Author Topic: Catholic Voting Guide (Read 6620 times)

ClarkSmith · « **Reply #30 on:** February 06, 2016, 11:01:58 AM »

Voting gives the American public a false illusion of choice. Nearly all the candidates are identical. The difference between Democrats and Republicans grows smaller every year . People have said jokingly that it's only a matter of time before Republicans are saying gαy marriage was always a conservative value. We have already reached that stage. Voting is a rigged game and it won't change anytime soon.

B from A · « **Reply #31 on:** February 06, 2016, 02:40:27 PM »

Quote from: McCork

But we DO have a choice to refrain from voting, or to write in a candidate. Until people realize this, evil will forever be voted in, and the degradation of society will continue.

Right. Not to mention there have sometimes been good or decent candidates in other parties, actually on the ballot, for whom one can vote in good conscience. So to pretend the supposedly "lesser of 2 evils" candidate of one of the 2 mainstream parties is the only option is false. But the powers that be have [I am trying really hard to refrain from using the word "brainwashed"] convinced the "conservatives" that they must vote for these rotten "lesser of 2 evils" candidates because it's supposedly the only way to keep out the apparently greater evil, it's become the biggest self-fulfilling prophecy ever. Because of this, as you said well, "Until people realize this, evil will forever be voted in, and the degradation of society will continue."

Not to mention that

Quote from: ClarkSmith

Voting gives the American public a false illusion of choice. Nearly all the candidates are identical. The difference between Democrats and Republicans grows smaller every year . People have said jokingly that it's only a matter of time before Republicans are saying gαy marriage was always a conservative value. We have already reached that stage. Voting is a rigged game and it won't change anytime soon.

It is truly rigged. Another reason not to vote for an evil candidate.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #32 on:** February 06, 2016, 08:53:44 PM »

Quote from: Nadir

MaterDomenici said:
Quote
So likewise, you wouldn't support someone who is only in favor of killing disabled children or children who were the result of rape.

In answer to your first question, Mater. I would never vote for a candidate who supports any abortion whatsoever.

What is this only the disabled and only the child conceived in rape?
Is (being in favour of) the killing of a disabled child or a child of rape any less heinous than (being in favour of) killing a presumedly healthy child or a child conceived within marriage?

I said "only" to point out how ridiculous it would be to vote for someone with abortion "exceptions" if this is indeed the correct application of the double effect principle. I hear people on this forum talk every four years about how none of us should vote for anyone (and some arguing the opposite), but seldom do they reference a principle and apply it to the situation. It's most commonly just one guy's opinion vs. another.

Quote

Quote
So, my next question is whether or not there is any amount of good positions in line with the natural law a candidate could have which would be sufficient to override the evil of being in favor of any sort of abortion?

No. "Any amount of good positions in line with the natural law" could not overide the evil of supporting abortion in any circuмstance. Isn't abortion the killing of the innocent child that God Himself decreed should live on this earth? How could such a person who is willing to support abortion represent us, our needs and our beliefs etc? He is not fit to do so. No Catholic ought to vote for him.

Alright. (... and I'd like to hear if anyone disagrees with any of this.)

Now, is there any other issue in which it could also be said that no amount of good would compensate for the evil inherent in supporting the position?

MaterDominici · « **Reply #33 on:** February 06, 2016, 08:55:27 PM »

Quote from: B from A

Quote from: ClarkSmith
Voting gives the American public a false illusion of choice. Nearly all the candidates are identical. The difference between Democrats and Republicans grows smaller every year . People have said jokingly that it's only a matter of time before Republicans are saying gαy marriage was always a conservative value. We have already reached that stage. Voting is a rigged game and it won't change anytime soon.

It is truly rigged. Another reason not to vote for an evil candidate.

I think the higher up you go, the greater chance of this being the case, but I don't think it's true of every election, everywhere.

B from A · « **Reply #34 on:** February 06, 2016, 09:24:42 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote
It is truly rigged.

I think the higher up you go, the greater chance of this being the case, but I don't think it's true of every election, everywhere.

Yes; I am speaking mainly of presidential elections here. I don't know about local elections etc. As you said, it's probably more & more so the higher up you go.

Nadir · « **Reply #35 on:** February 06, 2016, 09:41:24 PM »

MaterDomenici asked:

Quote

Now, is there any other issue in which it could also be said that no amount of good would compensate for the evil inherent in supporting the position?

