Deacon cut the Homily to make Political points...

[LEMAITRE]

You are obligated to vote for the lesser of two evils.

In that case, as I mentioned above, you would support the lesser of two evils. In the cases you outline above, it’s a prudencial judgement on which one would do the least damage to the cause for pro-life and pro-family.

huh? What’s that mean? Fill us americans in…

Well both evils would cause equal damage to pro-life and pro-family which would be unacceptable to me.

oops thought you guys have donkey votes as well. A donkey vote basically means showing up and dropping an empty ballot paper, or drawing pretty pictures on the ballot paper, basically wasting your vote, people usually do this because they don’t like either Party’s policies or hate being forced to vote for politicians they don’t respect or like with peddling policies they disagree with.

I have always voted but the next election seems to a race between two people who most of the nation dislikes personally and politically. The nation is pretty much evenly divided between their dislike for each candidate as a trustworthy politician and their Party’s platforms.

 

[superamazingman]

Well both evils would cause equal damage to pro-life and pro-family which would be unacceptable to me.

But due how an election works, not voting doesn’t do any good. Since one of them will be elected either way, we should vote for the candidate who is least likely to cause the most damage, even if both are bad.

Think about it this way: is there any way that one is better than the other? Then vote for that person. Otherwise, the worse one may get elected.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Elections have consequences. Good for him for pointing that out.

 

[superamazingman]

Well both evils would cause equal damage to pro-life and pro-family which would be unacceptable to me.

But not voting does no good for the country, because if you don’t vote, one of those two will still be elected.

Think about it this way: both may hurt our cause, but is one better than the other, even slightly? If yes, then go vote for them, otherwise the one who is worse (how ever slightly) may get elected.

Like the catechism said, we have an obligation to vote. It didn’t say not to vote if both candidates are bad.

 

[LEMAITRE]

But not voting does no good for the country, because if you don’t vote, one of those two will still be elected.

Think about it this way: both may hurt our cause, but is one better than the other, even slightly? If yes, then go vote for them, otherwise the one who is worse (how ever slightly) may get elected.

Like the catechism said, we have an obligation to vote. It didn’t say not to vote if both candidates are bad.

We have an obligation it doesn’t say we have to. An obligation to do so making an informed decision. If I am forced to do a donkey vote because I am faced with two politicians who support non-negotiables, I will do so with a clear and informed mind and wait for the next election. Unlike those who voted for Obama despite the Church urging them not to.

 

[superamazingman]

We have an obligation it doesn’t say we have to. An obligation to do so making an informed decision. If I am forced to do a donkey vote because I am faced with two politicians who support non-negotiables, I will do so with a clear and informed mind and wait for the next election. Unlike those who voted for Obama despite the Church urging them not to.

C’mon now: when the catechism says we have an obligation to do so, then obviously, we have to do so. Otherwise there would be no obligation.

But a donkey vote does the country no good. Is one of them better in any way than the other? Vote for them.

The idea of non-negotiable is to stop someone from voting for a pro-abortion person because of his standpoint on land use, not this situation. When both support a non-negotiable, the appropriate response is not throwing away your vote. The appropriate response is voting for the lesser of the two evils.

 

[Pat_the_elder]

Can I shove my tuppenceworth in? As a committed socialist… Yes, yes I said the ‘S’ word…
I sometimes wonder if a candidate stood on a platform advocating a system which ensured that everyone would receive full free health care from conception to natural death. Doing away with nuclear weapons. Free education for all, not dependant on loans etc. with obviously big tax increases to pay for all of this and most importantly - an anti-abortion stance - would some of the posters on CAF who talk about backing the candidate who takes the path of ‘lesser evil’ find in this an ‘evil’ which would allow them to vote for a say ‘right wing’ candidate who’s views on abortion were perhaps less clear?

