S
SeekNFind
Guest
Basically. Why don’t I hear as much outcry against Romney and Ryan about that? Why aren’t Catholics more vocal about supporting a truly balanced candidate?
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
I think you are mistaken as to Church teaching on this. It is only* unrestricted* capitalism that has ever been condemned by the Church. I do not think Romney has ever promoted this. If I am mistaken, please feel free to show the Church teaching to the contrary.
P
pnewton
Guest
So true. But as to the question as to why Catholics are supporting these guys, I think it has to do with the greater weight given to the much graver sin of abortion. I am not a Romney supporter, but I have no problem understanding why many Catholics here support him. It is not that difficult.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
E
epan
Guest
It is a sorry state to see people voting on just one issue (abortion), and not even talking about the other social justice issues. Romney wants to cut tax rates by 20%, without proposing sufficient spending cuts to balance the budget, other than things which will never happen. If you read his platform, he claims federal employees are overpaid by about 30-40%, and he will cut that. He makes other claims about what he will do, which he will be unable to do. If he can get a republican majority, then the tax cut part might be easy, which will only have the effect of worsening the deficit, and cutting further into education and social services for the poor. The Ryan budget is untenable, and is obviously for show, with the knowledge that it could never be implemented.
If you look at personal income and taxes, it is true that the people who make the most money, also pay the most taxes. Real income has grown steadily for the top 50%, and particularly for the top 1%. However, real income for the bottom 50% has continued to decline. Changing that trend is the key to generating more tax revenue, if it could be done. Corporate profits as a percentage of gross revenues are the highest that they have ever been, yet real wages stay flat or decline. That is a social justice issue which nobody seems to be talking about. Obama’s solution of raising tax rates on the wealthy, is not necessarily a bad idea. But it is not a particularly good idea, either. We had plenty of rich people when tax rates were higher. There is no real social benefit to society that rich people provide. There is some appeal to the notion that, if corporations won’t pay a fair wage, then the undeserved profits resulting from that should be redistributed. But doing it through taxation is very inefficient.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, ProVobis,
The basic problem with a Non Sequitur type argument is that it is confusing in the extreme. While it is possible that someone may be interested in both defense spending and abortion issues - but, assessing someone’s or some group’s sincerity on a particular issue, based on who gets to speek - stretches more then the imagination.
If you want to cut yourself off from the Democrats and the Republicans because of your preceived insult that is your choice. But, please be advise, 69 days from now - on the night of Nov 6 - there will be a President elected. Now, you can chose to be part of this process or exclude yourself - but, the event will happen. And, the winner will have the opportunity to try and get his policies through the Congress. Of course, if Obama wins he will simply just continue to govern by fiat - his decision to not defend the Defense of Marriage Act, deciding not to enforce immigration laws and the selective enforcement of voter registration laws - when the Supreme Court has already upheld that having an official form of identification is not unconstitutional. msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/
None of the candidates 4 years ago even vaguely resembeled Mother Teresa or Francis of Assisi. I have personally noticed that all of the current group of candidates lack these saintly characteristics. My bet is that 4 years from now, the various political parties will come up short on finding saints to run for office. I think we do well to elect people who do not wind up under federal indictment or are currently in jail (I live in Louisiana). Basic competence would be a real improvement for many who managed to win the election
But, we are blessed in one major aspect - at least there are people who are interested in elected office - I would not consider this on a bet! Chances are there are many others like me… 
May I suggest that you think about what you are going to do in the next 69 days and determine that you will becoe familiar with the moral issues at stake in this election as identified by the Catholic Church - and then exercise your civic - and moral - duty to vote for the candidate who does not champion abortion as our current President does. Undoubtedly, there are others to chose from besides Romney - so make a prayerful choice.
Tom
The basic problem with a Non Sequitur type argument is that it is confusing in the extreme. While it is possible that someone may be interested in both defense spending and abortion issues - but, assessing someone’s or some group’s sincerity on a particular issue, based on who gets to speek - stretches more then the imagination.
