Tuesday, March 19, AD 2024 1:01am

We Are All Catholics Today

From a townhall meeting in Ohio today.  Go to 6:49 in the above video where Romney speaks about the HHS Mandate as a violation of religious freedom, and he says we are all Catholics today.  If Mitt Romney keeps this up I will be voting for him as well as voting against Obama, and I didn’t think I would be saying that in this campaign.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
127 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike Malone
Mike Malone
Wednesday, July 18, AD 2012 10:45pm

Question: If one fails to vote in the upcoming presidential election or votes for someone other than Romney…..isn’t it effectively the as voting for Obama?

Stilbelieve
Stilbelieve
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 2:03am

Catholics are the reason that we have a government that is attacking our religion today. Catholics are the largest, single voting block for the Democrat Party. How could any Catholic give their name and votes to the political organization responsible for abortion remaining the law of the land? 52,000,000 American babies have been murdered because of this organization.

Mary
Mary
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 5:18am

I agree with Stilbelieve. Catholics insisting on being diehard Democrats no matter what is why this Nation is in the position we are in. Having a correctly formed conscience means that as Catholics we do not vote into office anyone who is pro abortion. Just how many Catholics will pull that lever once again for Obama simply because they will not vote Republican?

Spambot3049
Spambot3049
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 5:47am

Question: If one fails to vote in the upcoming presidential election or votes for someone other than Romney…..isn’t it effectively the as voting for Obama?</i.

Answer: Absolutely not. The non-voter is not responsible for the poor choices made by others. The winning candidate needs to provide a better reason to gain voter support than "the other guy is worse."

If I vote at all, it will be for a person who is competent and fit for the office, trustworthy, and (at the very least) not pledged to work against important Catholic teaching.

Paul Primavera
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 5:57am

I shall vote for Mitt Romney. Period. I prefer Goode Clymer of the Constitution Party, but he is NOT a viable candidate and contrary to what Spambot wrote, every vote away from Romney divides the vote against Obama and makes his victory all the more likely. No matter what, Obama has to be defeated. The Republic cannot withstand another four years of this tyrannt in power.

Mary@42
Mary@42
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 6:26am

Thank you, Paul, any vote cast elsewhere than to the Candidate who is supportive of our Catholic Church which is Enemy Number One of the High Priest of Satan, gives him a chance to win. And anyone who declines to vote at all, equally gives Obama a chance to win. My beloved Americans, this is not the time to sit on the fence. All you people of Good Will and ALL YOU CATHOLICS, JUMP INTO THE “TRENCHES” AND VOTE OBAMA OUT.

A vote against Obama is a Vote for Jesus Christ and His One,Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which Obama is persecuting.

WK Aiken
WK Aiken
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 7:35am

If by inaction one fails to prevent an evil, one is as responsible for that evil as the one who perpetrates it.

The Catholic-Democrat link goes back many generations, to when the Democrats courted the immigrants from Latin America, Italy and Ireland who came to this country with nothing. The Church was familiar, and it was there to offer charitable succor and spiritual strength.

The Democrats were also there, even if unfamiliar, and offered something that the newly-arrived boatloads had not seen which was political participation. That it was a rigged machine meant nothing to the huddled masses; it was the opposite of the common station they’d endured under callous and abusive nobility for centuries, and the rich factory owners of the day were easily translated into American “nobility” for the Democrats’ political purposes.

When one is freshly off the boat and the only two people there to offer welcome are the priest with the Eucharist and the precinct committeeman with the patronage job, loyalties are quickly and deeply given. Handed down from father to son, such traditional loyalties are not easily violated, so turning one’s back on them was and is seen as familial treason – “Your grandfather, may he rest in peace, worked for years to improve our condition here, and now you do this?!?”

So, I agree with Stillbelieve as to the source of, but not the reason for, our current situation. I do not fault the Catholics of yesteryear. To them, I simply ascribe Christ’s admonition of the forgiveness of ignorance. Instead, I fault the party that I always fault when looking at how the government has grown, morphed and mutated into the leviathan it is now: The GOP.

