Political right and left admix wrong with right, so efforts to defend the political right or political left are problematic for practicing Catholics—and that is precisely why so many of us choke on a vote for Trump.

Serious question: When, aside from a few noteworthy exceptions, have our presidents/kings/emperors/prime ministers ever been ANYTHING OTHER THAN flawed human beings -- sometimes with quite grievous shortcomings and even sins?

So Catholics have always been aloof from national politics, which is nothing more or less than concern for one's country and its well-being? What if invasion by a hostile force like the Muslims were in play? Wouldn't that compel Catholics to "get involved" or support their sovereign, even if he were flawed and had some public sins?

Even before the rise of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, our Kings and Queens have had serious flaws. And yet -- we pray for them, the Church has us pray for them, for they are the secular power and they receive authority from God, from whom all authority and paternity flows.

As for voting in democracies, I didn't think we were voting for sainthood. Or else the office of president would have been empty for what, the past 240 years?

N.B., Though I had serious reservations, I did vote for Trump in 2016. I chose to vote for a bad man rather than a [possibly] possessed female. There was much speculation about the videos of Hillary being evidence of neurological disorder. In my estimation, I thought the videos were more supportive of imperfect possession than a neurological disorder.

The evils of Hillary (et al) go well beyond mere graft and financial corruption (funneling money into their own pockets via their Foundation under cover of "book deals" and "speeches")

We're talking serious devilry: cнιℓd тrαffιcking, torture, sacrifice to devils, pedophilia, rape, murder and other horrible crimes. I wouldn't be surprised if the devil had free reign over the bodies of some of these people at this point.

Trump might be a sinner, but he's in a less severe "class" of sinner than the crowd in question.

I wish I could find my seminary notes on the 4 classes of sinners. I don't think it's in Google; it's traditional Catholic theology stuff.

The worst class is "Diabolical hatred of God" such as the high-level Freemasons. Hillary et al. are in this category. This class of sinner basically begins their hell while still alive -- they want nothing to do with God, they hate Him, work against Him maliciously and willfully, etc.

I think one of the lower classes (maybe the lowest?) was those who sin through weakness, including sins of the flesh. Trump might actually be here -- which is where some of us are. But I can't say for sure and I can't give a thorough treatment of the topic, since it's been many years since I took notes on this.

By the way, Trump's support of Israel reflects your typical Evangelical Protestant position, does it not? The Evangelical prots are hardly "aware" on the JQ.

The evils of Hillary (et al) go well beyond mere graft and financial corruption (funneling money into their own pockets via their Foundation under cover of "book deals" and "speeches")
We're talking serious devilry: cнιℓd тrαffιcking, torture, sacrifice to devils, pedophilia, rape, murder, and other horrible crimes.
Trump might be a sinner, but he's in a less severe "class" of sinner than the crowd in question.
I wish I could find my seminary notes on the 4 classes of sinners.
The worst class is "Diabolical hatred of God" such as the high-level Freemasons. Hillary et al. are in this category.
I think one of the lower classes (maybe the lowest?) was those who sin through weakness, including sins of the flesh. Trump might actually be here -- which is where some of us are. But I can't say for sure and I can't give a thorough treatment of the topic, since it's been many years since I took notes on this.…

I'd be interested to hear a summary of the four types. Are the types discussed in the context of Confession and assigned penances?

By the way, Trump's support of Israel reflects your typical Evangelical Protestant position, does it not? The Evangelical prots are hardly "aware" on the JQ.

I think that, like his Daddy, the Donald's life-long association with (((the mob))) points to an awareness and willfulness that significantly exceeds the culpability of the backwoods dyslexic Bible Dis-believers that fashion themselves as "Christian" Zionists.

My dad had an old saying -- that so-and-so would "lie when the truth would better fit."

In other words, they lie even when telling the truth would suit their cause better. This describes many Deep State creatures. They CONSTANTLY lie. They flip and invert everything 180 degrees. They accuse their opponents of THEIR OWN crimes, etc.

Now who is the father of lies?...

Repeatedly encountering such (((pathological liars))) prompted me to paraphrase and meme Mary McCarthy's insult of Lillian Hellman.

Serious question: When, aside from a few noteworthy exceptions, have our presidents/kings/emperors/prime ministers ever been ANYTHING OTHER THAN flawed human beings -- sometimes with quite grievous shortcomings and even sins?

Serious [obvious] answer: Never.…

Rethinking my answer…Emperor Karl comes to mind , though I would never suggest he was completely isnless.

"Assumes facts not in evidence." Who advocated "always"* being aloof from national politics? Not I.

I'm sure certain anti-Trump CathInfo members would fall into this category. After all, when is the last time we had a candidate who was completely "kosher" from a Traditional Catholic point of view? (great pun there, I know!)

If the last 40 presidents have been more or less evil, and voting for the "lesser of two evils" is weak sauce, as you/Ladislaus/others have repeatedly stated, then when exactly are we Catholics supposed to get involved in politics?

So no, I really don't think that was a straw man I was addressing. It really does seem that, for some, politics or participating in "the system" is a no-go at worst, and a fool's errand at best.

answered in a PM

Serious question: When, aside from a few noteworthy exceptions, have our presidents/kings/emperors/prime ministers ever been ANYTHING OTHER THAN flawed human beings -- sometimes with quite grievous shortcomings and even sins?

Serious [obvious] answer: Never.

So Catholics have always been aloof from national politics, …

"Assumes facts not in evidence." Who advocated "always"* being aloof from national politics? Not I.

*Didn't you just accuse someone of making a straw man argument? :-)

…which is nothing more or less than concern for one's country and its well-being?

National politics = concern for one's country and its well-being? No. Well-ordered patriotism = concern for one's country and its well-being. National politics is a process—in the case of the jUSA, a deeply flawed process steeped in some disordered fundamentals (e.g., separation of Church and State, just authority bubbles up from below, etc.).

How can one be both concerned about one's country, and still be aloof?

If I'm not mistaken, you have a blog in which your main topic is generally of a political nature. That's not being aloof, not by a longshot. But if you mean that we have to be concerned, but not actually go so far as to actually vote for a candidate, then this seems a bit hypocritical. Like we have to be very concerned about the country, but don't vote. Well, I hope you understand that some of us do vote out of concern for the country.

How can one be both concerned about one's country, and still be aloof?

If I'm not mistaken, you have a blog in which your main topic is generally of a political nature. That's not being aloof, not by a longshot. But if you mean that we have to be concerned, but not actually go so far as to actually vote for a candidate, then this seems a bit hypocritical. Like we have to be very concerned about the country, but don't vote. Well, I hope you understand that some of us do vote out of concern for the country.

Meg, you misread Mark 79.  He has never advocated being aloof from politics.  He is a true Catholic patriot who is in no way aloof from politics.

Mark 79 has already indicated that he voted for Trump in 2016.  At the same time he he doesn't put down Catholic patriots like my good friend and fellow Vietnam combat vet Hugh Akins (https://ca-rc.com/about-the-author ) who advised Catholics not to vote for Trump even if he was considered by many good Catholics to be the lesser of two evils. (Perhaps, that is the reason why Matthew stopped openly supporting Hugh's great quarterly publication  Oportet Christum Regnare which unfortunately folded due to lack of support by tradCats.)