the same idea that would allow the International Seabed Authority to require technology transfer from developed nations to developing nations under the Law of the Sea Treaty – a treaty for which Barack Obama voted. This is the same idea that says the United States should be governed by the International Criminal Court, should abandon the death penalty and should allow abortions on demand. According to the U.N., the United States should become a submissive member of the global village.
McCain and Huckabee are Globalists. They both have close ties to CFR. Their prolife stance is smoke and mirrors. It is a political ploy to gain votes knowing all the while that it will not matter because once U.N. global rule of law supercedes our laws it will not matter. Just like the EU.
They can then say they are pro life but that their hands are tied by the Law.
Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to God's Mercy. Kent C. Bois
Submitted by kent4jmj on Sat, 03/15/2008 - 10:52am.
Yes, the party matters. It matters to the over 400 billionaires in this country who want to keep as much of their billions as THE PARTY will let them; it matters to the thieving weapons manufacturers and war contractors who welcome THE PARTY'S guarantee we will be in Iraq for another hundred years; it matters to the wealthy who want to see more and more American jobs shipped overseas so they can pile more billions on top of the billions they already have.
When George Bush came into office in 2001, the government was subsidizing Planned Parenthood to the tune of over 150 million a year. Bush had a Republican Congress for 4 years. THE PARTY did NOTHING to end PP's subsidy.
In addition to working to end abortion, Fr. Pavone and our bishops should be working to end the need for abortions. When was the last time you heard any of them condemn the sex and violence coming from Hollywood and Madison Avenue, which goes directly into the minds of our children? There is no moral outrage in this country. The militant pro-life community, which incudes the institutional Church, sits on its hands while the purveveyers of sex and the homosexual agenda become more and more brazen every year. They and THE PARTY turn their eyes while our children are stolen away from the Church and, in too many cases, their parents.
Fr. Pavone ought stop carrying water for THE PARTY, which had been conning pro-life voters for years, and put his energy into reversing the tide of filth which has swamped our country.
Peace
Submitted by Winslow on Sat, 03/15/2008 - 11:07am.
Tragically you're right. All candidates want us under U.N. Power. The U.N. agenda is totally evil. It promotes forced population control -with approval of China's forced abortion policy, and wants to force the "gay" lifestyle upon all nations too.
It is not doing anything to stop Islamic threats against Israel or the violence in Africa. It has a bias against Christianity.
It seems to promote prostitution and even child prostitution, as well as "sexual freedom" by giving pills and condoms (condoning dangerous behavior instead of warning against it). With the Oil for Food scandal it showed the whole world it could not be trusted.
We need to protect our sovereignty from U.N. attacks against it. We need our nation to protect life too. We need to get hormones (from the pill) out of the water supply before as birds and fish are already affected.
As for Ron Paul, I saw a survey he supposedly filled out and some of his answers were not "pro-life" - in regard to fetal stem cells and cloning I think.
Submitted by Grace Harman on Sat, 03/15/2008 - 11:18am.
Grace I'd be interested in any links you might have to said survey. As far as I know Paul would never support such a thing.
His pro life positions need to be studied and understood in light of his Constitutional understanding of government.
Federal government would stop all tax monies that support abortion at the federal level. He would also stop courts at federal level from ruling on the issue and send it back to the states.
Some criticize him for being weak in this regard but fail to understand that the executive branch of the federal government has no juridiction. When Paul talks about limiting the powers of government he means it. This is key to understanding Paul and how he tackles different issues.
Some want executive orders used to make abortion illegal but this could be reversed with the next administration. Therefor it is not the solution to the problem of Abortion.
R Paul has introduced legislation in congress to define life from the moment of conception. This would give the child in the womb the same Constitutional rights and protection under the law that we are supposed to enjoy. From my study of the subject this is by far the best solution. It would require a majority vote in both houses and signature of the President. That is the way we are supposed to do it, under the Constitution, in this country.
As it stands now it will never get through. Their seem to be two solutions. One is to elect a President who will act more like a king by using power to make abortion illegal. This would destroy our Constitutional form of government by giving too much power to the presidency. This power is too easily misused as we see in the news all the time. The second is for the people to become involved in the process once again and force their elected officials to represent them.
The second seems foreign to many which is frightening as to what that says about how far we have moved towards a dictatorial government of and by the elite.
Going the first path is a win lose situation. The second one is all but forgoten by most Americans.
The situation we find ourselves in is far more grave than many realize in my opinion. Things are seriously broken on many many fronts but we seem to expend all our energy on trying to make ourselves believe things can go on as they have. That it will all work itself out somehow. I do not think that way any more.
Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to God's Mercy. Kent C. Bois
Submitted by kent4jmj on Sat, 03/15/2008 - 1:29pm.
Kent,
Your repeatedly spamming for Ron Paul is moving beyond annoying.
And I am highly offended by your assertion that Huckabee is not really pro-life. Huckabee participated in the Walk for Life in GA this year & was in it in AR several times before - where was Paul? Huckabee has actually worked to make his state more pro-life; Paul wants every state to be able to pick & choose for themselves what's moral or immoral. That's not consistent with the Catholic & most Christian views on pro-life & other moral issues.
Huckabee says that regardless of whether we were right or wrong to go into Iraq, the fact is that we went in there and now must bear responsibility for restabilizing the country before we pull out - which is completely in line with what John Paul II told Bush after he decided to go in to Iraq. Ron Paul wants us to cut and run and with incredible naivete believes that everything will be just peachy after that. Like Czechoslovakia provoked Hitler? And Poland provoked Stalin? Oy! And our current situation is far more complex than those! Isolationism is the opposite extreme of globalism & truth is always found in the balance of extremes.
Now I actually respect a lot of what Ron Paul says, but frankly, even with the problems I mentioned above, I believe his biggest drawback is the fanaticism of his supporters that drives them to do & say things that he really should have spoken out against a looong time ago. At the very least, stick to touting the positives of your candidate & quit slandering the others.
Submitted by SolaGratia on Sun, 03/16/2008 - 12:08am.
Yes, the party does indeed matter. What 's sickening and shocking is to see how the Dem party is now fighting over who can be more pro-death. Guess what, Obama wins, since he is for allowing children to die without aid and help. He is also for genocide, whether he gets it or not
Submitted by deirdrew on Sun, 03/16/2008 - 2:34am.
My information came from a link from something I regularly get ( maybe 2 or 3 weeks ago around the time of our Primary).
Possibly from: Eagle Forum - Eagle@eagleforum.org or from Heritage Foundation - www.myHeritage.org or from Ohio Christian Alliance - at - http://www.ohioca.org I can't remember what -but the very best responses came from Mike Huckabee, who dropped out of the race after the Ohio primary.
Submitted by Grace Harman on Sun, 03/16/2008 - 5:06am.
I beg to differ, Mr. Bois, except on the point that you close with, the words of Jesus to St. Faustina. Compared to the others, Senator John McCain has a clear pro-life voting record. The other two are pro-abortion. What would the consequence of voting in a pro-abortion candidate be? If our consciences are rightly informed with the teaching of our church, Fr. Frank knows that we would know the answer to that and we would vote otherwise to keep the pro-abortion candidate out of office. Without coming out and endorsing a particular candidate, he is giving us clues that would naturally cause us to arrive at the conclusion that is right. The first issue is LIFE. Vote for the one who would do the least amount of harm-the one who has the pro-Life voting record, while the others do not in the least. Plain enough? We may not LIKE any of them, but we as Catholics have the duty to vote for the more pro-life candidate.
Jackie Stutmann
Jesus is the human face of God and the Divine face of man. John Paul II
Submitted by stutmann9 on Sun, 03/16/2008 - 6:51am.
All...if you're looking for actual voting records and quotes of the candidates, then go no further than this site:
http://www.ontheissues.org
It's a non-partisan site where you can view by candidate, by issue, by party, whatever...and it has information on state candidates as well.
Oh and "Pro-Life" Ron Paul? According to On The Issues, he was "Rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)"
John McCain had a 75% rating.
Submitted by mickeyaddison on Sun, 03/16/2008 - 7:04am.
I'll jump in here.
Ron Paul is solidly pro-life. However, he will never vote for something that he believes is unconstitutional. If a bill in congress would implement something that the constitition does not allow for the legislature to do, he would vote against it on the principle that it is not the legislature's job to outstep it's constitutionally allowed limits. (If only the supreme court stuck to what the constitution empowers them to do...). Because of this, sometimes Ron Paul's voting record will not register 100% pro-life.
Now I am not saying you should vote for him, but I do think it is worth everyone's time to read what Ron Paul has to say about the government obeying the constitution. It's really pretty eye-opening. He is very logical, and he believes in subsidiarity (something JPII spent a great deal on) and authentic freedom for the individual.
As for Fr Frank, he doesn't just spend his time on politics. He does a much broader outreach than that.
Submitted by GaryT on Sun, 03/16/2008 - 10:19pm.
For those who argue McCains pro life stance my argument is as follows. Since he is known to be tied to the CFR and has voted in ways that move us away from soverignty and toward Globalism we will come under UN jurisdiction. In that case our laws and constitution and Supreme Court decisions will NOT MATTER! Since UN is pro abortion etc. their laws will supercede ours. He can afford to appear to be pro life because in the end it will not matter. His "hands" will be tied.
