Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Cato on July 12, 2013, 12:22:22 AM
-
Do you vote?
I've voted consistently since I turned 18, many years ago. So much has changed in the past few years. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriage, socialism, high taxes, abortion, women in the military, women's "rights," Obamacare, and on and on. The only thing I get out of voting is jury service summons which makes things hard for me for missing work. Even the "conservative" choices are pro choice and big government.
Are you folks still involved in the political process?
-
Last year I wrote in Ron Paul for every office that was up for election. I've decided that in the future, I will write myself in. Unless there is a candidate who is clearly good and righteous, or if there is ever a moral imperative, such as a close election in my state, where one candidate is pro-abortion and the other is not as much. Otherwise, I'm not casting votes for globalist pawns.
-
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.
-
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.
It's not illegal NOT to vote. Realistically, my vote doesn't determine anything since being a Traditional Catholic makes me a super minority. I'm in California so all our candidates, Republican or Democrat, are all Pro Choice. Other stuff on the ballot, I guess affects me somewhat. I mean if the city wants to take out another bond, I guess I could vote NO, but why do I have to participate in such a corrupt government and society?
Is it in the Catechism that voting is required as part of the Fourth Commandment?
-
Last year I wrote in Ron Paul for every office that was up for election. I've decided that in the future, I will write myself in. Unless there is a candidate who is clearly good and righteous, or if there is ever a moral imperative, such as a close election in my state, where one candidate is pro-abortion and the other is not as much. Otherwise, I'm not casting votes for globalist pawns.
Very good, Ryan. I feel much the same as you. I might seriously consider writing in Jesus Christ next time I vote.
-
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.
It's not illegal NOT to vote. Realistically, my vote doesn't determine anything since being a Traditional Catholic makes me a super minority. I'm in California so all our candidates, Republican or Democrat, are all Pro Choice. Other stuff on the ballot, I guess affects me somewhat. I mean if the city wants to take out another bond, I guess I could vote NO, but why do I have to participate in such a corrupt government and society?
Is it in the Catechism that voting is required as part of the Fourth Commandment?
I don't know if it is in the catechism. I derive this conclusion on the basis that participation can have an influence, even an indirect influence. The reason abortion is legal in this country is the betrayal of "Catholic" politicians. If we can't directly end abortion at least we could maybe mitigate its presence.
-
Last year I wrote in Ron Paul for every office that was up for election. I've decided that in the future, I will write myself in. Unless there is a candidate who is clearly good and righteous, or if there is ever a moral imperative, such as a close election in my state, where one candidate is pro-abortion and the other is not as much. Otherwise, I'm not casting votes for globalist pawns.
Very good, Ryan. I feel much the same as you. I might seriously consider writing in Jesus Christ next time I vote.
To vote for Our Lord Jesus Christ for a political office would seem to be an implicit denial of His Kingship.
-
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.
It's not illegal NOT to vote. Realistically, my vote doesn't determine anything since being a Traditional Catholic makes me a super minority. I'm in California so all our candidates, Republican or Democrat, are all Pro Choice. Other stuff on the ballot, I guess affects me somewhat. I mean if the city wants to take out another bond, I guess I could vote NO, but why do I have to participate in such a corrupt government and society?
Is it in the Catechism that voting is required as part of the Fourth Commandment?
I don't know if it is in the catechism. I derive this conclusion on the basis that participation can have an influence, even an indirect influence. The reason abortion is legal in this country is the betrayal of "Catholic" politicians. If we can't directly end abortion at least we could maybe mitigate its presence.
It is sinful to not vote. It is a moral obligation.
-
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.
-
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.
Finally ! :applause:
-
Last year I wrote in Ron Paul for every office that was up for election. I've decided that in the future, I will write myself in. Unless there is a candidate who is clearly good and righteous, or if there is ever a moral imperative, such as a close election in my state, where one candidate is pro-abortion and the other is not as much. Otherwise, I'm not casting votes for globalist pawns.
Very good, Ryan. I feel much the same as you. I might seriously consider writing in Jesus Christ next time I vote.
To vote for Our Lord Jesus Christ for a political office would seem to be an implicit denial of His Kingship.
Nah, just my way of saying that Our Lord is all that matters and that His rule is supreme.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Last year I wrote in Ron Paul for every office that was up for election. I've decided that in the future, I will write myself in. Unless there is a candidate who is clearly good and righteous, or if there is ever a moral imperative, such as a close election in my state, where one candidate is pro-abortion and the other is not as much. Otherwise, I'm not casting votes for globalist pawns.
Very good, Ryan. I feel much the same as you. I might seriously consider writing in Jesus Christ next time I vote.
To vote for Our Lord Jesus Christ for a political office would seem to be an implicit denial of His Kingship.
Nah, just my way of saying that Our Lord is all that matters and that His rule is supreme.
I understand your good intent, but one would not vote even for an earthly king for an office that is limited in power, set by a fixed term, and ultimately answerable to the people if they wish to be elected again. How much more so does this apply to our Lord?
Our Lord does not need or want our votes for a man made office. He needs our recognition of Him as King.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
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.
-
Yes, I have read the entire book several times.
You argue that we are living under a tyranny? Tyranny is defined as:
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.
-
Yes, I have read the entire book several times.
You argue that we are living under a tyranny? Tyranny is defined as:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/061106.shtml) 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.
-
I haven't voted in the last few elections. I don't bother because most of the candidates are monsters, Jєωs, 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.
-
: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 Jєω 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!
-
Yes, I have read the entire book several times.
You argue that we are living under a tyranny? Tyranny is defined as:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
… The entire system is a sham. Give me a benevolent monarchy any day!
You should have stressed the word benevolent, Frances. Since you are, like me, a New Yorker, you already know what it's like to live in an unbenevolent monarchy under such rulers as Rudy "Bluebeard" Giuliani and Mike "Israel Forever" Bloomberg.
Were there uncontrolled media outlets in this city, the newspapers, radio and TV stations, and every two-bit, self-styled comedian would be howling derisively that the only qualifications for elective office that Spitzer and Weiner have is that they (1) are Jєωιѕн and (2) appear to wash on occasion. If any further proof were needed as to what group runs everything in Hymietown (perhaps the only true word ever spoken by Jesse Jackson), the fact that this particular 800-pound gorilla isn't pointed at or even noticed would be that proof.
-
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
-
:applause:
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.
Finally ! :applause:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Again, it's not a sin to vote for the lesser of the two evils, but no obligation exists to do so.
-
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.
-
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.
Again, it's not a sin to vote for the lesser of the two evils, but no obligation exists to do so.
I never said it was an obligation to vote for a lesser evil. I stated exactly what the theologians say, so apparently six people on this forum disagree with them.
-
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
-
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.
It isn't amazing. People would much rather listen to themselves than the theologians. Even the snippets of text they bother to read, they will always assume agree with them. That is because they read things with the intention of the theologians agreeing with them, and not the other way around.