I would say, yes, there other issues which are crucial.

I would absolutely deny my vote to those persons who support the reign of terror which Israel exerts over the Palestinians and other nations, those who support and enforce compulsory vaccination, and would deny the right of parents to educate their own children, or enforce sex education thus defiling the innocence of children, whose parents are unable to educate their own.

Those few issues are off the top of my head; I guess there must be others.

Graham · « **Reply #36 on:** February 07, 2016, 10:19:09 AM »

Quote from: Pacelli

The following is an exact reproduction of chapter II, 4 of The Moral Obligation of Voting, Rev. Titus Cranny, The Catholic University of America Press, 1952, pgs 93-96.

4. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ONE MAY VOTE FOR UNWORTHY CANDIDATES

By the term “unworthy candidates” we do not necessarily mean men whose private lives are morally reprehensible, but those who, if elected, would cause grave injury to the state or to religion, as for example, men of vacillating temperament who fear to make decisions.

In practical life it is often difficult to determine whether a particular candidate is worthy or unworthy because there seems little upon which to judge accurately, especially in local or municipal elections. It does not follow that every Catholic is necessarily the best man for office and that every non-Catholic is not; nor that every Catholic will promote the interests of the common good of the state of religion and that the non-Catholic will not. Even if a man is of sterling character in his private life, he will not by necessity prove competent in public office. Sometimes too, as St. Robert Bellarmine pointed out in his De laicis [175] the so-called evil rulers may do more good than harm, as Saul and Solomon. It is better for the state to have an evil ruler than no ruler at all, for where there is no ruler the state cannot long endure, as the wise Solomon observed: “Where there is no governor the people will fail.” [176]

When unworthy candidates are running for office, ordinarily a citizen does not have the obligation for voting for them. Indeed he would not be permitted to vote for them if there were any reasonable way of electing a worthy man, either by organizing another party, by using the “write in” method, or by any other lawful means. On the other hand, it would be licit to vote for an unworthy man if the choice were only between or among unworthy candidates; and it might even be necessary to vote for such an unworthy candidate (if the voting were limited to such personalities) and even for one who would render harm to the Church, provided the election were only a choice from among unworthy men and the voting for the less unworthy would prevent the election of another more unworthy.

Since the act of voting is good, it is lawful to vote for an unworthy candidate provided there is a proportionate cause for the evil done and the good lost. This consideration looks simply to the act of voting itself and does not consider other factors such as scandal, encouragement of unworthy men, and a bad influence upon other voters. Obviously, if any or all of these other factors are present, the excusing cause for voting for an unworthy candidate would have to be proportionally graver. [177]

Lehmkuhl says that it is never allowed to vote absolutely for a man of evil principles, but hypothetice it may be allowed if the election is between men of evil principles. Then one should vote for him who is less evil (1) if he makes known the reason for his choice; (2) if the election is necessary to exclude a worse candidate. [178] The same author in his Casus conscientiae lists the general argument, adding that there must be no approbation of the unworthy man or of his programme. [179]

Tanquerey declares that if the vote is between a socialist and another liberal, the citizen may vote for the less evil, but he should publicly declare why he is voting this way, to avoid any scandalum pusillorum. [180] Prümmer says the same. [181] Actually, however, in the United States and in other countries where the balloting is secret, there seems to be no need of declaring one’s manner of voting.

Several authors including Ubach, [181a] Merkelbach, [182] Iorio, [183] Piscetta-Gennaro, [184] and Sabetti-Barrett [185] allow for material cooperation in the election of an unworthy candidate when there are two unworthy men running for office. Ubach adds this point: (1) There must be no cooperation in the evil which the man brings upon society after assuming office; (2) The voting must not be taken as an approval of the candidate or of his unworthiness. Merkelbach asserts that such cooperation may be licit per accidens if there is no hope that good men will be elected without voting for the bad ones in the same election.

As a practical point it may be remarked that at times a citizen may have to vote for an unworthy man in order to vote for a worthy one, e.g., when people have to vote a straight party ticket, at least in a primary election when the “split ticket” is not permitted. However the good to be gained would have to outweigh the evil to be avoided, or at least be equal to it.