The fact that our leading politicians have betrayed our constitution and sovereignty is well documented. Just look at illegal immigration fiasco. The goals of the CFR are also well documented. And our politicians who are tied to and connected with the CFR are also clearly known. Connect the dots.
Remember not to long ago that NAFTA and the move toward North American Coridor/Union and an Amero dollar was supposed to be the ravings of fringe conspiracy theorists? We know now that it is not.
As for Spam I do not fit the definition.
E-mail spam, also known as "bulk e-mail" or "junk e-mail," is a subset of spam that involves nearly identical messages sent to numerous recipients by e-mail ...
Since Fr. Pavone's article concerns the election my arguments pointing out that the three leading candidates are ALL unacceptable with serious moral flaws that make them ineligible was appropriate. No one has convinced me yet that my reasoning is faulty. So I will continue to argue as I do.
As for the last line being correct, thank God we have some common ground. Respectfully yours, Kent.
Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to God's Mercy. Kent C. Bois
Submitted by kent4jmj on Tue, 03/18/2008 - 11:42am.
GaryT has pointed out very clearly something that many fail to understand. How can Ron Pauls voting record apear to be less than 100% pro life?
Because he will not vote for a bill that is written in such a way as to be unconstitutional.
Once Dr. Paul has established a principle, the constitutianality of an issue or bill before congress he has the INTEGRITY to vote accordingly. Year after year in good times or bad no matter how it might apear. Which is why he has never voted to raise taxes to give just one example.
He does vote for pro life bills that are constituitional 100% of the time!
If you have never been to his Congressional or election websites and read for yourself what he says about abortion, the economy, limited government, social security etc. you are misinformed and ignorant of his positions and reasons behind them.
You will never understand him by listening to MSM, FOX, ABC etc. Never.
Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to God's Mercy. Kent C. Bois
Submitted by kent4jmj on Tue, 03/18/2008 - 11:56am.
Sola Gratia
Where was Paul? At the National Right to Life Walk in D.C.
I do not argue Huckabee's personal belief in Life but I do argue that his political philosophies in as much as they are aligned with destroying our Constitution and Sovereignty will lead us under UN and World Court jurisdiction. And They Are Pro Abortion! Therefor We will not have any say in the matter! Again I do not deny that Huckabe says he is pro life only that in the end it will not matter because his larger political philosophies will in the end be self defeating.
Now their are only two posibilities, either Huckabee is naive and ill informed which is unacceptable as it show him to be stupid. OR He does know where his political leanings will lead us. This is also unacceptable and would if shown to be the case betray an even more serious character flaw. His ties to the CFR and its agenda are clear.
As for our "responsibility" to stabilize Iraq, who says it is? Certainly not the Constitution. We had no right to go in their in the first place. All the "reasons" for going in at the time have been shown not to exist! It is their country not ours. What happens in their country is their responsibility.
If they ask for help then we can talk about it, debate it in Congress, and decide what we want to do. As for immediate withdrawal yes that is the right thing to do. Providing appropriate assitance/recompense would be morally just as well.
Ron Paul is not and has never been an Isolationist. Ever. He does embrace the political ideal of Non Intervention which comes from the ideas of the same people who wrote the constitution. No entangling aliances.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance17.html No entangling alliances, Jefferson.
Telling me I annoy you is irrelevant. Implying that I am a fanatic by talking about the "fanatacism" of some of his followers is a cowardly response. The tactic of "poisoning the well" is beneath you. The distinction between passionate and fanatical might help. Fr. Pavone is passionate about Life but not necesarily a fanatic.
Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to God's Mercy. Kent C. Bois
Submitted by kent4jmj on Tue, 03/18/2008 - 1:08pm.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Seven_out_of_10_Iraqis_want_0317.html
7 out of 10 Iraqi's want us out.
Submitted by kent4jmj on Tue, 03/18/2008 - 1:22pm.
"But if we are to teach moral principles only when they have no practical consequences, then we render the Church irrelevant."
Father Frank hits the nail on the head about the primary issue that faces our beloved Church ... a lack of moral leadership. Many of our bishops speak out on political issues without giving the laity a clue of the moral principles involved. Most parish priests seem avoid moral issues with political implications because they want to be liked ... by their parishioners and by their bishop. Those bishops and priests are taking the Church to an irrelevant future.
A few, like Father Frank, Father Richard John Neuhaus, and others of courage and faith, teach as Jesus did. They let the political chips fall where they may.
May they lead our Church to its true destiny ... to bring Christ to the world.