Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: PenitentWoman on July 15, 2012, 08:16:40 PM
-
I was thinking about another post where it was stated that women should be involved in government. Do you believe that this extends to voting?
Since women CAN vote here in the US, should they?
Please be honest, but be nice. I am really curious!
-
SHOULDN'T not should.
Oh and what I meant by "be nice" is be charitable to your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ if there are varying opinions.
I personally won't be offended by the answer because I'm not the greatest/most informed citizen anyway, sadly.
-
Until I hear for sure that voting doesn't matter in this country, I feel that at this point, all of us have an obligation to vote. We need to show that we're paying attention, and the more of us that vote, the better.
That being said, I do think that the vote for women was just one of many things that led to division in the home.
I always make sure that my H and I are on the same page with who and what we're voting for ... I don't vote against him.
-
I say no. Most women let their emotions override their reason. Women are more easily duped by politicians' BS. Men are usually better at cutting through the bull and making a reasoned logical decision.
Honestly, I think the whole "one person, one vote" idea is garbage. Most people, imho, are too ill-informed, ignorant or plain stupid to vote. Just look at how many people were taken in by Obamao's rhetoric about Hope and Change.
There should be some sort of test to be able to vote. If you show up to vote wearing a Lady Ga-Ga shirt or with your pants sagged halfway to your knees, sorry; you are not allowed to decide where this country goes.
-
There's more than one way to answer this question.
~Voting is about power. Women shouldn't have too much, because it undermines patriarchy. I think that really gets to the heart of your question.
~Voting is retarded; they're just pretending to listen to you :jester:
~Democracy is a revolutionary idea in the west and that revolution has not gone well. So, I'm gonna say, I think we'd be better off going back to what we had before. In other words, I wouldn't call this "progress." Or maybe I should say, progress doesn't equal good.
-
:jester:
-
I'm thinking back to a sociology prof I had who was an uber feminist. He would kill me if he knew I even asked this. :scared2:
-
I'm thinking back to a sociology prof I had who was an uber feminist. He would kill me if he knew I even asked this. :scared2:
Sounds like a man who understood his job. Although, his style might have left something to be desired.
-
There have been other threads about this, if you feel like searching.
-
men shouldnt vote either
ideal govent is catholic monarchy
guarantee catholic primacy in our country
we could be CKA
Catholic Kingdom of America
-
There have been other threads about this, if you feel like searching.
Sorry, Graham.I should have done that first.
-
As Roland Deschain pointed out, women are generally too emotional & easily influenced by the agitprop shown on television. It doesn't really matter anyhow, voting is an exercise in futility. As Stalin said, those who vote decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything. Voting in the U.S., or indeed just about any country in the world at this point is rather like deciding if you'd rather be shot or given cyanide. The one thing that isn't allowed is to choose not to be murdered at all. International Jєωry controls both parties. Bongo is an obvious communist, but Romney would be very little better. He knows full well what would happen should he decide to dare defy the orders that he's been given (in the event of him being "elected" that is). He'd end up like Kennedy. No worries of that though. He, like the others, republicans & democrats, has been a good little toady all of his life, & will most probably continue to be one until the end.
-
Yes, of course women should vote; we all have an obligation to vote where possible. Suspecting that it's all rigged anyway doesn't remove that obligation.
From SSPX.org, "Catholic Voting Guide":
...Pope Pius XII was even more explicit two years later, again when
speaking to the parish priests of Rome. He explained that in the precise
circuмstances of the time it was an obligation under pain of mortal sin
for all the faithful to use their vote, and this even for women. Although
it is certainly true that in the traditional conception of democracy it is
only the heads of families who vote, it is perfectly permissible for women
to use the right of vote when it is granted, and in fact it becomes an
obligation to do so when the common good depends upon all Catholics
using their vote correctly.
Here is the text of March 10, 1948:
In the present circuмstances, it is a strict obligation for all those who
have the right to vote, men and women, to take part in the elections.
Whoever abstains from doing so, in particular by indolence or weakness,
commits a sin grave in itself, a mortal fault. Each one must follow the
dictate of his own conscience. However, it is obvious that the voice of
conscience imposes on every Catholic to give his vote to the candidates who
offer truly sufficient guarantees for the protection of the rights of God and
of souls, for the true good of individuals, families and of society, according
to the love of God and Catholic moral teaching.
Catholic Voting Guide (http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/catholic_voting_guide.pdf)
-
I say no. Most women let their emotions override their reason. Women are more easily duped by politicians' BS. Men are usually better at cutting through the bull and making a reasoned logical decision.
Honestly, I think the whole "one person, one vote" idea is garbage. Most people, imho, are too ill-informed, ignorant or plain stupid to vote. Just look at how many people were taken in by Obamao's rhetoric about Hope and Change.
There should be some sort of test to be able to vote. If you show up to vote wearing a Lady Ga-Ga shirt or with your pants sagged halfway to your knees, sorry; you are not allowed to decide where this country goes.
