Your presumption is that tyranny can be assumed even when it is not overt.

To borrow terminology from the R&R crowd, the tyranny is materially overt (in fact) while not being formally overt (designated).  One does not need a coup or the establishment of a junta in order to recognize when tyranny has been fomented.  Would you agree that a government exists to protect the natural rights of its citizens?  For the purposes of this argument, I will assume you do.  First we must consider that a natural right is something which belongs to man in his inherent dignity as a human being, made in the image of God.  Philosophically, a right can be defined as something which, being exercised, renders the advantageous end associated with it.  By extension, a natural right, given in beneficence to man by Almighty God, must be such that its exercise is toward his natural end, which is the perseverance in faith unto his salvation, and achieving Beatific Vision.

In every rational measure, the government of the United States, and its founding docuмent, fail utterly in that regard.

When a president abuses his power, does that mean that Catholics must surrender their vote?

Of course I don't say that they must surrender their vote.  It is licit, however ineffectual, to engage in that civic exercise provided that at least a morally neutral candidate can be discerned.  However, you were asserting that Catholics have an obligation to vote, to legitimize a corrupt and tyrannical government, when any sane person knows that that isn't so.

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.

You and your friends apparently cannot discern licentiousness from freedom.  A government which denies the primacy of the Catholic faith, and enjoins it from civilly exercising its intended purpose in making saints of men and creating the only truth harmony found on this side of the grave, while at the same time daring to permit every vice of thought, word and action, has not freed man, merely shackled him with the latter and thrown away the key in the former.

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.

And I'm saying that such candidates can be supported with marginal scandal insofar as none of their political positions are positively contrary to natural law.  An example would be a neoconservative that is opposed to abortion but promotes contraception being pitted against a pro-abortion liberal.  A Catholic cannot be a party to either candidate, as both positively support behavior that will lead to murder.

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 Catholic Church was a minority in pagan Rome as well, and the exercise of the state religion was considered part of one's civic duty, as was participation in government which was classed as a sacred enterprise.  I can recall no occasion when Christians were permitted, much less encouraged, to offer incense to the Roman pantheon or to join the augurs sitting at the pontiff's table.  We are enjoined to peace and order within a hostile society only so far as are able to operate while not compromising in the least degree our faith or our commitment to truth.

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.  

You confused God's permissive will with His positive will.  God permits it so that a good may come out of it.  Should be then abandon ourselves to evil simply because God, in His perfect omniscience, can achieve a good despite our own failings?

For   New Jersey  .   Steve Lonegan so far is a good fit for nj for Us senate


I can't stand the"We are stronger then the storm" slogan.  It's like they are putting themselves above God.

Yo Jerzey.  With God you are stronger then the storm.  

I agree with Frances...voting is a sham

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.

God has commanded me to not vote for Freemasons under any circuмstance.

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote

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.

It is only sinful cooperation if you are supporting evil.  A Catholic who votes for the lesser evil is trying to protect the common good by minimizing an inevitable evil.  

A Catholic in this situation is voting to weaken evil, he is not supporting evil.  

It is interesting that I can get six thumbs down for stating exactly what the theologians say.  

Because you're misrepresenting the concept of double effect.  By the rationale you provide, the use of contraception should be licit if the female party explicitly states that any prospective child will be terminated.  Both are mortal sins, but the latter condemns a soul to hell without the possibility of salvation.  Catholics are enjoined from fostering evil, even at the prospect of thwarting a greater evil.  

JohnGrey said:

Of course I don't say that they must surrender their vote.  It is licit, however ineffectual, to engage in that civic exercise provided that at least a morally neutral candidate can be discerned.  However, you were asserting that Catholics have an obligation to vote, to legitimize a corrupt and tyrannical government, when any sane person knows that that isn't so.

You say it is ineffectual, but you cannot prove it is ineffectual.  Secondly, Catholics do not vote to legitimize a government, they vote as it is their duty in charity to promote a just and moral society, and to protect the rights of the Church.  You really should read the book.

