Author Topic: Voting (Read 4594 times)

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #15 on:** July 12, 2013, 11:11:37 AM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: JohnGrey
Quote from: Ambrose
It is sinful to not vote. It is a moral obligation.

That's ludicrous. Catholics are under no obligation to engage in civil exercise designed to perpetuate a system that is inherently hostile to them and antithetical to the Social Reign of Christ the King. In fact, in those situations where a system of government is unlawful or tyrannical, it can be just as incuмbent on Catholics not to participate.

The obligation to vote is taught by Popes and the bishops. It is explained by the theologians.

The obligation exists only if there is a suitable Catholic candidate to vote for.

Ah, then it's an imaginary obligation!

JohnGrey · « **Reply #16 on:** July 12, 2013, 11:13:37 AM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: JohnGrey
Quote from: Ambrose
It is sinful to not vote. It is a moral obligation.

That's ludicrous. Catholics are under no obligation to engage in civil exercise designed to perpetuate a system that is inherently hostile to them and antithetical to the Social Reign of Christ the King. In fact, in those situations where a system of government is unlawful or tyrannical, it can be just as incuмbent on Catholics not to participate.

The obligation to vote is taught by Popes and the bishops. It is explained by the theologians.

The obligation exists only if there is a suitable Catholic candidate to vote for.

And in the case of the United States, in which the obligation of one elected to public office is to defend the Constitution, which explicitly forbids the civil establishment of the Catholic religion and the enthronement of Christ the King, how can you have a Catholic take up such office in good faith? Either he does so earnestly, in which case he violates his obligation to support and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or he takes office as liar.

TKGS · « **Reply #17 on:** July 12, 2013, 11:21:06 AM »

I believe that casting an informed vote is a civic and religious duty. The problem today is that there is probably not more than 5% of the vote that is informed. Many people will, I think, be cast into hell for, at least partly, casting votes for evil candidates and/or issues (where this applies). I don't, however, believe it is necessarily sinful not to vote especially in such times when the final vote total is virtually meaningless or when there is no acceptable candidate for office.

Take, for example, the U.S. presidential election in 2012. There was no candidate on the ballot or legal write-in candidate in my State (write in votes are not counted unless the write-in is pre-qualified by the State) who was morally acceptable. The popes have allowed the Catholic faithful to, in such circuмstances, to vote for, what we call, "the lesser of two evils", but in no way have the popes ever mandated that we do so.

Even Ron Paul, being the best of all possible candidates in the primary elections, isn't, according to Catholic moral standards, he being a Freemason, an acceptable candidate. No Catholic had the moral duty to cast a vote in the 2013 presidential election.

Ambrose · « **Reply #18 on:** July 12, 2013, 11:25:09 AM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: JohnGrey
Quote from: Ambrose
It is sinful to not vote. It is a moral obligation.

That's ludicrous. Catholics are under no obligation to engage in civil exercise designed to perpetuate a system that is inherently hostile to them and antithetical to the Social Reign of Christ the King. In fact, in those situations where a system of government is unlawful or tyrannical, it can be just as incuмbent on Catholics not to participate.

The obligation to vote is taught by Popes and the bishops. It is explained by the theologians.

Do you have the explicit teaching to back up this assertion or is this something you learned in civics class of the Catholic high school you attended?

This book will give you all of the docuмentation, from Popes, bishops, and the theologians: http://www.novusordowatch.org/cranny.pdf

In particular, read pages 55-77.

I am not by this saying that a Catholic is bound to vote for one evil candidate or the other who is equally or less evil, you are bound to vote when there is a good candidate or a referendum that can affect Faith or morals, and you could vote to block an evil law, or support a good law.

Even in the case of a less evil candidate, it would be licit to vote for him, to block the greater evil.

Ambrose · « **Reply #19 on:** July 12, 2013, 11:40:12 AM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: JohnGrey
Quote from: Ambrose
It is sinful to not vote. It is a moral obligation.

That's ludicrous. Catholics are under no obligation to engage in civil exercise designed to perpetuate a system that is inherently hostile to them and antithetical to the Social Reign of Christ the King. In fact, in those situations where a system of government is unlawful or tyrannical, it can be just as incuмbent on Catholics not to participate.

The obligation to vote is taught by Popes and the bishops. It is explained by the theologians.

The obligation exists only if there is a suitable Catholic candidate to vote for.

And in the case of the United States, in which the obligation of one elected to public office is to defend the Constitution, which explicitly forbids the civil establishment of the Catholic religion and the enthronement of Christ the King, how can you have a Catholic take up such office in good faith? Either he does so earnestly, in which case he violates his obligation to support and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or he takes office as liar.