Fortunately 'one man one vote' makes little difference in our Republic. Many is the time one candidate won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. We the people have never chosen our leaders. We are given the choice between people that someone else chose to present to us as candidates, and even if we coose to vote for them it really only makes a difference if people in a 'swing state' also vote for that candidate.
-
In The Dawn of All by Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson, which envisages an alternative scenario to his Lord of the World, a Catholic state comes about because women were given the vote!
It's science fiction of course, but I found that an intriguing detail.
-
The present system has to be consigned to the fire so I'm not clear who the women are obliged to vote for.
-
men shouldnt vote either
ideal govent is catholic monarchy
:cheers:
-
"Should women be allowed to vote?" A better question is "should anyone be allowed to vote?"
-
Antony,
I take it you, like Captain McQuigg, are a Monarchist. I know that I tend to lean that way. Could you elaborate on your comment?
-
BTW, Dante Alighieri's "Divine Comedy", "Convivio" and "de Monarchia" all speak on this subject matter. You can get the "Convivio" and "Monarchia" on-line. Here are the links:
http://dante.ilt.columbia.edu/books/convivi/convivio.html
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2196&chapter=203184&layout=html&Itemid=27
-
Antony,
I take it you, like Captain McQuigg, are a Monarchist. I know that I tend to lean that way. Could you elaborate on your comment?
Well, as far as being a monarchist, that I am. Could I elaborate on it? Well, yes. But I am afraid you won't get much out of it. But I will write some ideas for you that you can take or leave. They will probaly be all over the place.
First off, look at the people who vote in this country. Most of them are uneducated in the school of reality. Most people get all of their info from the tv, internet, liberal press, etc. It is a rare thing for the American populice to have an original idea that did not come from the media in one way or another. For an example of this, look who got elected in the last election. Not that McCain was much better.
As far as democracy in general, I think it is a joke. I guess this is the same as my first point, as people who vote are not all on the same page. There are those who are in accordance with reality and will vote accordingly if there is a proper canidate. And then there are those who are not in reality and will vote whatever way their passions lead them.
What you need is a monarch ( a monarch who is just and fair and will implement the right sort of governing system) so that he can make decisions in accordance with what Our Lord Jesus Christ would want. If we had a monarch like this, we would live in a just society with the proper order of things, starting with the spiritual and then leading down to the natural. If this just king had opposition( such as people voting for this, that and the other thing) then he would be limited by what he could legislate and then carry out.
As we can now see, people need to be led. People by their very nature are fallen and most of mankind is not living in accordance with the will of God. Therefore, we get societies like America where we murder our children daily by abortion. The king would work with the Pope, (of course the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff on earth and has no superior) and one would run the spiritual and the other would run the temporal. And of course, they would do this not under the hindrance of the seperation of Church and State.
Well, I didn't really exhaust the case for monarchy, but I tried my best. God bless.
-
Sorry, I dont know how the above happened.
-
Antony,
That's where I come from as well. When there was a Holy Roman Emperor, that basically accomplished the same thing--the temporal and the spiritual. And, of course, holy Catholic kings are of prime importance. BTW, there is a better link for the "Convivio" for those interested--just in case the other one doesn't come out well for reading.
http://www.naderlibrary.com/cult.danteconvivio.htm
It looks like this link may also offer "de Monarchia". Very fine!
-
Sorry, I dont know how the above happened.
No worries. Thanks! :reading:
-
Catholic Monarchy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0cRp_LxgYE
-
Adesto has already answered the original question:
In the present circuмstances, it is a strict obligation for all those who
have the right to vote, men and women, to take part in the elections.
Yes, ideally, we should be living under a Catholic monarchy. But until this happens, we are obligated, both men and women, to use our power of vote to choose the 'most Catholic' candidate, law, etc. of the choices given us.
-
I'm thinking back to a sociology prof I had who was an uber feminist. He would kill me if he knew I even asked this. :scared2:
This is the problem we have here in this culture.....
So-called "men" in our Academic halls of influence considering themselves "feminists" and controlling the thought process of our younger generation.
I pray for the whole system to collapse someday.
-
I'm thinking back to a sociology prof I had who was an uber feminist. He would kill me if he knew I even asked this. :scared2:
This is the problem we have here in this culture.....
So-called "men" in our Academic halls of influence considering themselves "feminists" and controlling the thought process of our younger generation.
I pray for the whole system to collapse someday.
That seems like a prayer that will get a big fat yes.
They say, be careful what you wish for. Without the order they provide, chaos will ensue (i.e. pirates hijacking ships off the coast of africa, areas without any police protection, no way of getting the state to enforce a contract, etc).
From the book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization," I recall a story about a poet complaining, after the fall of the roman empire, that everything good was old. For example, you couldn't find a decent new sword, because the means/skill to produce it, died with the roman empire.