JohnGrey said:

You and your friends apparently cannot discern licentiousness from freedom.  A government which denies the primacy of the Catholic faith, and enjoins it from civilly exercising its intended purpose in making saints of men and creating the only truth harmony found on this side of the grave, while at the same time daring to permit every vice of thought, word and action, has not freed man, merely shackled him with the latter and thrown away the key in the former.

I know the difference between licentiousness and freedom.  We have rights according to our nature, and rights as Catholics.  The United States does not infringe against our natural rights or our right to profess and practice our Faith.

The United States does not inhibit the freedom of the Church to operate freely in the land:  To own churches, to administer the sacraments, to visit the sick and imprisoned, to preach, to publish, to not control appointments of bishops, to establish schools, to publicly and privately work to convert others to the Faith, etc.

It does not punish Catholics for professing the Faith, even publicly.  It does not force Catholics to limit the number of children, it does not infringe upon the rights of parents to home educate their children, or to send children to Catholic schools.  The government does not force you to remain in any specific city or state, or even to remain in the country.  The government does not force anyone to sin.  

JohnGrey said:

And I'm saying that such candidates can be supported with marginal scandal insofar as none of their political positions are positively contrary to natural law.  An example would be a neoconservative that is opposed to abortion but promotes contraception being pitted against a pro-abortion liberal.  A Catholic cannot be a party to either candidate, as both positively support behavior that will lead to murder.

A Catholic is morally bound to vote for a good candidate.  If both candidates are evil, it is lawful to vote for the less evil to block the candidate of greater evil from winning.  When a Catholic does this he is not supporting evil, he is blocking a greater evil.

You really should read the book.  The theologians explain this point very well.  

JohnGrey said:

The Catholic Church was a minority in pagan Rome as well, and the exercise of the state religion was considered part of one's civic duty, as was participation in government which was classed as a sacred enterprise.  I can recall no occasion when Christians were permitted, much less encouraged, to offer incense to the Roman pantheon or to join the augurs sitting at the pontiff's table.  We are enjoined to peace and order within a hostile society only so far as are able to operate while not compromising in the least degree our faith or our commitment to truth.

The United States government is not forcing anyone to offer incense to idols.  It is not forcing Catholics to sin.  I would equate the United States constitution's treatment of the Catholic Church as very similar to the Edict Of Milan.  

In what way do you believe the United States is forcing a Catholic to sin?  In what way is the U.S. forcing a Catholic to compromise the true Faith?  

JohnGrey said

You confused God's permissive will with His positive will.  God permits it so that a good may come out of it.  Should be then abandon ourselves to evil simply because God, in His perfect omniscience, can achieve a good despite our own failings?

I am not confusing God's permissive Will with His direct Will.  I am stating that God could at any time directly take control of all nations and men, but He has not done this.  He is King, and we must submit to Him as King, and work to bring all into His Church, which will result in all recognizing Him as King.  

Until that happens, we must live in the situation He has allowed.  If we allow men of evil principles to dominate us, not only will that harm older Catholics, but the children will suffer the most, as they will be the target of the indoctrination.

If trends continue, Catholic parents may end up losing their right to educate their own children, to shield their children from perverse education, etc.  It may come to pass that men of a very evil mindset, far worse than we have already seen may come to power.  

We as adults may have to face this horror as our children will be snatched from us and indoctrinated against our will.  It has happened in real tyrannies, such as the Soviet Union, and it could happen here.  Such ideas are already taking hold in some European countries such as Sweden and Germany.

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote

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.

It is only sinful cooperation if you are supporting evil.  A Catholic who votes for the lesser evil is trying to protect the common good by minimizing an inevitable evil.  

A Catholic in this situation is voting to weaken evil, he is not supporting evil.  

It is interesting that I can get six thumbs down for stating exactly what the theologians say.  

Because you're misrepresenting the concept of double effect.  By the rationale you provide, the use of contraception should be licit if the female party explicitly states that any prospective child will be terminated.  Both are mortal sins, but the latter condemns a soul to hell without the possibility of salvation.  Catholics are enjoined from fostering evil, even at the prospect of thwarting a greater evil.  

No, that is not what I am saying!  It does not matter if you believe me, but you as a Catholic should be ready to learn from the Church's theologians:  read pp 93-96.  
http://www.novusordowatch.org/cranny.pdf