One may convict the criminal for stealing, but the responsibility lies more with the inept guard who either was co-opted for personal reasons or was just too stupid to understand the threat. By ignoring those who were the embodiment of freedom, by playing the same political game of machinery and patronage the Democrats did (and still do) and by not recognizing the innate elitism their prime constituents brought, the 20th Century Republican Party sided with the minority and squandered the foundational advantage of having “the common man” on their side.

For this, we pay the price today. When the current crisis is over, we will have to find, or found, an alternative. We’ll bring the GOP to the dance, but I do not believe we have to two-step with it much beyond the opening number.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

Stilbelieve
Stilbelieve
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 8:05am

I just heard some disturbing information on Catholic Bill Bennett’s radio program – Morning In America. He had a medical surgeon, Dr. Marty, a friend of the program, in studio explaining the effects Obamacare will have on people’s healthcare; and took questions from callers. People with disabilities, especially children and elderly are going to have their care restricted. Pregnant women with a baby that is going to be medically disabled will have to abort the baby or be denied health insurance to cover the cost of her pregnancy and delivery, and the child will be denied coverage as well. The elderly will not get life saving operations like heart pacemakers or by-pass surgery, nor life improving operations such as hip or knee replacements. The IRS will know everything about us since they will be in charge of the mandatory insurance we will be required to have. Knowing Chicago style politics as I do having been born and raised there in my single digit years, and not far from there in my double digit years until I moved to southern CA, your politics will also play a roll in whether you get medical care. Remember, the IRS will know who you donate money to. And believe me, if Obamacare kicks in because he’s re-elected, the 17,000 new IRS agents to be hired to oversee the insurance coverage will all be Democrats.

The “restrictions” will be required because they won’t have the money to pay for all the healthcare they will be responsible for. If you think the economy is bad now, wait until you see what it will be like if Obama wins a second term. They will continue to ratchet it down to justify what they want to do with healthcare. (Do you really think Dick Cheney would have ever gotten the cardiac care he received if Obama wins again and implements his Affordable Health Care Act? Do you think any body his age would ever get that kind of care again? The name, alone, signals what he intends to do. It’s real name is, the “Un-affordable Health Care Act”). Our Catholic religion will be in for a lot more trouble, too, from a second Obama term. So, my dear Catholic brothers and sisters, there is no escaping him if he gets a second term. Your lives and mine, and our children and grand-children’s lives will never be the same if Catholic voters vote to make our country the Untied States of Chicago.

Oh, yea, kiss the Supreme Court good-bye, and our First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Religion

Mary
Mary
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 8:41am

If we make the decision to not vote because we don’t like either candidate, I believe we are making a very poor decision. Catholic teaching provides for voting of the lesser of two evils. I would hardly put Gov. Romeny in that category but I definitely would put Obama in it. If we don’t support Gov. Romney we are, by our omission, voting for evil to continue.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 10:20am

People that are a lot smarter (that’s just about everybody) than me say, “Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.”

Stilbelieve
Stilbelieve
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 12:57pm

WK Aiken

“So, I agree with Stillbelieve as to the source of, but not the reason for, our current situation. I do not fault the Catholics of yesteryear.”

Let me clarify. The Catholics I’m referring to are those who remained, or became, Catholic Democrats after Roe v. Wade. I was a JFK Catholic Democrat. My brother, who was vice-president of the Will County Young Democrats (next door to Cook County i.e., Chicago), introduced JFK to the crowd at an outdoor, town center rally during the 1960 Presidential election. I got to shake hands with Kennedy on a chance, one on one meeting afterwards; almost knocking over a motor cycle cop in the process.

Roe v Wade was a turning point for me. I was not a practicing Catholic in the last two years of college and early years of marriage when the ruling came down. My opposition to the ruling was on scientific grounds, not religious. I had a year of embryology, including lab work – I knew when life began; I experimented with it using chick embryos. When the Democrat Party came out in support of legalizing abortion, that was the last straw for me; I registered out of the party. I couldn’t register in the Republican Party; still too brainwashed with my Democrat Catholic upbringing with roots to South Bend and Notre Dame with my mother’s birth place and my father’s college, and an uncle who was a Holy Cross Order priest and later an Archbishop stationed in Rome. So, I registered an Independent. Soon after, I returned to the Church with my young family and my wife, who converted. I was recruited outside church one Sunday by a local pro-life group called Alliance For Life and got involved with electoral politics; working to elect pro-life candidates to replace the pro-abortion incumbents. It turned out all the campaigns I volunteered in were for Republicans because they were the only pro-life candidates running. I found out they were pretty decent people, nothing like what I was told they were like by the Democrat Party and the press.