-
It is my understanding that Democracy originated in Ancient Greece. One of the famous greek philosophers said something like, democracy always leads to tyranny. I think that might make sense, for the following reasons.
~people are more prone to vice than virtue
~it is easier to appeal to vice, than virtue
~to win a democratic election you must appeal to the will of the people
~democracy seems to lead to vice, for what appear to be, obvious reasons
~indulging vice, leads to a loss of self control
~order must be maintained
~tyranny (i.e. "a police state") provides order
-
I subscribe to Catholic monarchism as well, and I consider democracy to be the single greatest threat to social reign of Christ the King that has ever existed. Among my favorite quotes regarding democracy, which I've posted before, comes from the Anti-Federalist papers:
That investigation into the nature and construction of the new constitution, which the conspirators have so long and zealously struggled against, has, notwithstanding their partial success, so far taken place as to ascertain the enormity of their criminality. That system which was pompously displayed as the perfection of government, proves upon examination to be the most odious system of tyranny that was ever projected, a many headed hydra of despotism, whose complicated and various evils would be infinitely more oppressive and afflictive than the scourge of any single tyrant: the objects of dominion would be tortured to gratify the calls of ambition and cravings of power, of rival despots contending for the sceptre of superiority; the devoted people would experience a distraction of misery.
-
It is my understanding that Democracy originated in Ancient Greece. One of the famous greek philosophers said something like, democracy always leads to tyranny. I think that might make sense, for the following reasons.
~people are more prone to vice than virtue
~it is easier to appeal to vice, than virtue
~to win a democratic election you must appeal to the will of the people
~democracy seems to lead to vice, for what appear to be, obvious reasons
~indulging vice, leads to a loss of self control
~order must be maintained
~tyranny (i.e. "a police state") provides order
I think the economy kind of works the same way. The labor market's "race to the bottom" and advertiser's rationalization "sex sells." Not to mention, usury.
-
The following is an interesting point of view. It was written by Otto von Habsburg
http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21561
-
Magdalena,
Thank you for posting this very interesting and thought provoking article. I believe Catholic Monarchical government is the most efficacious means (and most likely to abide by Natural Law) to achieve man's end which is, of course, Heaven.
-
May God bring back the Catholic Monarchies!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCmsKtbSouU
:king:
-
May God bring back the Catholic Monarchies!
Amen!
:pray:
-
I'm thinking back to a sociology prof I had who was an uber feminist. He would kill me if he knew I even asked this. :scared2:
This is the problem we have here in this culture.....
So-called "men" in our Academic halls of influence considering themselves "feminists" and controlling the thought process of our younger generation.
I pray for the whole system to collapse someday.
That seems like a prayer that will get a big fat yes.
They say, be careful what you wish for. Without the order they provide, chaos will ensue (i.e. pirates hijacking ships off the coast of africa, areas without any police protection, no way of getting the state to enforce a contract, etc).
From the book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization," I recall a story about a poet complaining, after the fall of the roman empire, that everything good was old. For example, you couldn't find a decent new sword, because the means/skill to produce it, died with the roman empire.
Oh, it's coming soon. When a culture begins to become throughly feminized and corrupt like ours has and like the Romans eventually did, another race or "culture" if you will, will step and take control like the Germanic Goths did because the uber-feminine, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, weak-kneed Roman ruling class didn't have the heart of fortitude to fight the barbarian anymore and the military just goes with whoever is running the show at that point.
This country as we know it is doomed, it's only an amount of time. I used to think it was a good 25 yrs away or not in my lifetime, but with everything that has transpired very quickly, especially with the Obamination in the WH who is actively doing his best with "change" and total usurpation of the foundation of the culture as we know it.
A brutal paramilitant force will hold the day with men of real backbone and moral integrity who are not really concerned with "offending" any segment of society, no matter what they feel they're entitiled to.
It took a long time for Rome to collapse, I don't believe we will have to wait as long, these things in modern times move rather quickly.
-
I'm thinking back to a sociology prof I had who was an uber feminist. He would kill me if he knew I even asked this. :scared2:
This is the problem we have here in this culture.....
So-called "men" in our Academic halls of influence considering themselves "feminists" and controlling the thought process of our younger generation.
I pray for the whole system to collapse someday.
That seems like a prayer that will get a big fat yes.
They say, be careful what you wish for. Without the order they provide, chaos will ensue (i.e. pirates hijacking ships off the coast of africa, areas without any police protection, no way of getting the state to enforce a contract, etc).
From the book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization," I recall a story about a poet complaining, after the fall of the roman empire, that everything good was old. For example, you couldn't find a decent new sword, because the means/skill to produce it, died with the roman empire.
Oh, it's coming soon. When a culture begins to become throughly feminized and corrupt like ours has and like the Romans eventually did, another race or "culture" if you will, will step and take control like the Germanic Goths did because the uber-feminine, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, weak-kneed Roman ruling class didn't have the heart of fortitude to fight the barbarian anymore and the military just goes with whoever is running the show at that point.