In his Casus Genicot, [186] sets up a case of an election between a liberal and a Communist. To avoid scandal the citizen should give reasons for voting for the liberal. One does not support the evil candidate but simply applies the principle of double effect. This author also says that a person may use a mental reservation in promising to vote for an unworthy man.

Cardinal Amette, Archbishop of Paris, implies the liceity of voting for an unworthy candidate when he writes of voting for a less worthy one. “It would be lawful to cast them,” he writes,” for candidates who though not giving complete satisfaction to all our legitimate demands, would lead us to expect from them a line of conduct useful to the country, rather than to keep your votes for those whose program would indeed be more perfect, but whose almost certain defeat might open the door to the enemies of religion and of the social order.” [187]

Thus we may say that it is permitted to vote for unworthy candidates (that is, give material cooperation) if these are the only type of men on the ballot lists; in order to exclude the more unworthy; in order to secure the election of one who is somewhat unworthy instead of voting for a good man whose defeat is certain; and when the list is mixed containing both worthy and unworthy men, so that a citizen can vote for the former only by voting for the latter at the same time.

175. c. 4, p. 7.
176. Prov. 11:14
177. “Omnes fere moderni theologi concedunt electionem mali deputati non esse quid intrinsecuм malum, ac proinde aliquando per accidens licere ad avertenda majora mala.” Prümmer, op. Cit., 2, 604.
178. Compendium 343.
179. Op. cit., 1, 729.
180. Op. cit., 3, 981.
181. Op. cit., 2, 604.
181a Op. cit., 1, 115.
182. Op. cit., 1, 786.
183. Op. cit., 2, 161.
184. Op. cit., 4, 26, 4.
185. Op. cit., 262.
186. Op. cit., 138.
187. Ryan-Boland, 207-208.

Above text taken from the Bellarmine Forums, found here:
sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=846

Full book scanned online here:
www.novusordowatch.org/cranny.pdf

MyrnaM · « **Reply #37 on:** February 07, 2016, 10:46:45 AM »

Quote from: JPM

Quote from: AnonymousCatholic
I have a feeling that Pope Pius XII couldn't even imagine what the lesser of two evils would mean in 2016.

That might be true, but, as Catholics, we do have a pretty bright red line; if you are a candidate that wants to save babies you are better than a candidate who wants to continue killing them.

Worth Repeating!

:applause:

Graham · « **Reply #38 on:** February 07, 2016, 11:03:58 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: Nadir
Quote
So, my next question is whether or not there is any amount of good positions in line with the natural law a candidate could have which would be sufficient to override the evil of being in favor of any sort of abortion?

No. "Any amount of good positions in line with the natural law" could not overide the evil of supporting abortion in any circuмstance. Isn't abortion the killing of the innocent child that God Himself decreed should live on this earth? How could such a person who is willing to support abortion represent us, our needs and our beliefs etc? He is not fit to do so. No Catholic ought to vote for him.

Alright. (... and I'd like to hear if anyone disagrees with any of this.)

Now, is there any other issue in which it could also be said that no amount of good would compensate for the evil inherent in supporting the position?

Perhaps I could agree that no Catholic ought to vote for him ("ought" denoting a positive moral obligation), nor support his position on abortion, but what is indisputable is that a Catholic can vote for him if double effect applies.

OHCA · « **Reply #39 on:** February 07, 2016, 11:15:15 AM »

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: Pacelli
The following is an exact reproduction of chapter II, 4 of The Moral Obligation of Voting, Rev. Titus Cranny, The Catholic University of America Press, 1952, pgs 93-96.

4. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ONE MAY VOTE FOR UNWORTHY CANDIDATES

By the term “unworthy candidates” we do not necessarily mean men whose private lives are morally reprehensible, but those who, if elected, would cause grave injury to the state or to religion, as for example, men of vacillating temperament who fear to make decisions.