So I know, first hand how difficult it is, emotionally, to go from Catholic Democrat to Catholic Republican. I couldn’t do it. But a couple years later I did register in the Republican Party to give them my name support when they made the unpopular decision as a party to add a Right to Life plank to their party platform. Republican Party people were able to win the battle within their party to support life where as Democrat Catholics have not been able to win support for life in the Democrat Party. In fact, the bishops with their changing the definition of “pro-life in the early ‘80s to include “social justice” issues secured the strangle hold the pro-aborts had on the Democrat Party. It allowed the Democrat Catholics, including clergy at all levels, to remain in or join the Democrat Party, enabling the laity to say, in a smug, snarky slandering way, “Their ‘pro-life’ doesn’t end at birth.” It is those Catholic Democrats that have given us the U.S. Senate Catholic Democrats the power to fight and keep potential pro-life nominees off the Supreme Court which changed the landscape for selecting and vetting those nominees. It is those Catholic Democrats who have given us Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton who combined to give us the Community Redevelopment Act and Agency, that is responsible for the sub-prime loans that produced the financial and housing collapse we’ve been struggling with for four years, now. And it was Catholic Democrat support by 52 and 50 percent that gave us two terms of Bill Clinton who built walls between our intelligence and FBI agencies enabling the attack on 9-11 to be planned and carried out which we have also been having to deal with ever since. And it was 54% of Catholic Democrats, of which 49% were weekly Mass attendees, who gave us our first pro-abortion, pro-infanticide President ever. And that president has given us the longest and weakest post recession recovery in U.S. history; an unemployment rate realistically near 15%; got a Democrat Congress to destroy our private healthcare system which then enabled him to attack our First Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion.

That IS our current situation that Catholic Democrats, inside and outside government, have given us, all since Roe v Wade. Oh, yeah, can’t forget the 52,000,000 murdered American babies since Roe whose deaths are now jeopardizing the Social Security System because they are not alive to work and contribute FICA taxes which goes to support the Social Security retirees.

PM
PM
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 1:26pm

We’ve had and will always have the perfect in the Catholic faith and can use it to form our reason.

The good is what we vote for. Good isn’t a political party membership any more.
We voters have to look at:
our country,
its leaders,
their profligate legalization of deadly behaviors (temporal and eternal),
outrageous mismanagement of financial and natural resources,
slews of unkept promises, lies, insults, threats and divisive finger pointing,

then, decide on a vote for the man who loves his country and wants to serve its people.

Mitt Romney will have an unprecedented mess to clean up, as well as usual work to do.

The current public servant won’t even verify his ID or address the people of the United States as if they are equal citizenry.

This is such an important year for God and country. I think it’s time to practice our faith teachings.
I. Thou shall have no other gods before me.
II. Thou shall not take the Lord’s name in vain.
III. Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.
IV. Honor thy father and mother that it may be well with thee.
V. Thou shall not kill.
VI. Thou shall not commit adultery.
VII. Thou shall not steal.
VIII. Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
IX.

[ People on assistance will be ok – this is the voting block to convince and calm.
Massachusetts is a case in point. ]

Pinky
Pinky
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 1:28pm

Did I miss something, or did Romney suddenly become a great speaker over the past week? It’s like he was waiting this whole time for Obama’s “you didn’t earn it” comment, and now he’s hitting on all cylinders. He was never this good, not in 2008, not in this year’s primaries.

And while I’m no fan of Joseph Smith, I think a Mormon can kill on the topic of religious liberty, and throw all the snide comments of Obama supporters back into their faces.

PM
PM
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 1:34pm

Above unfinished when I touched some wrong key and it all went back to Kipling’s poem
– I apologize. The Ninth and Tenth are missing and the brackets aren’t part.
I’m shocked! that it got posted because I ‘m sure that tab key started the whole disorientation.

So, Mitt Romney it is for hope.

Mary De Voe
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 1:39pm

If Romney is swept into office, overwhelmingly, one thing he will come to realize is that the power of the America vote must be acknoweldged.