Catholics must live there Faith wherever they find themselves in this world. Not all of us are blessed to live in Catholic lands. Many Catholics live in extremely hostile lands such as Muslim or Communist countries, others in very secular or Protestant dominated lands.

Wherever you live, however, the principles do not change.

The United States constitution has been around for about 250 years, can you find a Catholic source which supports your view that Catholics cannot hold office in the U.S.? There have been many Popes over this time period, along with hundreds of bishops over various dioceses throughout he U. S., along with countless theologians.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #20 on:** July 12, 2013, 11:50:53 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: JohnGrey
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: JohnGrey
Quote from: Ambrose
It is sinful to not vote. It is a moral obligation.

That's ludicrous. Catholics are under no obligation to engage in civil exercise designed to perpetuate a system that is inherently hostile to them and antithetical to the Social Reign of Christ the King. In fact, in those situations where a system of government is unlawful or tyrannical, it can be just as incuмbent on Catholics not to participate.

The obligation to vote is taught by Popes and the bishops. It is explained by the theologians.

Do you have the explicit teaching to back up this assertion or is this something you learned in civics class of the Catholic high school you attended?

This book will give you all of the docuмentation, from Popes, bishops, and the theologians: http://www.novusordowatch.org/cranny.pdf

In particular, read pages 55-77.

I am not by this saying that a Catholic is bound to vote for one evil candidate or the other who is equally or less evil, you are bound to vote when there is a good candidate or a referendum that can affect Faith or morals, and you could vote to block an evil law, or support a good law.

Even in the case of a less evil candidate, it would be licit to vote for him, to block the greater evil.

Did you bother to read the book, or just the quotes from the book?

Because you'll find this in Chapter II, Section 3, paragraph 2, line 1:

Quote

If the election were interpreted as the recognition of a tyrannical form of government or an unlawful one, there would be no obligation to vote. Indeed there would be an obligation of not voting.

The promotion of the common good cannot be derived from a candidate which prevents evil in the one case, yet fosters evil in the other. The common good is a function of the discharge of the Social Reign of Christ the King. Without that, integral and uncompromised, the reform of peoples and nations is impossible.

Ambrose · « **Reply #21 on:** July 12, 2013, 11:59:48 AM »

Yes, I have read the entire book several times.

You argue that we are living under a tyranny? Tyranny is defined as:

Quote

tyr·an·ny (tr-n)
n. pl. tyr·an·nies
1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: "I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" (Thomas Jefferson).
4.
a. Use of absolute power.
b. A tyrannical act.
5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.
[Middle English tyrannie, from Old French, from Late Latin tyrannia, from Greek turanni, from turannos, tyrant.]

I would hardly call the United States government a tyranny, at least not yet. Catholics are free to go to Mass, travel, educate our children at home in Catholic schools, publish, open churches, pray, and if we choose to move elsewhere.

The government is becoming more hostile over time, but hostility is not the same as tyranny.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #22 on:** July 12, 2013, 12:07:14 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Yes, I have read the entire book several times.

You argue that we are living under a tyranny? Tyranny is defined as:

Quote

tyr·an·ny (tr-n)
n. pl. tyr·an·nies
1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: "I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" (Thomas Jefferson).
4.
a. Use of absolute power.
b. A tyrannical act.
5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.
[Middle English tyrannie, from Old French, from Late Latin tyrannia, from Greek turanni, from turannos, tyrant.]

I would hardly call the United States government a tyranny, at least not yet. Catholics are free to go to Mass, travel, educate our children at home in Catholic schools, publish, open churches, pray, and if we choose to move elsewhere.

The government is becoming more hostile over time, but hostility is not the same as tyranny.

Your presumption seems to be that, because the tyranny is not overt, that is to say not explicitly recognized, that it isn't factual. We have a Chief Executive that has been shown to rule by executive fiat, prosecute unjust wars without the permission of Congress in blatant violation of Constitutional authority, to author and pass laws compelling us to engage in particular economic activities, and to exert sufficient pressure on the judiciary to abrogate our rights to due process, to self-defense, and economic self-determination. These things, you say, can happen and yet the government which engages and suborns such activity cannot be held as being tyrannical?

We also have a nation which is in its core opposed to the Social Reign of Christ the King, and institutionally forbids the divinely-intended supremacy of the Catholic faith, while statutorily permitting the organized chemical and surgical abortion of countless children, even using money extorted from us to pay for such things, and you argue that such as government is not unlawful?

The world in which you live must be a very comforting place indeed.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #23 on:** July 12, 2013, 12:21:01 PM »

Quote from: poche

The obligation to vote is related to the fourth commandment. "Honor thy Mother and Father." Included in this commandment is the obligation to obey all legitinate authority in what is legitimate. The country we live in is a republic where our vote determines who leads us and in some cases what the laws will be.
Therefore we have an obligation to participate by voting responsably.