In practical life it is often difficult to determine whether a particular candidate is worthy or unworthy because there seems little upon which to judge accurately, especially in local or municipal elections. It does not follow that every Catholic is necessarily the best man for office and that every non-Catholic is not; nor that every Catholic will promote the interests of the common good of the state of religion and that the non-Catholic will not. Even if a man is of sterling character in his private life, he will not by necessity prove competent in public office. Sometimes too, as St. Robert Bellarmine pointed out in his De laicis [175] the so-called evil rulers may do more good than harm, as Saul and Solomon. It is better for the state to have an evil ruler than no ruler at all, for where there is no ruler the state cannot long endure, as the wise Solomon observed: “Where there is no governor the people will fail.” [176]

When unworthy candidates are running for office, ordinarily a citizen does not have the obligation for voting for them. Indeed he would not be permitted to vote for them if there were any reasonable way of electing a worthy man, either by organizing another party, by using the “write in” method, or by any other lawful means. On the other hand, it would be licit to vote for an unworthy man if the choice were only between or among unworthy candidates; and it might even be necessary to vote for such an unworthy candidate (if the voting were limited to such personalities) and even for one who would render harm to the Church, provided the election were only a choice from among unworthy men and the voting for the less unworthy would prevent the election of another more unworthy.

Since the act of voting is good, it is lawful to vote for an unworthy candidate provided there is a proportionate cause for the evil done and the good lost. This consideration looks simply to the act of voting itself and does not consider other factors such as scandal, encouragement of unworthy men, and a bad influence upon other voters. Obviously, if any or all of these other factors are present, the excusing cause for voting for an unworthy candidate would have to be proportionally graver. [177]

Lehmkuhl says that it is never allowed to vote absolutely for a man of evil principles, but hypothetice it may be allowed if the election is between men of evil principles. Then one should vote for him who is less evil (1) if he makes known the reason for his choice; (2) if the election is necessary to exclude a worse candidate. [178] The same author in his Casus conscientiae lists the general argument, adding that there must be no approbation of the unworthy man or of his programme. [179]

Tanquerey declares that if the vote is between a socialist and another liberal, the citizen may vote for the less evil, but he should publicly declare why he is voting this way, to avoid any scandalum pusillorum. [180] Prümmer says the same. [181] Actually, however, in the United States and in other countries where the balloting is secret, there seems to be no need of declaring one’s manner of voting.

Several authors including Ubach, [181a] Merkelbach, [182] Iorio, [183] Piscetta-Gennaro, [184] and Sabetti-Barrett [185] allow for material cooperation in the election of an unworthy candidate when there are two unworthy men running for office. Ubach adds this point: (1) There must be no cooperation in the evil which the man brings upon society after assuming office; (2) The voting must not be taken as an approval of the candidate or of his unworthiness. Merkelbach asserts that such cooperation may be licit per accidens if there is no hope that good men will be elected without voting for the bad ones in the same election.

As a practical point it may be remarked that at times a citizen may have to vote for an unworthy man in order to vote for a worthy one, e.g., when people have to vote a straight party ticket, at least in a primary election when the “split ticket” is not permitted. However the good to be gained would have to outweigh the evil to be avoided, or at least be equal to it.

In his Casus Genicot, [186] sets up a case of an election between a liberal and a Communist. To avoid scandal the citizen should give reasons for voting for the liberal. One does not support the evil candidate but simply applies the principle of double effect. This author also says that a person may use a mental reservation in promising to vote for an unworthy man.

Cardinal Amette, Archbishop of Paris, implies the liceity of voting for an unworthy candidate when he writes of voting for a less worthy one. “It would be lawful to cast them,” he writes,” for candidates who though not giving complete satisfaction to all our legitimate demands, would lead us to expect from them a line of conduct useful to the country, rather than to keep your votes for those whose program would indeed be more perfect, but whose almost certain defeat might open the door to the enemies of religion and of the social order.” [187]

Thus we may say that it is permitted to vote for unworthy candidates (that is, give material cooperation) if these are the only type of men on the ballot lists; in order to exclude the more unworthy; in order to secure the election of one who is somewhat unworthy instead of voting for a good man whose defeat is certain; and when the list is mixed containing both worthy and unworthy men, so that a citizen can vote for the former only by voting for the latter at the same time.

175. c. 4, p. 7.
176. Prov. 11:14
177. “Omnes fere moderni theologi concedunt electionem mali deputati non esse quid intrinsecuм malum, ac proinde aliquando per accidens licere ad avertenda majora mala.” Prümmer, op. Cit., 2, 604.
178. Compendium 343.
179. Op. cit., 1, 729.
180. Op. cit., 3, 981.
181. Op. cit., 2, 604.
181a Op. cit., 1, 115.
182. Op. cit., 1, 786.
183. Op. cit., 2, 161.
184. Op. cit., 4, 26, 4.
185. Op. cit., 262.
186. Op. cit., 138.
187. Ryan-Boland, 207-208.