Mary De Voe
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 1:45pm

“IV. Honor thy father and mother that it may be well with thee.” The homosexual practicioner violates this commandment. The abortionist violates the first three commandments as only God creates the immortal soul of man. Fall over as they may, man cannot bring forth offspring without the will of God creating the human existence of the newly begotten. These are God’s children and nobody has the power to take them out of God’s hands. A vote for pro-life is a vote for TRUTH.

WK Aiken
WK Aiken
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 1:59pm

Stillbelieve – thanks. I know South Bend well, being only 3 hours south on US31.

Your explanation is tremendous; in my neighborhood there are scant Democrats other than my wife (another story), but not too much farther south of me they’re thick as thieves and for them I pray contantly, only because a soul eternally praising God is better than a soul in eternal perfidy. But that’s all I have for them.

I still blame the Republicans for being Ken Dolls on most issues, though. They have Pro-Life locked up . . . why can’t fiscal repsonsibility and the 9th & 10th Amendments be as vociferously defended?

Daria Sockey
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 5:44pm

Here are the facts. One of two men will become president in November.All the wishful thinking and standing on principles in the world will not change that. Which one would be the the better choice? Anyone who does not act in a way to try to ensure that the better of the two is elected is acting to hurt our nation.

Pat
Pat
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 9:16pm

Ugghh…. Just because he says this during his campaign means nothing. What about his record? Haven’t we learned that presidential candidates will say things, but not deliver? Haven’t we learned to look more at how what is said on the campaign trail matches up with a person’s record?

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/romney-pulled-the-rug-out-from-under-catholic-hospitals-adoption-agencies-m/

Romney was an adamant pro-choice candidate in MA. He also produced the system of healthcare that was the model for Obamacare. And he also had the same showdown with the Catholic Church in his state and attempted the same bullying techniques against religious freedom.

And now he is the sainted candidate simply because he is not Obama. Please. You are all controlled by the GOP establishment. Besides empty campaign speeches, there is nothing in Romney’s past to make us think he is any different than Obama. I don’t trust campaign conversions and neither should anyone else.

Paul D.
Paul D.
Thursday, July 19, AD 2012 10:07pm

Here’s the rub Pat, you attack Romney and yet you offer nothing in return. In fact you offer worse than nothing because Obama is the only other viable alternative.

Get a grass-roots party that wins a significant amount of the electorate on local, state, and and national levels & then let’s talk. Until then its all irresponsible, 3rd party, quixotic lunacy.

Spambot3049
Spambot3049
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 5:58am

Dear Pat,

Paul D. offers a sampling of what passes for “theology” among the partisans: because other people elevated Romney to be the GOP candidate, you and I have a moral obligation to vote for him for president. In fact, we are evil and our souls are in mortal danger if we fail to go along with the crowd and vote for Romney, who in the partisan’s viee is “the only other viable alternative.” Yes, going along with the crowd is part of Catholic theology, thank you for asking.

Dear Donald, I agree that Romney will most likely undo the HHS mandate and some of the other guy’s more obscene initiatives, but we both know (and you’ve said this yourself) is that it’s only because it’s politically advantageous at this time for Romney to do so. Pat is right that there are many scenarios in which Romney fails to make good on his promises. For instance, I bet he still has many friends and advisors from his virulent pro-choice days who have not made conversion to the pro-life side, and they could influence his decision-making once in office. And as we saw with Chief Justice Roberts, sometimes the mainstream media agenda gets to people.

Pat
Pat
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 6:18am

With respect, Donald, (for I do respect this blog, and enjoy the commentary), if you are thinking of voting for Romney because he is saying nice things despite the fact that his record is completely contrary to what he is now saying, then there is a bit of control going on. Obama was the same way. With frustration and the gnashing of teeth we begged the sleeping center of this country to actually look at Obama’s record rather than just listen to his nice speeches, because they told two different stories and we knew that the nice things he was saying were just that… nice things that would never see the light of day once he was in office. And we were right. And now the tables are turned and we have an Obama on our ticket. Someone who has a horrible record (much more established than Obama’s ever was, btw) and yet somehow we make ourselves feel good by having campaign amnesia because he is magically saying all the things that send tingles up the legs of pro-life conservatives. It’s embarrassing.