If you want to cut yourself off from the Democrats and the Republicans because of your preceived insult that is your choice. But, please be advise, 69 days from now - on the night of Nov 6 - there will be a President elected. Now, you can chose to be part of this process or exclude yourself - but, the event will happen. And, the winner will have the opportunity to try and get his policies through the Congress. Of course, if Obama wins he will simply just continue to govern by fiat - his decision to not defend the Defense of Marriage Act, deciding not to enforce immigration laws and the selective enforcement of voter registration laws - when the Supreme Court has already upheld that having an official form of identification is not unconstitutional. msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/
None of the candidates 4 years ago even vaguely resembeled Mother Teresa or Francis of Assisi. I have personally noticed that all of the current group of candidates lack these saintly characteristics. My bet is that 4 years from now, the various political parties will come up short on finding saints to run for office. I think we do well to elect people who do not wind up under federal indictment or are currently in jail (I live in Louisiana). Basic competence would be a real improvement for many who managed to win the election
But, we are blessed in one major aspect - at least there are people who are interested in elected office - I would not consider this on a bet! Chances are there are many others like me… May I suggest that you think about what you are going to do in the next 69 days and determine that you will becoe familiar with the moral issues at stake in this election as identified by the Catholic Church - and then exercise your civic - and moral - duty to vote for the candidate who does not champion abortion as our current President does. Undoubtedly, there are others to chose from besides Romney - so make a prayerful choice.
Tom
J
jediliz
Guest
can someone explain how putting MORE people on welfare (and therefore having them get addicted to government programs) is social justice? And please provide the bible verse where JESUS says “let the govrnment take care of the poor”.
Isn’t it the CHURCH that is supposed to help the poor? Didn’t Obama just waive the work requirement? What about those capable of working but they are so addicted to assistance, they don’t want to work?
e.g. What about those who four years ago thought Obama was going to pay for their gas for their cars?
How is it social justice to keep increasing $ sent to the LARGEST ABORTION PROVIDER…and keep in mind this is OUR TAX $ that is being sent…to kill the innocent? How is that HELPING the POOR? Does it help the poor to fail them and have them abort their babies instead of helping them learn NFP or how to space their children?
Then there’s the fatherless homes…we have too many children growing up in broken homes…mostly without a father…sometimes without a mother.
Then there is the economy and too many compaines outsourcing and going overseas because its CHEAPER…I’m willing to pay more for a product made in the USA. Now I realize somethings like televisions and other electronics can’t be made here or they’d be costing 1000s of $ instead of 100s of $ (such as TVs or iPads)…but I am talking about things like Pens or Pencil bags…even notebooks…“made in china” when we could make them here. There are other products that could be made here as well. I did my part by purchasing a shoulder/hand bag made in the USA (bought it online due to the fact that I would not find it locally)…and I love it…its not cheap looking like some products I’ve seen that are Made in China.
There is not a “more balanced” candidate…voting for a 3rd party or not voting…I don’t think its a good idea. Doesn’t the FORCING of PAYING FOR CONTRACEPTIVES and STERILIZATION for CATHOLIC Organizations, Businesses and Schools MEAN anything to YOU? The so called “exemptions” are too broad. We aren’t helping the “poorest of the poor” if we don’t help those outside the church. If Mother Teresa’s group had been started here instead of India, HER SISTERS would not get an exemption…In India, they help everyone, regardless of shared religion or not.
We are looking at a serious fight here…we are close to losing one of our greatest freedoms: Freedom of Religion!
Now which candidate will continue to attack the Catholic church…and which candidate will leave us be?
Ask yourselves this.
Isn’t it the CHURCH that is supposed to help the poor? Didn’t Obama just waive the work requirement? What about those capable of working but they are so addicted to assistance, they don’t want to work?
e.g. What about those who four years ago thought Obama was going to pay for their gas for their cars?
How is it social justice to keep increasing $ sent to the LARGEST ABORTION PROVIDER…and keep in mind this is OUR TAX $ that is being sent…to kill the innocent? How is that HELPING the POOR? Does it help the poor to fail them and have them abort their babies instead of helping them learn NFP or how to space their children?
Then there’s the fatherless homes…we have too many children growing up in broken homes…mostly without a father…sometimes without a mother.