I don't care what the post-Vatican II popes would say about this issue but I am curious how Pius IX would view the contemporary American political environment.

I do know that the post-Vatican II papacy and the clergy really do like to apple polish for whoever they think they can curry favors with.

But, like I said, I do wonder how Pius IX would view today's environment.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #24 on:** July 12, 2013, 12:23:38 PM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: JohnGrey
Quote from: Ambrose
It is sinful to not vote. It is a moral obligation.

That's ludicrous. Catholics are under no obligation to engage in civil exercise designed to perpetuate a system that is inherently hostile to them and antithetical to the Social Reign of Christ the King. In fact, in those situations where a system of government is unlawful or tyrannical, it can be just as incuмbent on Catholics not to participate.

The obligation to vote is taught by Popes and the bishops. It is explained by the theologians.

The obligation exists only if there is a suitable Catholic candidate to vote for.

And in the case of the United States, in which the obligation of one elected to public office is to defend the Constitution, which explicitly forbids the civil establishment of the Catholic religion and the enthronement of Christ the King, how can you have a Catholic take up such office in good faith? Either he does so earnestly, in which case he violates his obligation to support and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or he takes office as liar.

Yes, every year, it's about voting for the lesser of the two evils, and although it's not sinful to vote for the lesser of the two evils, we're still not obliged to do so.

claudel · « **Reply #25 on:** July 12, 2013, 01:02:17 PM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Your presumption seems to be that, because the tyranny is not overt, that is to say not explicitly recognized, that it isn't factual. We have a Chief Executive that has been shown to rule by executive fiat, prosecute unjust wars without the permission of Congress in blatant violation of Constitutional authority, to author and pass laws compelling us to engage in particular economic activities, and to exert sufficient pressure on the judiciary to abrogate our rights to due process, to self-defense, and economic self-determination. These things, you say, can happen and yet the government which engages and suborns such activity cannot be held as being tyrannical?

We also have a nation which is in its core opposed to the Social Reign of Christ the King, and institutionally forbids the divinely-intended supremacy of the Catholic faith, while statutorily permitting the organized chemical and surgical abortion of countless children, even using money extorted from us to pay for such things, and you argue that such as government is not unlawful?

The world in which you live must be a very comforting place indeed.

Dear Mr. Grey,

I would be a bit relieved were I to learn that the down-thumbing you've been getting comes from someone or several someones who are annoyed that your comments seem to soft-pedal the blatantly obvious corruption and plain evil of the American form of government. Fat chance of that, however!

Kidding aside, I'm a bit surprised, given how moderate your tone is and how apt your conclusions are, that a larger segment of the USA! USA!! USA!!! crowd hasn't joined Ambrose in shouting you down.

The late Joseph Sobran (God rest his soul), whom I had the privilege of knowing slightly in his last fifteen years, was fond of ruefully repeating an unnamed wag's painfully true wisecrack: "If voting could change anything, it would be illegal." (Here is one of several columns in which he does so.) Sobran was also fond of citing the unimpeachably accurate statistical assessment that the odds of an individual's getting killed by a bolt of lightning as he headed to the polls were greater than the odds that the individual's vote would affect the outcome—though this assessment includes the far-reaching and experientially unfounded assumption that a changed electoral outcome would effect any measurable change in governance!

I last voted in 1994, the year I turned 49. I am deeply ashamed that it took me fully the first five decades of my life to see that I was participating in a rigged and immoral game. Among the excuses I offer to myself is that I was then still a conciliarist and was thus under the influence of churchmen who had exchanged devotion to Christ Our Lord for utter subservience to the Judaeomasonic Establishment that rules the United States and indeed most of the planet. That so many self-styled Trads still cheer for the false god democracy and bow down to its many idols, not the least of which is the voting booth, appals me.

Matto · « **Reply #26 on:** July 12, 2013, 01:38:01 PM »

I haven't voted in the last few elections. I don't bother because most of the candidates are monsters, Jews, or Freemasons, and none of them support the reign of Christ the King. I have yet to hear about any candidate for any office who I could support as a truly Catholic alternative.