The establishment will keep doing this to us (on both sides) until we take back the power of our votes. Our vote should mean something. It should be cast for someone you think would be an excellent president. You should not be cornered into casting it for someone you KNOW is a wolf in sheep’s clothing just because the other wolf has taken off his sheep’s clothing.

The establishment knew that conservatives would roll over and be the predictable voting block for this terrible candidate. That’s why they were fearless when they pulled the strings necessary to get him on the ticket. They knew they could count on us to forget our principles and simply vote for whoever had the R next to their name. How long will we continue to do that? How many Bushes, McCains, Romneys, etc will it take for us to realize that no one is listening to the conservatives at all. We are being laughed at and ignored, and yet with mathematical certainty being predicted to still come through as a powerful voting block to elect terrible presidents.

The challenge was issued for me to come up with a solution. That’s no small order. I don’t see a solution except to encourage people to make their vote actually mean something. We should not be so predictable for the establishment. We should not roll over so easily when a Romney comes our way who has a worse record than Obama ever did. Obama only PROMISED he would do some of the things that Romney actually DID as governor. If it was frustrating to watch centrists (who were clearly bamboozled by Obama’s fancy speeches) vote for him with campaign amnesia, then perhaps you can understand how some of us have the same frustration when we hear great conservative blogs begin to walk down the same path.

We have been convinced that every election now is the do or die election of our history. “If we don’t win this one, then the sky will fall and the communists will take control!” This is a strategy to get good people to support bad candidates. I’m not playing that game anymore. I may lose this election, (that can happen in a republic), but I hope to start sending a message that this conservative will not support a candidate simply because he has an R. The conservative voting block (which is powerful since we know we are catered to in the campaign rhetoric) should have had a bit more influence in the primary. Instead we are always ignored because we can be counted on to vote for whoever the R-guy is. I say, no more. I will vote for a good candidate. If Romney loses because people in my state vote for Goode or someone similar, then that will shake the establishment for the next election. Don’t send us bad candidates and expect us to forget principles. You want our vote? Don’t nominate people who have backgrounds like Romney’s.

Pat
Pat
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 6:38am

“I am voting for Romney because he is infinitely better than Obama”

How do you make this assessment? Because he is giving nice campaign speeches? Even a middle-schooler knows that the Student Government candidate promising free ice cream everyday at lunch needs to be scrutinized a bit more. And certainly we have good examples on both sides of the aisle in recent elections to be skeptical of campaign speeches that don’t match up with records. Romney could not have been clearer in his pro-choice days. He created the model for Obamacare. He is a foreign policy hawk. He has a record of promising the world to conservatives under his governing, but actually delivering it to the liberals. And he had a showdown with the Catholic Church in his own state almost identical to the current one, where he did exactly as Obama is doing now. (And on this last point, he isn’t even claiming a campaign conversion… he is just lying about whether it actually happened)

So, I ask you… on what do you conclude that Romney is infinitely better? And my followup question (assuming you will admit that this is a bit of hyperbole), is how close do they actually have to be for the conservative, in your mind, to be justified in voting for a third party candidate?

Michelle
Michelle
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 9:40am

Romneyeither gets it, or is playing the political card, but either way, at least he acknowledges that there is a problem. And out of the two men running for the WH, he is surely the “lesser evil” one. And the one that’s getting my vote.

Ioannes
Ioannes
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 10:54am

For the sake of my generation, don’t sit this one out. You’ll be dead but we’ll be having to live in a twisted country because of your lack of cojones. You will face judgement for your inactions as well as actions. Ask yourself, who do you think bothers Jesus less? Obama or Romney? You know the answer so don’t let the option that bothers Jesus more prevail because of your inaction.

Pat
Pat
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 11:02am

@ Donald…

My Question: “So, I ask you… on what do you conclude that Romney is infinitely better?:”

Your Answer (in a nutshell): “Campaign speeches and nothing else.”

You are ignoring his entire record and the fact that he has taken both sides of many of these issues throughout his political career. Does anyone really know who the real Romney is? And what about long term atrocities? Sure, you may get some immediate payback for electing him, but what about the longterm consequences of electing someone who steers his ship to match up with wherever the political winds are blowing?