 

[buc_fan33]

Can I shove my tuppenceworth in? As a committed socialist… Yes, yes I said the ‘S’ word…
I sometimes wonder if a candidate stood on a platform advocating a system which ensured that everyone would receive full free health care from conception to natural death. Doing away with nuclear weapons. Free education for all, not dependant on loans etc. with obviously big tax increases to pay for all of this and most importantly - an anti-abortion stance - would some of the posters on CAF who talk about backing the candidate who takes the path of ‘lesser evil’ find in this an ‘evil’ which would allow them to vote for a say ‘right wing’ candidate who’s views on abortion were perhaps less clear?

I can’t answer for everyone, but personally, no. I would support the candidate who was more likely to advance the cause supporting life. But, and this is a serious question, who’s going to pay for all of this? The dirty little secret is that there is no such thing as free health care, free education, free anything. SOMEONE pays for it. The only question is who. Obamacare is the biggest step the USA has taken towards socialism in my lifetime, certainly. And, we are already seeing the effects of it: massive layoffs, downsizing, cutting hours for employees, shipping jobs overseas, and in some cases, completely closing businesses. Take away any incentive to produce, and you will soon be left with no producers, which means no jobs, which means more people on government welfare, which is further underfunded due to the closure of businesses and the lost tax revenue. I don’t get it.

 

[superamazingman]

Can I shove my tuppenceworth in? As a committed socialist… Yes, yes I said the ‘S’ word…
I sometimes wonder if a candidate stood on a platform advocating a system which ensured that everyone would receive full free health care from conception to natural death. Doing away with nuclear weapons. Free education for all, not dependant on loans etc. with obviously big tax increases to pay for all of this and most importantly - an anti-abortion stance - would some of the posters on CAF who talk about backing the candidate who takes the path of ‘lesser evil’ find in this an ‘evil’ which would allow them to vote for a say ‘right wing’ candidate who’s views on abortion were perhaps less clear?

You know that socialism is contrary to church teaching, right? We’re called to be free and responsible for ourselves, and not dependant on the government like that.

Not to mention in every socialist government, the church has been attacked.

 

[buc_fan33]

You know that socialism is contrary to church teaching, right? We’re called to be free and responsible for ourselves, and not dependant on the government like that.

Not to mention in every socialist government, the church has been attacked.

True…the social encyclicals, most especially Centessimus Annus come out most forcefully against socialism.

 

[bilop]

Can I shove my tuppenceworth in? As a committed socialist… Yes, yes I said the ‘S’ word…
I sometimes wonder if a candidate stood on a platform advocating a system which ensured that everyone would receive full free health care from conception to natural death. Doing away with nuclear weapons. Free education for all, not dependant on loans etc. with obviously big tax increases to pay for all of this and most importantly - an anti-abortion stance - would some of the posters on CAF who talk about backing the candidate who takes the path of ‘lesser evil’ find in this an ‘evil’ which would allow them to vote for a say ‘right wing’ candidate who’s views on abortion were perhaps less clear?

As others have said, socialism is incompatible with Catholicism. Many Popes have repeated this. Socialist states are also invariable anti-Catholic, and persecute the Church and believers.

Man has no right to free healthcare, and free education, and getting rid of nuclear weapons would be damn stupid while the rest of the world still has them.

Except for anti-abortion, that candidate doesn’t sound particularly Catholic to me.

God Bless

 

[Pat_the_elder]

As others have said, socialism is incompatible with Catholicism. Many Popes have repeated this. Socialist states are also invariable anti-Catholic, and persecute the Church and believers.

Man has no right to free healthcare, and free education, and getting rid of nuclear weapons would be damn stupid while the rest of the world still has them.

Except for anti-abortion, that candidate doesn’t sound particularly Catholic to me.

God Bless

OK Guys - have your wee anti - socailist rant. It might interest you to know that not all of the world, including catholic leaders of good standing, share your views of socialism. However you fail to understand or answer the question I posed. Suppose such a candidate existed. A lot of posters on CAF have denigrated Obama supporters for his stance on abortion and have stated that no catholic should have voted for him as this was one of the ‘non negotiables’. So how would you vote on my mythical candidate?
God Bless

 

[dshix]

At my parish the pastor gave a sermon on the five non-negotiables a few weeks before the election and exhorted the people to vote in keeping with their morals.