Above text taken from the Bellarmine Forums, found here:
sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=846

Full book scanned online here:
www.novusordowatch.org/cranny.pdf

Finally a Catholic voice instead of a bunch of protestantesque individual hypothesizing and speculating. Thanks for posting this Graham. Everybody else seems to have been lead astray by the simpleton masses erroneously spewing "lesser of evils" who have no idea what it means. "Lesser of evils," in it's purest sense, is a misnomer in the context of voting--voting is NOT an evil act. Yet we have got all of these high-minded dissertations about "lesser of evils" that completely miss the point. They sound like they have traded all of their commonsense for just enough book-learning to be dangerous.

Graham · « **Reply #40 on:** February 07, 2016, 11:25:07 AM »

Quote from: Nadir

MaterDomenici asked:
Quote
Now, is there any other issue in which it could also be said that no amount of good would compensate for the evil inherent in supporting the position?

I would say, yes, there other issues which are crucial.

I would absolutely deny my vote to those persons who support the reign of terror which Israel exerts over the Palestinians and other nations, those who support and enforce compulsory vaccination, and would deny the right of parents to educate their own children, or enforce sex education thus defiling the innocence of children, whose parents are unable to educate their own.

Those few issues are off the top of my head; I guess there must be others.

I think that tightening immigration, regulating the financial sector, limiting foreign wars, and keeping jobs in your country are of more immediate concern than most of those issues, except the right to homeschool. Which is not to denigrate your issues at all, I believe in them as well, I just think the ones I listed must be solved immediately throughout the West, because we are all one stop from the end of the line and saving Palestinians just isn't issue #1. But Americans I think have a candidate this time who is relatively good on a majority of both sets of issues and is also proving electable.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #41 on:** February 07, 2016, 01:50:54 PM »

Thank you, Graham, for the article.

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: Nadir
MaterDomenici asked:
Quote
Now, is there any other issue in which it could also be said that no amount of good would compensate for the evil inherent in supporting the position?

I would say, yes, there other issues which are crucial.

I would absolutely deny my vote to those persons who support the reign of terror which Israel exerts over the Palestinians and other nations, those who support and enforce compulsory vaccination, and would deny the right of parents to educate their own children, or enforce sex education thus defiling the innocence of children, whose parents are unable to educate their own.

Those few issues are off the top of my head; I guess there must be others.

I think that tightening immigration, regulating the financial sector, limiting foreign wars, and keeping jobs in your country are of more immediate concern than most of those issues, except the right to homeschool. Which is not to denigrate your issues at all, I believe in them as well, I just think the ones I listed must be solved immediately throughout the West, because we are all one stop from the end of the line and saving Palestinians just isn't issue #1. But Americans I think have a candidate this time who is relatively good on a majority of both sets of issues and is also proving electable.

While all of those things are good in themselves, I think moral issues severely outweigh economic and foreign issues. I think it far easier to save souls in a poor country flooded with migrants than in one where sodomy and abortion are considered normal.

Nadir · « **Reply #42 on:** February 07, 2016, 02:38:05 PM »

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: Nadir
MaterDomenici asked:
Quote
Now, is there any other issue in which it could also be said that no amount of good would compensate for the evil inherent in supporting the position?

I would say, yes, there other issues which are crucial.

I would absolutely deny my vote to those persons who support the reign of terror which Israel exerts over the Palestinians and other nations, those who support and enforce compulsory vaccination, and would deny the right of parents to educate their own children, or enforce sex education thus defiling the innocence of children, whose parents are unable to educate their own.

Those few issues are off the top of my head; I guess there must be others.

I think that tightening immigration, regulating the financial sector, limiting foreign wars, and keeping jobs in your country are of more immediate concern than most of those issues, except the right to homeschool. Which is not to denigrate your issues at all, I believe in them as well, I just think the ones I listed must be solved immediately throughout the West, because we are all one stop from the end of the line and saving Palestinians just isn't issue #1. But Americans I think have a candidate this time who is relatively good on a majority of both sets of issues and is also proving electable.

Yes, all those issues you mention, Graham, were at the back of my mind, but like MD I think that moral issues are too important to put lower than economic ones.