@ MIchelle…

That’s just it, Michelle. There are more than two candidates for president. Again, you have been sold a bridge here by falling for the scare tactics. Virgil Goode, for instance, is running and seems to be a great candidate who lines up with the Bishops so much better than these two clowns, and has a record to back it up.

You may respond with the “viability” argument. I don’t see that as an argument at all. All candidates are as viable as the willingness of the voters to vote for them. As long as pro-lifers can be counted on to huddle scared behind the GOP establishment candidate based on a false “viability” argument, then yes, no other party’s candidate will ever be viable. But, as soon as we start to decide to have our vote mean something again, this will accomplish two important things. Other candidates WILL become more viable, and the GOP will actually try harder to court our vote with more than throwing us a couple of meaningless one-liners in campaign speeches.

The Catholic principles on voting say nothing about “viability” because all candidates have a shot if the voters will get behind them. It’s a false argument proposed by bad candidates to win the votes of otherwise principled voters. There is nothing in Romney’s record (or his flip flopping speeches) that gives me confidence in anything. I think he has merely proven that he will say or do whatever is politically expedient. I don’t see how that is “infinitely better” than Obama. It is too conditional. Rather, I see someone like a Virgil Goode or a Ron Paul (should he run on a different party line) to be an excellent candidate. Long shot? Yep. But at least I am voting for someone who I am confident will stand for what is right in office. And imagine what would happen if all these Catholic blogs would not roll over so easily when the GOP slaps us around and actually decided NOT to make endorsements of bad candidates and put a little fear in the process? Wouldn’t it be great if we took our votes somewhere else in a more unified manner so as to actually have some influence in the process? It seems to me that THIS, more than winning any particular election, would be much better in the long run for this country.

Paul D.
Paul D.
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 11:32am

Virgil Goode isn’t even on ballot in most states, of course he won’t win. It’s not even a statistical possibility. There is zero possibility.

One of the criteria for a just war is that it must have a reasonable chance for success. Similarly, when facing grave danger such as Obama you must choose the option to limit the evil which has a reasonable chance for success. The inability to grasp this and the inability to grasp the principle of double effect leads directly to the crass errors in judgment that have been posited here today.

Stilbelieve
Stilbelieve
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 12:07pm

@Pat

“If Romney loses because people in my state vote for Goode or someone similar, then that will shake the establishment for the next election.”

You are naive and a fool. How many people that you wanted have you gotten elected with your thinking?

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 2:34pm

” . . . will shake the establishment for the next election.”

What next election?

There will be nothing left.

Pat
Pat
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 2:51pm

@ Paul D – Your use of Just War principles in a voting situation is a misuse of Catholic Ethics. This isn’t a war in any sense that you could appeal to Just War principles. And I would like to hear your double effect argument here. Although Double Effect Principles are certainly at work within a Just War Argument, they are not the same. Reasonable chance of success is not part of Double Effect.

The fact of the matter is that Romney has taken just about every position you can take on every issue over the course of his career, and it always happens to be the position needed to get the majority of votes. So, there is a strong case to be made that a vote for Romney is a vote for a drifting boat that will sail in the direction of the strongest wind. I guarantee you that there are stronger and more influential forces in Washington besides the pro-life conservative movement. He needs us now… he will not need us in January. The fact that this argument can even be reasonably made destroys the case that a Catholic is obliged to vote for him just because he is not Obama… especially with other candidates in the race. In fact, you mention that Goode is not on many ballots. Do you think he would be more successful if, instead of rolling over and being bullied around in yet another election, that conservative groups and pro-life blogs jumped ship (or at least threatened to) and began to actually help out and talk up people like Goode that he could be more successful? In other words, you cry about how there are only two viable choices, but I see NO ONE in the mainstream pro-life community actually doing anything about getting behind a good candidate and putting pressure on the establishment. NOTHING. In fact, when people like me try to propose such actions you ridicule us.

@ StilBelieve – Ad Hominem duly noted. I can’t elect anyone on my own. I only have one vote. I would need others to join me in not rolling over and playing the fool for the establishment.