 

[Usige]

OK Guys - have your wee anti - socailist rant. It might interest you to know that not all of the world, including catholic leaders of good standing, share your views of socialism. However you fail to understand or answer the question I posed. Suppose such a candidate existed. A lot of posters on CAF have denigrated Obama supporters for his stance on abortion and have stated that no catholic should have voted for him as this was one of the ‘non negotiables’. So how would you vote on my mythical candidate?
God Bless

Disregarding the socialist portion since I don’t think it maters to me, it really comes down to where they stand on all the issues. If its a socialist, pacifist that is anti-abortion or a fiscal conservative, war hawk that only supports abortion is cases of rape or incest then I would support the first one. That statement comes with the caveat that the first one does not include expanding addition evils of same sex marriage, etc.

My issue with Obama was not just his stance on abortion, but also same sex marriage, suppression of religious freedoms, etc.He not want to keep the status quo, but wanted to increase the degradation of society.

 

[ProVobis]

These are not Republican teachings, but Church teachings,

Actually they were “teachings” of Cicero even before the Church.

Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

In his speech, For Aulus Cluentius 11.32: “I recollect that a certain Milesian woman, when I was in Asia, because she had by medicines brought on abortion, having ben bribed to do so by the heirs in reversion, was convicted of a capital crime; and rightly, in as much as she had destroyed the hope of the father, the memory of his name, the supply of his race, the heir of his family, a citizen intended for use of the republic. How much severer punishment does Oppianicus deserve for the same crime? For she, by doing this violence to her person, tortured her own body; but he effected the same crime through the torture and death of another. Other men do not appear to be able to commit many atrocious murders on one individual, but Oppianicus has been found clever enough to destroy many lives in one body…”

And also Cicero said, “Choose the LEAST of evils” not the “lesser of two evils.” Just thought I’d mention that.

 

[LEMAITRE]

But not voting does no good for the country, because if you don’t vote, one of those two will still be elected.

Think about it this way: both may hurt our cause, but is one better than the other, even slightly? If yes, then go vote for them, otherwise the one who is worse (how ever slightly) may get elected.

Like the catechism said, we have an obligation to vote. It didn’t say not to vote if both candidates are bad.

I have a clear mind if I don’t vote. The only one who has a problem with it is you and your opinion has little bearing on the matter. And no you cannot say the Church has a problem with it because you are not my Priest.

 

[Mark121359]

Your initial statement here, I agree with 100%, however, when do we choose to believe what people say? I chose to believe Romney/Ryan and so I voted for them.

I saw this as a two horse race, which the polls illustrated quite well they were the only two candidates who were viable. Out of these two, one has proven by word, deed and action to be pro-abortion on demand, anti-Catholic Church, pro-same sex “marriage”, etc. furthermore, his party’s platform, shaped much by him, stood for, and still currently stands for many IEs, so by nature of all of these issues he is disqualified.

The other candidate on the other hand, is against abortion in all cases except rape, incest, and life of the mother. I tend to agree with Paul Ryan’s statement, “It’s a great start.” Is Romney lying? Maybe you are correct, but I believe he sees more good than the opponent does, that guys views are just simply, well, evil in the eyes of the Church’s teachings.

Bottom line, with the re-election of Obama, more babies will die and for a longer period of time; no one in any authoritative place has said different, rep or dem. 50% of Catholics voted to re-elect BO, had those people voted the other way he would have lost. When Ruth B Ginsburg retires and other justices are replaced in this four year term, I want you to ask yourself, were my strict principles worth the children that will assuredly die because of these appointments? Furthermore, would my vote for his opposition, Romney, have brought more conservative pro-life appointments which would set up the possibility to end legal abortion in America? The answers are easy, no and yes respectfully.

I agree 100%! And please lets not forget the HHS mandate. I have heard more Cardinals and Bishops speak out against this as the biggest threat our Church has ever faced in America. And they also rightly point out the huge difference between “Freedom of Religion” and how it has subtly been redefined by this administration as “Freedom to Worship.”