Frances · « **Reply #27 on:** July 12, 2013, 02:33:10 PM »

:confused1:
If there are no worthy candidates, a Catholic ought not vote. By this, I mean that one's vote would not even constitute voting for a "lesser evil," but that a vote for any constitutes sinful cooperation. Hope I am right, because I have not voted in any election since 1994. Take for example, the upcoming NYC mayoral race. At present, the choices are between a "newlywed lesbian with background of alcoholism, a Jєωιѕн pervert who thought co-eds half his age were longing to see him in his birthday suit, another Jew who was only "sorry" when he got caught using tax dollars to helicopter himself and high-end prostitutes from the city to the Hamptons in order to satisfy his lust--and lied about it--and an erst-while "conservative" who makes no protest about his opponents' moral indiscretions in order that he get a cushy job on the city payroll working for one of them after he loses, as he's done five times already!
Write-in ballots can be done if one thinks it is his "duty" to vote, but arrangements must be made 30 days in advance of the election. It's a total waste of time.
BTW, the City of NY has been granted special permission to bring back the old mechanical voting machines because it is now admitted the computerized system continually crashed during the 2012 Presidential election and that several thousand votes from Brooklyn were never counted in the election of Andrew Cuomo for governor. Many individual computers crashed resulting in long lines at polls. Many went away, being unable to wait any longer.
The entire system is a sham. Give me a benevolent monarchy any day!

Ambrose · « **Reply #28 on:** July 12, 2013, 02:43:30 PM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Quote from: Ambrose
Yes, I have read the entire book several times.

You argue that we are living under a tyranny? Tyranny is defined as:

Quote

tyr·an·ny (tr-n)
n. pl. tyr·an·nies
1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: "I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" (Thomas Jefferson).
4.
a. Use of absolute power.
b. A tyrannical act.
5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.
[Middle English tyrannie, from Old French, from Late Latin tyrannia, from Greek turanni, from turannos, tyrant.]

I would hardly call the United States government a tyranny, at least not yet. Catholics are free to go to Mass, travel, educate our children at home in Catholic schools, publish, open churches, pray, and if we choose to move elsewhere.

The government is becoming more hostile over time, but hostility is not the same as tyranny.

Your presumption seems to be that, because the tyranny is not overt, that is to say not explicitly recognized, that it isn't factual. We have a Chief Executive that has been shown to rule by executive fiat, prosecute unjust wars without the permission of Congress in blatant violation of Constitutional authority, to author and pass laws compelling us to engage in particular economic activities, and to exert sufficient pressure on the judiciary to abrogate our rights to due process, to self-defense, and economic self-determination. These things, you say, can happen and yet the government which engages and suborns such activity cannot be held as being tyrannical?

We also have a nation which is in its core opposed to the Social Reign of Christ the King, and institutionally forbids the divinely-intended supremacy of the Catholic faith, while statutorily permitting the organized chemical and surgical abortion of countless children, even using money extorted from us to pay for such things, and you argue that such as government is not unlawful?

The world in which you live must be a very comforting place indeed.

No, the world that I live in is not a comforting place!

Your presumption is that tyranny can be assumed even when it is not overt. When a president abuses his power, does that mean that Catholics must surrender their vote?

I have friends that have lived under real tyrannies and they would laugh at the assertion that the United States is tyrannical. One good friend of mine fled with his family from the Soviet Union, where Catholics were overtly oppressed to the point that they would meet secretly in cemeteries to gather and pray together on consecrated ground.

Regarding abortion, yes it is gravely evil, but I fail to follow your logic. I am not saying we should vote for evil candidates, rather good candidates who will uphold the natural law and the rights of the Church.

The United States Constitution and government was never Catholic to begin with, so what is your point? Catholics in America are now and have always been a minority in a Protestant dominated secular state.

The ideal is of course a government that submits itself to Christ the King, but that ideal is not always realized, as God allows things this way. Catholics must live in the world they live in, not in a pretend world. If Christ wishes to act and force nations to submit to Him, He can do that at any time.

Ambrose · « **Reply #29 on:** July 12, 2013, 02:48:57 PM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: JohnGrey
Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: JohnGrey
Quote from: Ambrose
It is sinful to not vote. It is a moral obligation.

That's ludicrous. Catholics are under no obligation to engage in civil exercise designed to perpetuate a system that is inherently hostile to them and antithetical to the Social Reign of Christ the King. In fact, in those situations where a system of government is unlawful or tyrannical, it can be just as incuмbent on Catholics not to participate.

The obligation to vote is taught by Popes and the bishops. It is explained by the theologians.

The obligation exists only if there is a suitable Catholic candidate to vote for.

And in the case of the United States, in which the obligation of one elected to public office is to defend the Constitution, which explicitly forbids the civil establishment of the Catholic religion and the enthronement of Christ the King, how can you have a Catholic take up such office in good faith? Either he does so earnestly, in which case he violates his obligation to support and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or he takes office as liar.

Yes, every year, it's about voting for the lesser of the two evils, and although it's not sinful to vote for the lesser of the two evils, we're still not obliged to do so.

Not necessarily. There are some candidates who are opposed to all abortion, evil marriage, etc., but they are not common, and only run for office in conservative states. There are also referendums that are clearly a vote for good or evil.