@ Donald – You say it is rubbish, but you can only do so if you ignore the fact that Romney is a career flip flopper. He takes positions based on what voter base he needs to rally. This is admitted by EVERYONE, both liberal and conservative… except now. Now the conservatives are pretending they didn’t think that during the primary. There is simply no way to tell what his actual convictions are, and you are therefore relying on the hope that the conservative electorate will mean more to Romney after the election than whatever powerful lobbying influences exist in Washington. I’m not so hopeful. Even Obama caved on deeply held campaign promises. The problem with Romney is that we have no way of knowing which issues he TRULY cares to continue to fight post-election, and which ones are just empty promises, and that is because he has held and fought for all sides of each issue throughout his career. This idea that you can predict what he will do, and what he will have the political capital to do, or even the integrity to do, after the election is nothing but wishful thinking. It isn’t based on anything other than the campaign speeches of a known flip flopper.

And I don’t want to get into a Ron Paul debate with you, but I think your characteristic of him is simply irresponsible calumny, which is truly unfortunate.

And Goode could have a better chance if people like us would stand behind them and make some noise.

Pat
Pat
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 3:03pm

(sorry… autocorrect got the better of me… “characteristic” should be “characterization” in the second to last paragraph.)

Pat
Pat
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 3:09pm

And I suppose I should clarify something.

I am NOT saying that I don’t understand the arguments in favor of voting Romney. I do understand them, and empathize with the moral conflict. (ie. double effect, etc)

What I am frustrated with is that this courtesy is not returned to those Catholic voters who do not offer the same understanding to those who chose to not accept the conclusion that it is a moral obligation, or that a vote for a third party is a vote for Obama, or that Romney will undoubtedly be better, etc. All of these assertions are not based on Catholic teaching, or even a fair assessments of the facts.

I understand that you are voting in HOPES that Romney will deliver on his campaign promises. But, it is only hope and nothing more. And the hope is only driven on the faith that his campaign conversions are sincere. But, for those of us who do not share your faith, we therefore do not have your hope. And therefore we have to find a way to fulfill our obligation to participate in this election in a different way.

anzlyne
anzlyne
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 3:47pm

Pat you make good points.
We are in trouble here. It would be great if Romney or Obama would have a real st paul metanoia– but I think the odds are: we are in trouble either way.
Earlier on I was hoping that the R convention would make it somehow possible to have a different candidate, but the party people will not allow that.
Prayer is our recourse.
And I will vote against Obama, marking my ballot for Romney. What else can I do.

Pat
Pat
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 4:10pm

I understand… But, the biggest irony in this conversation has been the frustration leveled at Catholics who vote Democrat merely because they are Democrats. Think about that irony considering what is being asked by the Republican Catholics.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 4:21pm

I’m old enough. I will not need to hold my nose.

Having lived 62 years, I’ve seen good and bad.

I will vote for Willard in November.

The alternative (Paul or any third party candidate will not be president) is national and religious disaster.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 4:25pm

And I don’t want to get into a Ron Paul debate with you, but I think your characteristic of him is simply irresponsible calumny, which is truly unfortunate

Dr. Paul tends to vet reality according to his pet theories of political and social life, which renders him unaffected by empirical data. He is not serious and should not be in any kind of responsible position.

Pat
Pat
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 4:27pm

“Dr. Paul tends to vet reality according to his pet theories of political and social life, which renders him unaffected by empirical data.”

Could you explain what you mean?

(Ugghhh… I’m getting into a Ron Paul debate, aren’t I?)

Art Deco
Art Deco
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 5:04pm
Spambot3049
Spambot3049
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 5:49pm

Donald, thank you.

Stilbelieve
Stilbelieve
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 6:01pm

@Pat

“I understand… But, the biggest irony in this conversation has been the frustration leveled at Catholics who vote Democrat merely because they are Democrats. Think about that irony considering what is being asked by the Republican Catholics.”

The reason for that, Pat, is that it is a SIN for a Catholic to be a Democrat according to Catholic teaching on the 5th Commandment in both Life in Christ Instructions in the Catholic Faith and Catechism for Adults published 1958 and 1995, respectively.