Then there is the economy and too many compaines outsourcing and going overseas because its CHEAPER…I’m willing to pay more for a product made in the USA. Now I realize somethings like televisions and other electronics can’t be made here or they’d be costing 1000s of $ instead of 100s of $ (such as TVs or iPads)…but I am talking about things like Pens or Pencil bags…even notebooks…“made in china” when we could make them here. There are other products that could be made here as well. I did my part by purchasing a shoulder/hand bag made in the USA (bought it online due to the fact that I would not find it locally)…and I love it…its not cheap looking like some products I’ve seen that are Made in China.
There is not a “more balanced” candidate…voting for a 3rd party or not voting…I don’t think its a good idea. Doesn’t the FORCING of PAYING FOR CONTRACEPTIVES and STERILIZATION for CATHOLIC Organizations, Businesses and Schools MEAN anything to YOU? The so called “exemptions” are too broad. We aren’t helping the “poorest of the poor” if we don’t help those outside the church. If Mother Teresa’s group had been started here instead of India, HER SISTERS would not get an exemption…In India, they help everyone, regardless of shared religion or not.
We are looking at a serious fight here…we are close to losing one of our greatest freedoms: Freedom of Religion!
Now which candidate will continue to attack the Catholic church…and which candidate will leave us be?
Ask yourselves this.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, SeekNFind,
Not quite.
There are many Catholic issues - but championing the rights of the unborn tops them all. The 1995 encyclical of JPII “Evangelium Vitae” was clear. We basically have no rights - and no issues - if innocent life is destroyed for convenience. Here is a link: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
This thread acknowledges that both major candidates are flawed. The issue is not do we pick from good and evil, but how can we distinguish between the evils that confront us. In my view, Obama is the only who has consistently and without hessitation or reservation, championed, promoted and funded abortion both in this country and in other courties as part of our foreign policy. nationalrighttolifenews.org/NewsOnline/Winter2012/UNPage25.html
Romney supports abortion in cases of rape and incest. So, he is hardly perfect either.
But, I think the issue - or, at least part of it, can be quantified. Under Obama’s policies, millions of abortions have taken place. Our tax dollars have been used to support these policies. In my opinon, Obama truly believes in abortion - and he is fortunate that his mother did not think that way. Obama only selects those for confirmation as a federal judge who hold his pro-abortion views. Note his two appointments to the US Supreme Court. There is a good chance that within the next 4 years there will be 2 or possibly 3 judges to be appointed. If Obama wins there is no doubt that Court will be a majority of pro-abortion judges.
Romney’s background and promise appears better when contrasted with Obama’s actual performance. Romney is the lesser of two evils.
God bless
Not quite.
There are many Catholic issues - but championing the rights of the unborn tops them all. The 1995 encyclical of JPII “Evangelium Vitae” was clear. We basically have no rights - and no issues - if innocent life is destroyed for convenience. Here is a link: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
This thread acknowledges that both major candidates are flawed. The issue is not do we pick from good and evil, but how can we distinguish between the evils that confront us. In my view, Obama is the only who has consistently and without hessitation or reservation, championed, promoted and funded abortion both in this country and in other courties as part of our foreign policy. nationalrighttolifenews.org/NewsOnline/Winter2012/UNPage25.html
Romney supports abortion in cases of rape and incest. So, he is hardly perfect either.
But, I think the issue - or, at least part of it, can be quantified. Under Obama’s policies, millions of abortions have taken place. Our tax dollars have been used to support these policies. In my opinon, Obama truly believes in abortion - and he is fortunate that his mother did not think that way. Obama only selects those for confirmation as a federal judge who hold his pro-abortion views. Note his two appointments to the US Supreme Court. There is a good chance that within the next 4 years there will be 2 or possibly 3 judges to be appointed. If Obama wins there is no doubt that Court will be a majority of pro-abortion judges.
Romney’s background and promise appears better when contrasted with Obama’s actual performance. Romney is the lesser of two evils.
God bless
P
ProVobis
Guest
Pet marriages, transexual marriages, gay marriages, blah. My own personal feel on this is to take government out of the marriage business altogether. There are plenty of contractural laws already in place. All they have to do is get rid of it on tax returns and let the Churches do their own marriages. That will take away much of the confusion surrounding remarrieds receiving communion, etc.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
The way I understand it, by not voting or by voting 3rd party or write-in, if the pro-abortion candidate is then elected, we have assisted in a grave evil and have sinned in our omission of voting for the most pro-life candidate running. Not the perfect candidate, but the MOST pro-life candidate. In this case, that would be Mitt Romney. His only 2 exceptions are rape and incest, and we know that most people in the country also support those 2 exceptions. We can’t expect him to be Catholic on this issue, especially when many Catholics not only support those 2 exceptions but support abortion and contraception!