This country as we know it is doomed, it's only an amount of time. I used to think it was a good 25 yrs away or not in my lifetime, but with everything that has transpired very quickly, especially with the Obamination in the WH who is actively doing his best with "change" and total usurpation of the foundation of the culture as we know it.
A brutal paramilitant force will hold the day with men of real backbone and moral integrity who are not really concerned with "offending" any segment of society, no matter what they feel they're entitiled to.
It took a long time for Rome to collapse, I don't believe we will have to wait as long, these things in modern times move rather quickly.
What Alaric says above is "spot on." But that also only emphasises that in our domestic lives as Catholics we shall always live at least AS IF we are living in a proper and happy hereditary monarchy. Whatever the severe Catholic dictatorship our future will surely require, we need to keep the high moral perspective to know that HEREDITARY MONARCHY is ALWAYS our one and only IDEAL.
Which is to say: VIVA CRISTO REY!
-
Yes, absolutely yes. They are active participants in the republic.
-
I'm thinking back to a sociology prof I had who was an uber feminist. He would kill me if he knew I even asked this. :scared2:
This is the problem we have here in this culture.....
So-called "men" in our Academic halls of influence considering themselves "feminists" and controlling the thought process of our younger generation.
I pray for the whole system to collapse someday.
That seems like a prayer that will get a big fat yes.
They say, be careful what you wish for. Without the order they provide, chaos will ensue (i.e. pirates hijacking ships off the coast of africa, areas without any police protection, no way of getting the state to enforce a contract, etc).
From the book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization," I recall a story about a poet complaining, after the fall of the roman empire, that everything good was old. For example, you couldn't find a decent new sword, because the means/skill to produce it, died with the roman empire.
Oh, it's coming soon. When a culture begins to become throughly feminized and corrupt like ours has and like the Romans eventually did, another race or "culture" if you will, will step and take control like the Germanic Goths did because the uber-feminine, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, weak-kneed Roman ruling class didn't have the heart of fortitude to fight the barbarian anymore and the military just goes with whoever is running the show at that point.
This country as we know it is doomed, it's only an amount of time. I used to think it was a good 25 yrs away or not in my lifetime, but with everything that has transpired very quickly, especially with the Obamination in the WH who is actively doing his best with "change" and total usurpation of the foundation of the culture as we know it.
A brutal paramilitant force will hold the day with men of real backbone and moral integrity who are not really concerned with "offending" any segment of society, no matter what they feel they're entitiled to.
It took a long time for Rome to collapse, I don't believe we will have to wait as long, these things in modern times move rather quickly.
We've certainly got a mess on our hands. American whites seem pretty willing to take the losses. So, I don't see cινιℓ ωαr/regime changing uprising from that. Although, I don't think going from obama to romney = regime change, but you might. A lot of folks probably would. On the other hand, I don't think there's much holding this country together anymore, but brute force and money. At least, that is rapidly becoming the case. So, that's where I think the break is going to occur. Obviously, the wealth of the country is being depleted. So, the money won't last forever and that's what pays for the brute force (basically mercenary, I think. I know our military and police are aggressively brainwashed, but so are kids and everybody seems pretty skeptical. So, I don't think our rulers are winning the hearts and minds of the people. Hence, they must buy or coerce "loyalty" and that's not a good sign for regime health. :laugh1:)
I guess ruling people is always like that to a degree, but without a basically religiously and racially/ethnically homogenous group of people that seems pretty much dependent on raw power. Although, maybe there's some mutual interest that will hold people together. Still, personal ambition seems like it could mow that down.
So, catholic monarchy sounds fine, but it should only include catholics and it would help if those people looked a lot like each other and spoke the same language. Maybe a group of monarchs, under an emperor. In other words, a racially, ethnically and religiously segregated civilization.
But, I would think, whatever survives and provides order, will be in a position to rule america. Unfortunately, the opportunity to choose the nature of it, may not be so great. Sort of like after wwII, america was the only world power standing. Or after the fall of the roman empire, the church provided order, but it was in a position to. I assume it had armies and money/land and stuff, not just holy water and communion wafers.
Anyway, I'm rambling. Maybe some greater mind can set me on the right path.
*i thought the sackers of rome were able to take rome, but not able to provide the order that the old empire had. So, the empire sort of crumbled from within, which seems to be the case in america, particularly when you take a look at our poor, poor cities.
-
Hell in our politics we resemble the Third Republic in their savagery and in our cultural life we resemble Weimar Germany with filth and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. And we have the nerve to talk about "the greatness of American values." We need a confessional, no an exorcist!
-
Hell in our politics we resemble the Third Republic in their savagery and in our cultural life we resemble Weimar Germany with filth and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. And we have the nerve to talk about "the greatness of American values." We need a confessional, no an exorcist!