Read for yourself. “To deny any person her or his rights is a SIN (my emphasis) against justice as well as charity. This is particularly true in the case of joining an organization (such as the Nazi Party or Ku Klux Klan) which promotes racial, ethnic or religious hatred.” (pg. 267, pt # 11, Chpt 36, The Fifth Commandment, Life in Christ 1995)

Here’s what the earlier Life in Christ Instructions in the Catholic Faith had to say about the Fifth Commandment. “To deny him his rights is a SIN (my emphasis) against justice as well as charity. This is particularly true in the case of joining an organization which promotes segregation OR ANY OTHER DENIAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS.” (my emphasis). (pgs. 251,252, pt #8, Section 39, The Fifth Commandment)

The Democrat Party is an organization that supports and fights to keep abortion legal in Congress through legislation and judicial nominations. It is part of their Party Platform. Abortion denies the human right to life. In both versions of the Life in Christ teachings, it is a sin to deny any person his or her rights. It is “PARTICULARLY TRUE IN THE CASE OF JOINING AN ORGANIZATION” (ditto) that denies them their human rights.

Therefore, the mere joining the Democrat Party is a sin for ALL Catholics who do so. If the bishops want to make an exception for the Democrat Party they should do so, but they haven’t. Thus the teaching is in effect. Catholic Democrats are in a perpetual state of sin as long as they are in the Democrat Party, and I would add votes for anyone in the Democrat Party as long as that Party maintains its Party Platform in support of abortion.

How serious a sin? I would say the sin is mortal because without Catholic support in name and votes, the Democrat Party would not have the electoral power to keep abortion legal has they have been able to do since Roe v. Wade.

I welcome your comments and discussion.

Michael
Michael
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 8:36pm

I wanted to be able to vote for Governor Romney, but he’s on record as saying he is seriously going to consider the military option on Iran and that he doesn’t need to involve Congress. That’s unconstitutional. He’s planning to break his oath of office even before he’s made it. If I vote for him I’m leading him into a grave sin. I don’t feel like I can in good conscience vote for either Presidential candidate. I wish I could write in a name.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Friday, July 20, AD 2012 8:55pm

http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/06/18/romney-candidate-for-king-denies-he-would-need-congresss-approval-for-war/

What he says here is that he does not think military action against Iran requires a Congressional authorization. Whether that means he is planning to ‘break his oath of office’ is dependent on him sharing your interpretation of constitutional provisions regarding war powers.

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Saturday, July 21, AD 2012 9:09am

“because other people elevated Romney to be the GOP candidate, you and I have a moral obligation to vote for him for president.”

I dunno about that. A moral obligation NOT to vote for Obama does not necessarily equal a moral obligation TO vote for Romney. It means you have the following morally acceptable (I didn’t say ideal or wise, just morally acceptable) options: vote for Romney, vote third party/write in, or don’t vote at all for POTUS.

Multiple pastoral letters and statements by popes (JP II in Evangelium Vitae) and various orthodox bishops (e.g., “The Obligations of Catholics and the Rights of Unborn Children” by Abp. John J. Myers of Newark, written in 1990 when he was Bishop of Peoria) have said that voting for a “lesser evil” candidate or abstention are BOTH morally acceptable choices if no suitable pro-life candidate is on the ballot.

That said, I don’t see what is so bad about voting for a “lesser evil” candidate. It seems to me that if we truly believe in limited government and in original sin, we shouldn’t necessarily be looking for a candidate with grand ambitions to solve all our problems, even things as serious as abortion or the preservation of the traditional family. We should be looking for a candidate who knows his or her limits, doesn’t promise what he/she can’t possibly deliver, and is least likely to mess things up or make things worse than they already are. The charismatic “messiah” candidates with legions of adoring fans and grandiose plans and promises — whether they are of the left or of the right — are the ones most in danger of becoming dictators or God Kings. Remember, we’re voting for a president, not a Savior.

“Catholic Democrats are in a perpetual state of sin as long as they are in the Democrat Party, and I would add votes for anyone in the Democrat Party as long as that Party maintains its Party Platform in support of abortion.”

That may be true in general at the national and state level. However, I’m not so sure the “voting for a Democrat is a mortal sin” rule necessarily applies at the local level or in every individual case. In a local election for an office such as mayor or sheriff where abortion is not an issue, the GOP candidate or incumbent is manifestly corrupt or incompetent, and running as a Democrat is the only viable way to oppose that person (due to insuperable obstacles to getting on the ballot as an independent or third party candidate), then I would say voting for the Democrat would be justified.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top