One Mad Mom’s Voting Guide for Confused Catholics

[JimG]

One Mad Mom’s Voting Guide for Confused Catholics – One Mad Mom

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Great, another “Catholics can’t vote for Biden” screed. Do we really need to keep having this same argument? The election is in a few days and many people have already voted.

Also, I don’t know or care who “one mad mom” is, but I think it’s in poor taste that she calls Bishop Barron an “idiot.”

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Just how stup - I mean “confused” do all these bloggers think Catholics are?

I don’t need this much “help” voting, I’m not 5 years old.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Just how stup - I mean “confused” do all these bloggers think Catholics are?

Given that she seems to think Bishop Barron with his doctorate and fluency in six languages is “an idiot”, I assume she thinks the rest of us are truly dumb as a bag of hammers.

 

[JulianN]

This only adds to the confusion – she leads with the blatantly false statement that Catholics cannot vote for Biden. Not sure how this is supposed to clarify anything for anyone.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The part about how Biden has probably “driven his kids to drugs” is appalling. Especially when you consider that his most troubled son was seriously injured in the auto wreck that killed his mom and baby sister, and may well have some lingering trauma.

Beau Biden had a distinguished career as an Army JAG and later the AG of the state of Delaware before his untimely cancer death. I am not aware of any bad allegations about him at all. Ashley Biden is almost 40 and was a social worker and a nonprofit director, I’m not aware of any accusations towards her either.

 

[Motherwit]

Not really a blog worthy of Catholic News status.

 

[pnewton]

Great, another “Catholics can’t vote for Biden” screed

CAF is now mostly political ads, or links to them.

 

[upant]

Just how stup - I mean “confused” do all these bloggers think Catholics are?

I don’t know if they are wrong when one sees so many intrinsic evils being supported by Catholics

she leads with the blatantly false statement that Catholics cannot vote for Biden

What proportionate reason can you have that allows one to support Biden and ignore his intrinsic evil policies of abortion, euthanasia, SSM, attack on the little sisters of the poor, etc

 

[JulianN]

What proportionate reason can you have that allows one to support Biden and ignore his intrinsic evil policies of abortion, euthanasia, SSM, attack on the little sisters of the poor, etc

If the republic is destroyed, none of these can even be addressed. And I believe Biden’s opponent is intent on the destruction of our republic’s inherent systems.

 

[upant]

If the republic is destroyed, none of these can even be addressed.

The Democrats are the ones destroying the republic, look to the embattled cities. The governors are allowing the breakdown of law and order

How one governs isn’t an intrinsic evil

 

[Ender]

If the republic is destroyed, none of these can even be addressed. And I believe Biden’s opponent is intent on the destruction of our republic’s inherent systems.

There aren’t many concerns that are comparable to the evil of abortion, but the concern you raise here might be one of them. What is less clear is whether the threat comes from the right or the left.

One of the key features of our electoral system is the electoral college, and while (the generic) you might not appreciate it, eliminating it would fundamentally alter our entire system. If an election was based solely on a national total, the smaller states would be completely ignored. The city of Indianapolis has the same population as the state of North Dakota; Los Angeles has more people than Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota combined. So: which party is trying to circumvent the electoral college?

The courts are the third branch of government, headed by the Supreme Court. Which party is thinking of adding more seats to that court specifically to overturn the existing justices, and placing justices who will hand down the desired political opinions?

The filibuster in the Senate has existed pretty much since our founding. It is a maddening rule in that it makes it amazingly difficult to pass legislation that is not supported by both parties, but it has provided a valuable balance to keep the country from swinging wildly from one path to another depending on election results. Which party is discussing eliminating the filibuster?

As for the Senate itself, there is now a reasonable balance between the two parties, so control of the Senate, like that of the House, switches parties every few elections. Which party is contemplating adding two more states for the sole purpose of giving themselves four more seats in the Senate and tilting that balance more strongly toward themselves?

I think I agree with you that some of our fundamental systems are being threatened, but we fundamentally differ on the source of that threat.

 

[JulianN]

And this is why the Church allows each person to vote according to his or her conscience.
I believe 45 is destroying the republic, and so shall vote accordingly.

 

[upant]

And this is why the Church allows each person to vote according to his or her conscience.

No it prioritized abortion for a reason and when forming one’s conscience we must take this priority into the decision and have a proportionate reason to overcome it.

Destroying the republic is subjective, 600,000 dead babies isn’t

 

[JulianN]

Destroying the republic is subjective, 600,000 dead babies isn’t

Since abortion rates historically go down more sharply when Democrats are in office, that does in fact play into my voting decision, yes.

 

[upant]

Since abortion rates historically go down more sharply when Democrats are in office, that does in fact play into my voting decision, yes.

When he codifies it into law so that it is legal until birth in each state and has the taxpayer pay for it, it will reverse the trend and go up

 

[upant]

Must never abandon the moral requirement…

The bishops prioritized abortion for a reason

1. Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and “the art of the possible.” At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. For example, St. John Paul II taught that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, “limiting the harm done by such a law” and lessening its negative impact as much as possible (Evangelium Vitae, no. 73). Such incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice. However, Catholics must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death

 

[JulianN]

When he codifies it into law so that it is legal until birth in each state and has the taxpayer pay for it, it will reverse the trend and go up

And I disagree. Hence the reason the Church leaves the decision for voting to the individual’s conscience.

 

[Ender]

Must never abandon the moral requirement…

The bishops prioritized abortion for a reason

I believe that JulianN’s prioritizing the existence of the Republic over the temporary setback in the fight against abortion would be justified if there was any reasonable argument to be made that Trump actually posed such a threat. The better objection would be to point to the ludicrousness of such a belief and the utter lack of any evidence to support it. It is not irrational to oppose someone who intends to blow up the world. What is irrational is convince yourself that such a threat is real when there is literally nothing that supports it.

 

[JimG]

Hence the reason the Church leaves the decision for voting to the individual’s conscience.

Every human decision is a matter for the individual conscience. That does not change the fact that there are intrinsic evils and that abortion is one of them