I think many need confessional and an exoricist
-
What Alaric says above is "spot on." But that also only emphasises that in our domestic lives as Catholics we shall always live at least AS IF we are living in a proper and happy hereditary monarchy.
Brother Francis, this brings me back to the original question. Should people not vote/participate in the process of democracy?
If so, where would someone like myself (a single woman) figure out who to vote for?
-
Before elections there generally are Voting Guides placed in the vestibule of the church. You still must study & get as much info on the 'votees' as possible, but the Voting Guides has it all there in a nutshell.
-
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/11/05/behind-obamas-victory-women-open-up-a-record-marriage-gap
Behind Obama's Victory: Women Open Up a Record Marriage Gap
Unmarried women voted for Obama by a massive 70 to 29 percent
By KENT GARBER
November 5, 2008 RSS Feed Print
Young voters and Latinos are being widely credited with helping propel Barack Obama to a commanding victory, but an even greater source of support for the president-elect appears to have come from unmarried women—an important but often overlooked demographic.
Unmarried women—a group that includes single, separated, divorced, or widowed women—voted for Obama over Republican opponent John McCain by a whopping 70 to 29 percent in yesterday's election, according to numbers released today by Women's Voices Women Vote, a nonpartisan organization.
Married women, by contrast, preferred McCain by a slim 3 percentage-point margin, 50 to 47 percent.
Unmarried women have historically voted for Democrats—in 2004, for example, 62 percent chose Sen. John Kerry over President Bush—but Obama's performance easily surpasses that of his predecessors.
Overall, 53 percent of the national electorate this year was female, according to exit poll data. Women overall voted 56 to 43 percent for Obama; men voted 49 to 48 percent for him.
-
What Alaric says above is "spot on." But that also only emphasises that in our domestic lives as Catholics we shall always live at least AS IF we are living in a proper and happy hereditary monarchy.
Brother Francis, this brings me back to the original question. Should people not vote/participate in the process of democracy?
If so, where would someone like myself (a single woman) figure out who to vote for?
Dear Penitent Woman,
In my humble but well-educated opinion, some suggestions for our Catholic ladies concerning politics might include: 1) Most of all, the ladies shouldn't themselves take politics altogether too seriously. We men ENJOY a good fight now and then and often our political quarrels include much male excess energy in need of an outlet. For laymen, applying such energies to Catholic politics is usually most admirable, but for Catholic women that would probably only be a waste of your own precious time. In other words, Catholic women need to keep a good sense of humor when it comes to scrappy male politics. VERY few of us men are anything like perfect! (Lord knows...)
2) Our Romanity includes the key idea of CITIZENSHIP. Our more intelligent Catholic women therefore do have an important contribution to make to Catholic politics, or ROMAN politics. But much the greatest contribution Catholic ladies could make to our politics would be to mightily support very SERIOUS Catholic education, including an intelligent teaching of our Roman Catholic political heritage. For example, our schools ought to teach the writings of Dante Alighieri and our Holy Bible with attention to the political implications contained in those most crucial books, alongside the innumerable other strands of wisdom contained within them. Receiving a political education well grounded in the Catholic Bible and Dante Alighieri would surely do more for our Catholic politics than anything else.
3) In politics our Catholic ladies should know that the men have not been doing their military duties very well lately, so at present nothing remotely resembling any "democratic process" either does or reasonably could be expected to exist. When we Catholic men are such an embarrassing mob of quivering lily-livered wonders, democracy can only be a distant memory from a long-vanished past. In America the last genuine democratic politics died with President Garfield back in 1881 and since then America has gone through the usual process of oligarchy, dictatorship and tyranny as outlined by Plato. To participate in the American democratic process we would have to leap into our time machines and go back and bravely fight for the Confederacy. But it's a bit late for that now...
4) Given that educated Catholics must deny the existence of contemporary political democracy, the actual purpose of our political organizations is above all to influence the military and help create a Catholic military leadership that would behave themselves like Catholic men and apply military force appropriately (VIRTUOUSLY!). We Catholics have practically never risen to power through electoral politics, but almost always through influencing and forming elites in the most important cities that in turn come to power due to their awesome spiritual and natural superiority over everyone else. For example: Augustus, Vespasian, Constantine, Charlemagne, the Ottonian Emperors, the Hohenstauffen Emperors, the Hapsburg Emperors, the Napoleonic Emperors and the more recent German Reichs. (In politics the late German Emperor Wilhelm II was a great and totally loyal Catholic Emperor in everything but name, as much earlier were the Old Testament Catholic Augustus Caesar and the private Catholic Vespasian.)
So good Catholic ladies should support our Catholic politics especially by strongly supporting high-quality Catholic education and our incomparable Roman civilization. And good Catholic manners are also a truly important example that only Catholic ladies can effectively achieve for all of us. (Our Catholic laymen need to be much too busy breaking heads to have any sufficient time for that!)