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Epan,
You have presented a lot of material here… but, let me just address two items:
I am not entirely sure what it is about voting on one issue that you consider to be a ‘sorry state’. Ultimately, most candidates ebrace a host of positions - some you may agree with while others you don’t. Since this thread is about the ‘less of two evils’ I understand that a careful analysis must be conducted to determine where everyone stands on the various issues confronting our country today. I think the majority of voters actually do latch onto ‘one issue’ as what is the most important to them - and let the other issues sort themselves out. It really isn’t a cafeteria - more like a plate lunch with only two different ‘plates’ on the menu. Maybe I am wrong on this - but, this is the way I have prepared for each federal and state and local election I have participated in for the past 45 years beginning with Nixon vs Humphrey. So, tell me - when you go to vote, how do you keep the multiple issues balanced when voting for a single candidate?
In my opinion, if we can not guarantee that unborn children will not be butchered in the womb, then every other right is on shakey ground. You simply have no rights if you are murdered. So, if this is the ‘single issue’ you are lamenting, I think you will agree that there is no more important issue out there. It won’t matter about the environment or the economy or health care or farming or anything else if we kill off our future citizens before they have a chance to be born. Once the protection of innocent life is established, then we can talk about these other issues.
I have read the Republican Platform…and I guess I missed that part about 30-40% overpaymet to federal employees. Here is the link: scribd.com/fullscreen/104221532?access_key=key-ladwr00gpqwusu37wp1 Would you kindly point out where this item is?
Looking forward to hearing from you.
God bless
You have presented a lot of material here… but, let me just address two items:
I am not entirely sure what it is about voting on one issue that you consider to be a ‘sorry state’. Ultimately, most candidates ebrace a host of positions - some you may agree with while others you don’t. Since this thread is about the ‘less of two evils’ I understand that a careful analysis must be conducted to determine where everyone stands on the various issues confronting our country today. I think the majority of voters actually do latch onto ‘one issue’ as what is the most important to them - and let the other issues sort themselves out. It really isn’t a cafeteria - more like a plate lunch with only two different ‘plates’ on the menu. Maybe I am wrong on this - but, this is the way I have prepared for each federal and state and local election I have participated in for the past 45 years beginning with Nixon vs Humphrey. So, tell me - when you go to vote, how do you keep the multiple issues balanced when voting for a single candidate?
In my opinion, if we can not guarantee that unborn children will not be butchered in the womb, then every other right is on shakey ground. You simply have no rights if you are murdered. So, if this is the ‘single issue’ you are lamenting, I think you will agree that there is no more important issue out there. It won’t matter about the environment or the economy or health care or farming or anything else if we kill off our future citizens before they have a chance to be born. Once the protection of innocent life is established, then we can talk about these other issues.
I have read the Republican Platform…and I guess I missed that part about 30-40% overpaymet to federal employees. Here is the link: scribd.com/fullscreen/104221532?access_key=key-ladwr00gpqwusu37wp1 Would you kindly point out where this item is?
Looking forward to hearing from you.
God bless
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
A valid suggestion, but one doesn’t have to vote for a third party; one can simply not vote for President. The Church says that we have an obligation to vote, but doesn’t specify the offices for which one must vote.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, TheRealJuliane,
This is not how I understand the situation.
In my opinion, a person who rejects the two main candidates and has a genuine conviction that another candidate is his choice - then such a vote would be a morally acceptable position. And, yes, such a vote would siphon off a vote from the major candidates - and may actually allow Obama to win. But, people vote for moral reasons that neither you and I would agree with. We will all be judged on how we vote when we meet God.
Converesly, someone who rejects both men and either fails to vote or just blindly pulls the lever is not acting in a moral way - and I would see that as contributing to evil.
God bless
This is not how I understand the situation.
In my opinion, a person who rejects the two main candidates and has a genuine conviction that another candidate is his choice - then such a vote would be a morally acceptable position. And, yes, such a vote would siphon off a vote from the major candidates - and may actually allow Obama to win. But, people vote for moral reasons that neither you and I would agree with. We will all be judged on how we vote when we meet God.
