C
ConfusedLucy
Guest
That’s a shame, I would never not vote so have always been grateful for that option
- Status
S
Spyridon
Guest
Monarchy is definitely more compatible with Catholicism than Democracy.
The problem is, Monarchy is totally unrealistic in the US. It will never, ever happen.
We need to be realistic.
Have you heard of the American Solidarity Party? It’s a Catholic political third party.
Last edited:
L
lilypadrees
Guest
If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain. Voting is the way your voice is heard.
S
Spyridon
Guest
I stopped complaining about politics long ago.
I washed my hands of politics early in 2017.
Honestly, after 2016, I may never vote again.
L
lilypadrees
Guest
I’m a pro-life Catholic and have always voted Republican.
F
F_Marturana
Guest
S
Spyridon
Guest
Yeah that’s a flight of fantasy. Not feasible or possible in reality.
It’s interesting to see the tremendous faith Phil has in the Republican party though…
He seems really convinced they’re the “good guys” and Democrats the “bad guys.” I’m not buying into that, but it’s interesting to note.
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
No, because I have found a party who nominates candidates of virtue. The 2 party system is broken and done.
A
Aulef
Guest
You’re right. We have to be realistic…
Where I live, chances to reestabilish a monarchy we once had are better than in the US, where they have no tradition at all. Problem is that the royal successors are all FM…
And, no, I have never heard of this party. Maybe, if it is good enough, it could be a model here. I’ll do some research. Thank you for suggesting
Where I live, chances to reestabilish a monarchy we once had are better than in the US, where they have no tradition at all. Problem is that the royal successors are all FM…
And, no, I have never heard of this party. Maybe, if it is good enough, it could be a model here. I’ll do some research. Thank you for suggesting
Last edited:
T
Theban
Guest
I feel the same way, and up until five minutes ago I was also resolved to never vote. I still don’t believe it is going to do any good, and I have no sympathies for political zealots, but as Adam points out above we have no choice. The cathecism says clearly that we are obligated to vote, so we can’t really do anything but put on our best fake smiles and go to the ballot.
S
Spyridon
Guest
Where does it say that?
Last edited:
H
HolySpirit1
Guest
Disgusted yes, im not a democrat and never would be, but looking back at the democrat party, you could take possibly the best democrat president ever some say being John F, Kennedy, and by the way the democrat party is now, he wouldnt stand a chance to win, his own party would shut him down for plenty of reasons.
The problem with not voting is you are ensuring that things never change for the better even if the choice is between bad and worse.
unfortunately the only real progress that could be made is a surgical physical revolution , but people are just not going to come together to root out the corruption in the media and and government, as it costs giving up ones freedom and comforts.
The problem with not voting is you are ensuring that things never change for the better even if the choice is between bad and worse.
unfortunately the only real progress that could be made is a surgical physical revolution , but people are just not going to come together to root out the corruption in the media and and government, as it costs giving up ones freedom and comforts.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
As citizens, we should be guided more by our moral
convictions than by our attachment to a political party or interest group. When necessary, our
participation should help transform the party to which we belong; we should not let the party
transform us in such a way that we neglect or deny fundamental moral truths or approve
intrinsically evil acts. We are called to bring together our principles and our political choices, our
values and our votes, to help build a civilization of truth and love
Quoted because I love those words!
For Catholics in the US, our Bishops have provided us with guidance, I’d imagine those in other countries can benefit from reading the document:
36. When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the
conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not
voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate
deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other
authentic human goods
convictions than by our attachment to a political party or interest group. When necessary, our
participation should help transform the party to which we belong; we should not let the party
transform us in such a way that we neglect or deny fundamental moral truths or approve
intrinsically evil acts. We are called to bring together our principles and our political choices, our
values and our votes, to help build a civilization of truth and love
Quoted because I love those words!
For Catholics in the US, our Bishops have provided us with guidance, I’d imagine those in other countries can benefit from reading the document:
36. When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the
conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not
voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate
deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other
authentic human goods
S
StephieNorthCo
Guest
I get at least one “poll survey” phone call every day on the house phone. Sis and I take turns answering them. Depending on my mood, I will give answers that the pollsters don’t want hear but are honest answers, or answers they want to heat, mixed in with completely opposite answers just for confusion.
After the first 2 or 3 questions, it is usually quite obvious who is sponsoring any particular poll.
After the first 2 or 3 questions, it is usually quite obvious who is sponsoring any particular poll.
Abstention from voting is a wasted vote. Trump may be an offensive character, even a pig and an ignoramus…but in fairness he wasn’t a patch on Hilary.
What official positions does he actually have that could be described as “intrinsically evil”.
S
Spyridon
Guest
Lack of support to the poorest of the poor, wanting to cut the poorest of the poor off health insurance, lack of support for food stamps to the poor, lack of support for welfare to the poor.
Basically any of his policies dealing with the poor are intrinsically evil and opposed to Church teaching.
None of those are “intrinsically evil” as there can be varying ways to do these and politicians are going to always argue about which is the best way to look after the poor in society. As far as I’m aware “screwing the poor” is not one of Trump’s official policies.
T
Theban
Guest
AdamP88 posted:
S
Spyridon
Guest
Well then I will have to grit my teeth and go vote then, I suppose.
S
Spyridon
Guest
Trumps been screwing the poor since the 1970’s, and if you can’t see it or disagree with me then I can’t help you.
Nothing I say and no example I give will convince you, because you’ve convinced yourself that Trump could not possibly hold evil views or promote evil policies with regard to the poor.
- Status