5) Voting for the lesser of unspeakable evils (to mention the names of Obama or Romney is to grab desperately for our "vomit bags") is practically irrelevant to our Catholic politics. Only Catholic ladies can have the opportunity and ability to do the hardest work to uphold our Catholic EDUCATION and CIVILIZATION and it is through making those singular contributions that you can and should undergird our Catholic politics and all the sometimes foolish male sport that forms it.
In brief, to have a Catholic politics we require Catholic NATIONS. What can our good Catholic ladies contribute to the formation of genuine real-life Catholic national leaderships? THAT is the Catholic women's politics that we are in GREAT need of in our time. Our only serious politics today must be Catholic Nationalism, which was once also referred to as "Catholic Imperialism." Our polltics are simply our Romanity applied to the public life of this dark and fallen world.
That politics can also be summed up as in essence simply another name for ROMAN IMPERIALISM. Everything good Catholic ladies can truly do to further that most noble goal is the one and only true Catholic politics for you.
Your unworthy and devoted Franciscan friend,
Brother Francis
P.S.: Vote if you wish, but we are now living in another "Dark Age of King Arthur." We live in an Age of Heroes that is now far gone beyond any possible solution by mere rigged voting machines...
-
Thorn, thanks for the idea. I've read the USCCB voting guide, which I'm guessing wouldn't be much different from a trad publication considering the limited choices.
What Alaric says above is "spot on." But that also only emphasises that in our domestic lives as Catholics we shall always live at least AS IF we are living in a proper and happy hereditary monarchy.
Brother Francis, this brings me back to the original question. Should people not vote/participate in the process of democracy?
If so, where would someone like myself (a single woman) figure out who to vote for?
Dear Penitent Woman,
In my humble but well-educated opinion, some suggestions for our Catholic ladies concerning politics might include: 1) Most of all, the ladies shouldn't themselves take politics altogether too seriously. We men ENJOY a good fight now and then and often our political quarrels include much male excess energy in need of an outlet. For laymen, applying such energies to Catholic politics is usually most admirable, but for Catholic women that would probably only be a waste of your own precious time. In other words, Catholic women need to keep a good sense of humor when it comes to scrappy male politics. VERY few of us men are anything like perfect! (Lord knows...)
2) Our Romanity includes the key idea of CITIZENSHIP. Our more intelligent Catholic women therefore do have an important contribution to make to Catholic politics, or ROMAN politics. But much the greatest contribution Catholic ladies could make to our politics would be to mightily support very SERIOUS Catholic education, including an intelligent teaching of our Roman Catholic political heritage. For example, our schools ought to teach the writings of Dante Alighieri and our Holy Bible with attention to the political implications contained in those most crucial books, alongside the innumerable other strands of wisdom contained within them. Receiving a political education well grounded in the Catholic Bible and Dante Alighieri would surely do more for our Catholic politics than anything else.
3) In politics our Catholic ladies should know that the men have not been doing their military duties very well lately, so at present nothing remotely resembling any "democratic process" either does or reasonably could be expected to exist. When we Catholic men are such an embarrassing mob of quivering lily-livered wonders, democracy can only be a distant memory from a long-vanished past. In America the last genuine democratic politics died with President Garfield back in 1881 and since then America has gone through the usual process of oligarchy, dictatorship and tyranny as outlined by Plato. To participate in the American democratic process we would have to leap into our time machines and go back and bravely fight for the Confederacy. But it's a bit late for that now...
4) Given that educated Catholics must deny the existence of contemporary political democracy, the actual purpose of our political organizations is above all to influence the military and help create a Catholic military leadership that would behave themselves like Catholic men and apply military force appropriately (VIRTUOUSLY!). We Catholics have practically never risen to power through electoral politics, but almost always through influencing and forming elites in the most important cities that in turn come to power due to their awesome spiritual and natural superiority over everyone else. For example: Augustus, Vespasian, Constantine, Charlemagne, the Ottonian Emperors, the Hohenstauffen Emperors, the Hapsburg Emperors, the Napoleonic Emperors and the more recent German Reichs. (In politics the late German Emperor Wilhelm II was a great and totally loyal Catholic Emperor in everything but name, as much earlier were the Old Testament Catholic Augustus Caesar and the private Catholic Vespasian.)
So good Catholic ladies should support our Catholic politics especially by strongly supporting high-quality Catholic education and our incomparable Roman civilization. And good Catholic manners are also a truly important example that only Catholic ladies can effectively achieve for all of us. (Our Catholic laymen need to be much too busy breaking heads to have any sufficient time for that!)
5) Voting for the lesser of unspeakable evils (to mention the names of Obama or Romney is to grab desperately for our "vomit bags") is practically irrelevant to our Catholic politics. Only Catholic ladies can have the opportunity and ability to do the hardest work to uphold our Catholic EDUCATION and CIVILIZATION and it is through making those singular contributions that you can and should undergird our Catholic politics and all the sometimes foolish male sport that forms it.