Converesly, someone who rejects both men and either fails to vote or just blindly pulls the lever is not acting in a moral way - and I would see that as contributing to evil.
God bless
P
ProVobis
Guest
Depends on which two evils you’re comparing. Against a third-party candidate, the third party candidate may be the lesser of two evils.
Primum minima de malis… (roughly translated, “of evils, choose the least”) - Cicero, who greatly influenced St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, John Locke, Voltaire and others.
Would you be content if you only had two television channels to watch? Or two radio stations to choose from? Or two books which you can read? I rest my case.
J
jediliz
Guest
Gary Johnson, the 3rd party candidate, supports so called “marriage equality” and then says the government shouldn’t define marriage. Could not find anything regarding life issues on his comparison of the candidates page. I could not in good faith vote for a 3rd party candidate, especially one that can’t even state stances on the important life issues: abortion, stem cell reseach and euthanasia.
Do I need to remind people that the current occupant of the white house increased funding for EMBRYO DESTRUCTIVE research with OUR TAX $??? Research that has not produced ANY RESULTS?
Do I need to remind people that the current occupant of the white house increased funding for EMBRYO DESTRUCTIVE research with OUR TAX $??? Research that has not produced ANY RESULTS?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Then check out Virgil Goode. We got two months.
goodeforpresident2012.com/compare-the-candidates.html
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Rich Olszewski,
You’re right. It does not specify the offices we can vote for … but, it honestly can not end there. The Church clearly tells us that we have an obligation to repudiate evil, the Chruch clearly tells us that we must work to make the destruction of innocent life a priorty - above all other issues, and the Church tells we are to do good and avoid evil.
I honestly do not understand how a Catholic can imply that going to the polls and NOT VOTING is an acceptable practice. Without intending to offend anyone - this reminds me of how the Pharisees were able to ‘develop’ various parts of the Law to suit their own ends.
The biggest single threat to unborn life sits in the Oval Office today. Please tell me how you appear to advise people that their petty differences with the individual candidates trumps the obligation we have to vote Obama out of office. No personal failiure of Romney has been put on this list that overshadows Obama’s policies and political appointments that have lead to the deaths of millions of unborn children in this country and around the world as a part of US foreign policy. Now, if you know of failures from Romney that are worse then Obam’s, please tell me about them - and provide a link…
Looking forward to hearing from you.
God bless
You’re right. It does not specify the offices we can vote for … but, it honestly can not end there. The Church clearly tells us that we have an obligation to repudiate evil, the Chruch clearly tells us that we must work to make the destruction of innocent life a priorty - above all other issues, and the Church tells we are to do good and avoid evil.
I honestly do not understand how a Catholic can imply that going to the polls and NOT VOTING is an acceptable practice. Without intending to offend anyone - this reminds me of how the Pharisees were able to ‘develop’ various parts of the Law to suit their own ends.
The biggest single threat to unborn life sits in the Oval Office today. Please tell me how you appear to advise people that their petty differences with the individual candidates trumps the obligation we have to vote Obama out of office. No personal failiure of Romney has been put on this list that overshadows Obama’s policies and political appointments that have lead to the deaths of millions of unborn children in this country and around the world as a part of US foreign policy. Now, if you know of failures from Romney that are worse then Obam’s, please tell me about them - and provide a link…
Looking forward to hearing from you.
God bless
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
I’m sorry that you don’t understand, but the Church does not oblige us to vote for any specific candidate nor for or against any specific policy.
And with him gone, abortion comes to an end? Don’t think so.
Not a Church imposed obligation, but your own political obligation - which is fine. Do vote for Romney if you like.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, ProVobis,
Actually, I thiink your case was pretty tired before you presented it - resting is probably the most humane action…
We have a truly unique democracy - we do not have a chance to evaluate every candidate who wants to run for Office and vote for the one who we think is best from this large pool of candidates. Rather, a two states (Iowa and New Hampshire) pretty much decide who they like and those who are not chosen quickly find no source of money coming in - and their plans for running for President evaporate.