Why did you write "Pacelli said"? I mean is Pacelli a poster here? or a poster on Bellarmine Forums? Or is he Pope Piu XII? because it's pretty obvious he is not the writer of that passage you quoted. Can you clarify, please.

Graham · « **Reply #43 on:** February 07, 2016, 02:57:29 PM »

s

Quote from: Nadir

Quote from: Graham
Quote from: Nadir
MaterDomenici asked:
Quote
Now, is there any other issue in which it could also be said that no amount of good would compensate for the evil inherent in supporting the position?

I would say, yes, there other issues which are crucial.

I would absolutely deny my vote to those persons who support the reign of terror which Israel exerts over the Palestinians and other nations, those who support and enforce compulsory vaccination, and would deny the right of parents to educate their own children, or enforce sex education thus defiling the innocence of children, whose parents are unable to educate their own.

Those few issues are off the top of my head; I guess there must be others.

I think that tightening immigration, regulating the financial sector, limiting foreign wars, and keeping jobs in your country are of more immediate concern than most of those issues, except the right to homeschool. Which is not to denigrate your issues at all, I believe in them as well, I just think the ones I listed must be solved immediately throughout the West, because we are all one stop from the end of the line and saving Palestinians just isn't issue #1. But Americans I think have a candidate this time who is relatively good on a majority of both sets of issues and is also proving electable.

Yes, all those issues you mention, Graham, were at the back of my mind, but like MD I think that moral issues are too important to put lower than economic ones.

If by moral issues you mean abortion, then I agree. But you were talking about "other issues [besides abortion] which are crucial," and I think the ones you identified are just not as crucial as the ones I did.

Besides, the issues I mentioned are moral issues. Sending people to kill and die in the Middle East is a moral issue. Undercutting American wages and off-shoring jobs, preventing fathers from being able to provide, are moral issues. Letting dangerous foreigners into the country is a moral issue.

Quote

Why did you write "Pacelli said"? I mean is Pacelli a poster here? or a poster on Bellarmine Forums? Or is he Pope Piu XII? because it's pretty obvious he is not the writer of that passage you quoted. Can you clarify, please.

Just to credit the poster from whom I got the passage.

AnonymousCatholic · « **Reply #44 on:** February 07, 2016, 05:33:19 PM »

Quote from: Graham

s
Quote from: Nadir
Quote from: Graham
Quote from: Nadir
MaterDomenici asked:
Quote
Now, is there any other issue in which it could also be said that no amount of good would compensate for the evil inherent in supporting the position?

I would say, yes, there other issues which are crucial.

I would absolutely deny my vote to those persons who support the reign of terror which Israel exerts over the Palestinians and other nations, those who support and enforce compulsory vaccination, and would deny the right of parents to educate their own children, or enforce sex education thus defiling the innocence of children, whose parents are unable to educate their own.

Those few issues are off the top of my head; I guess there must be others.

I think that tightening immigration, regulating the financial sector, limiting foreign wars, and keeping jobs in your country are of more immediate concern than most of those issues, except the right to homeschool. Which is not to denigrate your issues at all, I believe in them as well, I just think the ones I listed must be solved immediately throughout the West, because we are all one stop from the end of the line and saving Palestinians just isn't issue #1. But Americans I think have a candidate this time who is relatively good on a majority of both sets of issues and is also proving electable.

Yes, all those issues you mention, Graham, were at the back of my mind, but like MD I think that moral issues are too important to put lower than economic ones.

If by moral issues you mean abortion, then I agree. But you were talking about "other issues [besides abortion] which are crucial," and I think the ones you identified are just not as crucial as the ones I did.

Besides, the issues I mentioned are moral issues. Sending people to kill and die in the Middle East is a moral issue. Undercutting American wages and off-shoring jobs, preventing fathers from being able to provide, are moral issues. Letting dangerous foreigners into the country is a moral issue.

Quote
Why did you write "Pacelli said"? I mean is Pacelli a poster here? or a poster on Bellarmine Forums? Or is he Pope Piu XII? because it's pretty obvious he is not the writer of that passage you quoted. Can you clarify, please.

Just to credit the poster from whom I got the passage.

I am personally more scared of a feral pack of American Treyvon Martins than I am of a bunch of illegally immigrated Mexicans. See I know the Mexicans are going to do their best to avoid unwanted attention lest they be deported. But the black supremacist types that are empowered by Uncle Sam are American and a far bigger economic and moral issue.