In brief, to have a Catholic politics we require Catholic NATIONS. What can our good Catholic ladies contribute to the formation of genuine real-life Catholic national leaderships? THAT is the Catholic women's politics that we are in GREAT need of in our time. Our only serious politics today must be Catholic Nationalism, which was once also referred to as "Catholic Imperialism." Our polltics are simply our Romanity applied to the public life of this dark and fallen world.
That politics can also be summed up as in essence simply another name for ROMAN IMPERIALISM. Everything good Catholic ladies can truly do to further that most noble goal is the one and only true Catholic politics for you.
Your unworthy and devoted Franciscan friend,
Brother Francis
P.S.: Vote if you wish, but we are now living in another "Dark Age of King Arthur." We live in an Age of Heroes that is now far gone beyond any possible solution by mere rigged voting machines...
Brother Francis, thank you for such an in-depth answer. Number 1 on your list is easy for me, as I tend to be apathetic towards American politics.
I enjoyed reading your ideas about women getting involved through the Catholic education system. As a product of the Catholic school system in America, I can tell you that all history and political teaching was in the context of how the RCC can assimilate and still thrive under the American government. The idea of a Catholic rise to power would most certainly have been considered, ideological nonsense. Big families and homeschooling might be the only
option for passing these things to the next generation, along with trying to live by example no matter how counter cultural that feels.
These discussions always leave me feeling very ignorant, but bless you for taking the time to answer me.
-
I say no. Most women let their emotions override their reason. Women are more easily duped by politicians' BS. Men are usually better at cutting through the bull and making a reasoned logical decision.
Honestly, I think the whole "one person, one vote" idea is garbage. Most people, imho, are too ill-informed, ignorant or plain stupid to vote. Just look at how many people were taken in by Obamao's rhetoric about Hope and Change.
There should be some sort of test to be able to vote. If you show up to vote wearing a Lady Ga-Ga shirt or with your pants sagged halfway to your knees, sorry; you are not allowed to decide where this country goes.
many women did not like Obama, take for instance Michelle Bachman......she votes, runs for office,etc...anyone really want to vote for the Neocon disaster? really? Plenty of men do
-
men shouldnt vote either
ideal govent is catholic monarchy
guarantee catholic primacy in our country
we could be CKA
Catholic Kingdom of America
ok, then, who is king? we have no nobility nor royalty to draw from......just appoint some schluch?
Also, Nicholas of Fluh and Bellermine did write that Catholics in Catholic nations could have representative Govt.....though not "we the people" democracy........just saying, electing reps not wholly anti-Catholic...
-
Adesto has already answered the original question:
In the present circuмstances, it is a strict obligation for all those who
have the right to vote, men and women, to take part in the elections.
Yes, ideally, we should be living under a Catholic monarchy. But until this happens, we are obligated, both men and women, to use our power of vote to choose the 'most Catholic' candidate, law, etc. of the choices given us.
which, for last several elections, is "neither" as both Parties are rigged and controlled......I either vote Third Party, for myself or refuse to be a part of fraud.....
-
I pray for the whole system to collapse someday.
coming, very, very soon...... :tv-disturbed:
-
VIVA CRISTO REY!
:cheers:
Gotta love those mixed White/Black/Indian Catholics in Mexico!!!! :smirk:
-
Here is Prestonia Martin's take on votes for women (http://books.google.com/books?id=NYIEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA312&dq=%22votes+for+women%22+prestonia+martin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XL7BUIa6KIrV0gGmgIHYBw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
In my view, a serious problem with permitting women to vote is that women tend to vote mainly for their own interests while men vote for both the interests of men and women. This skews the social policy drastically towards the selfish interests of women, because male politicians are afraid to pursue the male vote directly, and are unlikely to get it even if they did, because of this tendency of men to consider the interests of women.
-
Getting rid of "democracy" some day will more than take care of this "women voting" issue all byt itself.
-
Getting rid of "democracy" some day will more than take care of this "women voting" issue all byt itself.
A lot of feminist legislation was already enacted long before women could vote.
Men were already inclined to sacrifice their old rights and privileges (or have them taken by the judicial branch) long before women could vote.
Letting women vote has essentially robbed men of the ability to see their interests protected in family law.
A woman will be the one (whose son's child was murdered by the mother's new boyfriend) that is energized to do something about men's rights. (I know of such a case) Men who stand up to women are just not given a hearing, generally speaking.
We've seen often how supposedly "conservative" women will gang up on any man who challenges the feminist status quo.
-
Another issue that comes into play is the judicial system will "error on the side of caution" supposedly with civil orders this is why CPS and unscrupulous people can basically get what they want rubber stamped in family courts as far as emergency orders. The burden of proof really isn't on the person requesting the emergency order.
-
When women do vote, like any other group, they follow the herd instinct and always stick with their own kind.