I have previously identified that voting for a 3rd Party Candidate can be a moral decision. So, maybe the thread should be re-title as “…the least evil…” as opposed to “…lesser of two evils…” But, I am just responding to the thread’s posts - and that is where I am…
Fortunately, I have more then 2 TV channels, books and dishes. But, it is always best to address the issue as it really exists - and wishing something else is a waste of the 69 days we have left before this vote on Nov 6. Throughout the history of the US there have been mainly 2 major political parties, with the occasional entry of a 3rd Party when there was significant dissatisfaction with either or both of the existing parties. Maybe the 'Bull Moose" Party was the most colorful… and the 'Dixicrates" were the most ignoble. But, what they all share in commohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)
n is that a majority of the US electorate is not usuakkt willing to support any outside group. In the case of the 2 major candidates the issue is simply if Obama continues in Office, there will be millions more unborn children murdered - and that is for sure. If Romney is elected, there is a very strong chance that Obama’s pro-abortion policies will be voided and that promoting abortion will no longer be a part of US foreign policy. Our current President represents a significant threat to the unborn - and, even though it has been a long time since then - at one point we were all in that classification.
God bless
Actually, I thiink your case was pretty tired before you presented it - resting is probably the most humane action…
We have a truly unique democracy - we do not have a chance to evaluate every candidate who wants to run for Office and vote for the one who we think is best from this large pool of candidates. Rather, a two states (Iowa and New Hampshire) pretty much decide who they like and those who are not chosen quickly find no source of money coming in - and their plans for running for President evaporate.
I have previously identified that voting for a 3rd Party Candidate can be a moral decision. So, maybe the thread should be re-title as “…the least evil…” as opposed to “…lesser of two evils…” But, I am just responding to the thread’s posts - and that is where I am…
Fortunately, I have more then 2 TV channels, books and dishes. But, it is always best to address the issue as it really exists - and wishing something else is a waste of the 69 days we have left before this vote on Nov 6. Throughout the history of the US there have been mainly 2 major political parties, with the occasional entry of a 3rd Party when there was significant dissatisfaction with either or both of the existing parties. Maybe the 'Bull Moose" Party was the most colorful… and the 'Dixicrates" were the most ignoble. But, what they all share in commohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)
n is that a majority of the US electorate is not usuakkt willing to support any outside group. In the case of the 2 major candidates the issue is simply if Obama continues in Office, there will be millions more unborn children murdered - and that is for sure. If Romney is elected, there is a very strong chance that Obama’s pro-abortion policies will be voided and that promoting abortion will no longer be a part of US foreign policy. Our current President represents a significant threat to the unborn - and, even though it has been a long time since then - at one point we were all in that classification.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Rich Olszewski,
I don’t mind you quoting me - just don’t gut the argument to erect a straw man.
Let’s keep it simple and just respond to this:
The Church clearly tells us that we have an obligation to repudiate evil, the Chruch clearly tells us that we must work to make the destruction of innocent life a priorty - above all other issues, and the Church tells we are to do good and avoid evil.
So, with these principles in place, how is the Church NOT telling you that there is a positive obligation to vote in a meaningful way that is morally sound?
Just going to the polls and NOT voting does not qualify. Voting for ‘Mickey Mouse’ as a write-in is like the first case in that one has thrown their one vote away - the one chance there was to make a difference. The people of pre-WWII Germany only had one chance to vote for or against Hitler. After Hitler was elected these same people did not vote again during WWII. Some missed opportunites have more consequences then we think.
God bless
I don’t mind you quoting me - just don’t gut the argument to erect a straw man.
Let’s keep it simple and just respond to this:
The Church clearly tells us that we have an obligation to repudiate evil, the Chruch clearly tells us that we must work to make the destruction of innocent life a priorty - above all other issues, and the Church tells we are to do good and avoid evil.
So, with these principles in place, how is the Church NOT telling you that there is a positive obligation to vote in a meaningful way that is morally sound?
Just going to the polls and NOT voting does not qualify. Voting for ‘Mickey Mouse’ as a write-in is like the first case in that one has thrown their one vote away - the one chance there was to make a difference. The people of pre-WWII Germany only had one chance to vote for or against Hitler. After Hitler was elected these same people did not vote again during WWII. Some missed opportunites have more consequences then we think.
God bless
- Status