-
With putting women to work after world war two, it isn't surprising that they would want the power that came along with the responsibility of working. It also isn't surprising that a sɛҳuąƖ revolution would follow and a desire to control the natural consequences of that. After all, when torn between two incompatible responsibilities (child birth and rearing vs providing) women would be tempted to want an unnatural ability "to choose."
So, on the national level, I don't think you can solve the voting problem or the sɛҳuąƖ revolution and birth control revolution, without solving the working problem. Of course, I don't think you can solve the immigration problem or the low birth rate problem, without solving the working problem. Working women seem to be pretty much a national disaster :laugh1:
-
With putting women to work after world war two, it isn't surprising that they would want the power that came along with the responsibility of working. It also isn't surprising that a sɛҳuąƖ revolution would follow and a desire to control the natural consequences of that. After all, when torn between two incompatible responsibilities (child birth and rearing vs providing) women would be tempted to want an unnatural ability "to choose."
So, on the national level, I don't think you can solve the voting problem or the sɛҳuąƖ revolution and birth control revolution, without solving the working problem. Of course, I don't think you can solve the immigration problem or the low birth rate problem, without solving the working problem. Working women seem to be pretty much a national disaster :laugh1:
Once women were put into the labor force and then sent into a nice career path where they did NOT need a man, along with access to abortion and contraception, that led to our current birthrate disaster.
But as Mr. Bush said, "Successful societies recognize the rights of women..." (even though women had no rights before 1900). :wink:
-
Simplistic, but a good primer for those unfamiliar with this discussion.
How the Rockefellers Re-Engineered Women
http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html
CONCLUSION
This consistent media drumbeat is organized brainwashing. Society has been totally subverted by the central banking cartel, using a Satanic cult, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ as its primary instrument. Most masons are unaware of the truth but the owners of the mass media certainly are.
We used to say, "as American as motherhood and apple pie." Only satanists would trash motherhood. Far from empowering women, feminism has unsexed many. It has deprived them of a secure and honored role and reduced them to sex objects and replaceable workers.
Luciferians promote rebellion because they are defying what is natural and conducive to happiness. Like their symbol, Lucifer, they wish to play God.
God's love can be seen in a woman's dedication to her husband and children. Thus the bankers must destroy it.
-
With putting women to work after world war two, it isn't surprising that they would want the power that came along with the responsibility of working. It also isn't surprising that a sɛҳuąƖ revolution would follow and a desire to control the natural consequences of that. After all, when torn between two incompatible responsibilities (child birth and rearing vs providing) women would be tempted to want an unnatural ability "to choose."
So, on the national level, I don't think you can solve the voting problem or the sɛҳuąƖ revolution and birth control revolution, without solving the working problem. Of course, I don't think you can solve the immigration problem or the low birth rate problem, without solving the working problem. Working women seem to be pretty much a national disaster :laugh1:
Once women were put into the labor force and then sent into a nice career path where they did NOT need a man, along with access to abortion and contraception, that led to our current birthrate disaster.
But as Mr. Bush said, "Successful societies recognize the rights of women..." (even though women had no rights before 1900). :wink:
Yeah, but somehow those "succcessful societies" never seem to recognize women's basic right, in a just society, to be mothers and homemakers and not be driven into the workplace, academia, politics and the military.
-
Yeah, but somehow those "succcessful societies" never seem to recognize women's basic right, in a just society, to be mothers and homemakers and not be driven into the workplace, academia, politics and the military.
Societies who give power to women over men also die the quickest.
-
Yeah, but somehow those "succcessful societies" never seem to recognize women's basic right, in a just society, to be mothers and homemakers and not be driven into the workplace, academia, politics and the military.
Societies who give power to women over men also die the quickest.
Yeah, they say there isn't a european population in the world, that isn't breeding below replacement. The people that will likely be around in the future are the ones that are the most traditional, because tradtional cultures reject this stuff. Apparently, the same goes for non-european populations too. It's basically a global trend.
-
In my view, a serious problem with permitting women to vote is that women tend to vote mainly for their own interests while men vote for both the interests of men and women. This skews the social policy drastically towards the selfish interests of women, because male politicians are afraid to pursue the male vote directly, and are unlikely to get it even if they did, because of this tendency of men to consider the interests of women.
That a very insightful statement I think. It reminds me of Genesis.
-
In my view, a serious problem with permitting women to vote is that women tend to vote mainly for their own interests while men vote for both the interests of men and women. This skews the social policy drastically towards the selfish interests of women, because male politicians are afraid to pursue the male vote directly, and are unlikely to get it even if they did, because of this tendency of men to consider the interests of women.
That a very insightful statement I think. It reminds me of Genesis.
I can't really claim credit for it, it's an idea that's been circulating.
-
women should not be allowed to vote. the role of a woman in the proper context is to help in taking care of her family and also in assisting in bringing the family home to heaven. the heresy of democracy allows women rights which are man-made, satanic constructs.
-
No, only male property owners should vote. Male property owners who are veterans should have a vote that counts twice.