Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Politics and World Leaders => Topic started by: Matthew on October 16, 2024, 07:10:11 AM
-
What if Trump is just practicing "the ends justify the means" and saying what he THINKS he needs to say, to get enough votes so he can get into office?
His softening on Abortion, support for LGBT, even his support for Israel, etc.?
Here is my interesting theory -- feel free to discuss.
We should judge (and vote for) Trump as a KNOWN QUANTITY looking mostly at WHAT HE HAS DONE -- given that he was, in fact, president for 4 years.
Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. Could a Catholic vote for Trump based on his actions?
Imagine if someone said, "We can't vote for Trump. We can't let that man have the nuclear codes." I'd be like, "Um....how do I say this...he was president for 4 years already." The same for any other extreme fear porn his enemies might throw out there. Trump WAS president already for a whole term. Trump is not a scary unknown quantity. Not after his first term was served, that is.
AT THE VERY LEAST, Trump personally having the morality "The ends justify the means", while it's not morally valid, it's certainly not bad enough to forbid Catholics from voting for him under pain of mortal sin. Know what I mean?
To play devil's advocate here, let's see if voting for Trump could be justified by a good Catholic...
What a good Catholic would be VOTING FOR by pulling the lever for Trump is another 4 years of Trump as we actually experienced 2016-2020. You know, great economy, more respect on the world stage, tightening of abortion restrictions, reining in of unrestricted illegal immigration (from all countries) over the mexican border, fighting cнιℓd тrαffιcking, appointing of countless conservative (rather than highly liberal) judges, reversing of any/all communist "Green" climate change agendas, opening up of oil drilling, etc., and no new wars/police actions/military operations.
Yes, Trump didn't get to finish. Remember he was persecuted for many of those 4 years, which kind of throws a monkey wrench in the works, no matter how good you are. Also, he only had 4 years to undo decades of problems. It takes time to "build the wall". Trump most certainly kept his promise. But he only had so much support, and a few short years.
I think it would be justified for a Catholic to make an argument along these lines.
-
Funny that you're going in this direction. I have been recently thinking something similar in a more general way.
Granted, Trump was never a politician like what we think of as "politician", but perhaps he is acting more like one now. In that case, we know that ALL politicians might say they will do something that they will never do, and they also might say something they will never do and then do it.....in order to get the votes.
And yes, we have his first term as a good guide for what he will or will not do.
-
What a good Catholic would be VOTING FOR by pulling the lever for Trump is another 4 years of Trump as we actually experienced 2016-2020. You know, great economy, more respect on the world stage, tightening of abortion restrictions, reining in of unrestricted illegal immigration (from all countries) over the mexican border, fighting cнιℓd тrαffιcking, appointing of countless conservative (rather than highly liberal) judges, reversing of any/all communist "Green" climate change agendas, opening up of oil drilling, etc., and no new wars/police actions/military operations.
Yes, Trump didn't get to finish. Remember he was persecuted for many of those 4 years, which kind of throws a monkey wrench in the works, no matter how good you are. Also, he only had 4 years to undo decades of problems. It takes time to "build the wall". Trump most certainly kept his promise. But he only had so much support, and a few short years.
Agree. Trump (and team) would've done a lot more had politics not got in the way. There's a TON of positives.
The negatives
1. Yes, his inner-circle is protestant and they back Israel...but the US govt has been backing Israel for decades now...accept it and move on.
2. Yes, he backed covid shots...but in the beginning, he didn't. And you can't blame lock-downs on him because that was a state-level decision.
3. Backing of covid shots is still a major red flag, but he didn't force anyone to get them and is against any mandates. His personal stance doesn't affect me.
4. He can be both for the natural law and against it. Well, this is 2024 and most of the world is going to hell in a hand-basket and don't even know what the natural law is.
5. Anti-war, pro-america, pro-states rights, pro-life, pro-smaller govt -- As Matthew pointed out, he did make a lot of moves in these areas. Which is why Dems hate him.
Yes, we can't vote for an immoral candidate; but I don't think he's immoral, he's just protestant-influenced. Some good, some bad. While the Dems are straight Satanic. In this case, in these times, in this never-been-catholic country we call America...voting for a Protestant over a Satanist...is God going to condemn us for this choice? I don't think so. We have to be practical. We aren't a catholic country (and never have been). We have to take the best candidate, especially when there's no legitimate third option.
-
Trump will do EXACTLY as he's told.
(https://i.imgur.com/r0Mug7H.jpeg)
-
Ok, let's take the opposite approach (which is probably true). Both candidates are 100% controlled. Both candidates are playing the game for their anti-catholic masters. It's a binary, either-or, political system (practically speaking, voting 3rd party in the Presidential/Senate/Congress race is a throw-away vote. You might as well not have shown up). There are no good candidates, from a catholic perspective, because we're living in an anti-moral, anti-God, spiritual wasteland.
Then...it seems to me...that war-rules apply. Because this is the current situation - a war against God and Catholics. And we can't avoid it. So we act according to (and also taking advantage of) the "relaxation" of "normal society" rules...because there is no "normal society". The govt is trying to hurt/kill us by all means necessary (i.e. vaccinations, economic war, weather modification, propaganda, polluting the food supply, preparing for famines by controlling small farms, blowing up trains in middle america to control farms, emitting chemicals in the air to force evacuations, etc, etc).
During war, you're allowed to take food to survive. You're allowed to use extra precautions for self-defense. You're allowed to make "practical" decisions to survive. This also applies to priests and the Church. (Fr Pro down in mexico was forced to conceal his identity and pause/re-start mass due to persecutions).
So, in the case of war...you choose the best candidate that will help you survive. As long as possible. The Dems want to create WW3, a nuclear h0Ɩ0cαųst, a global famine/economic wasteland, the death of 3/4ths of humanity. This is no secret. Trump's team wants to create a global new-age utopia where everyone loves each other, and there is world peace.
Both choices are horrible for the Church and Catholics. And, yes, the "lessor of two evils" is not allowed. But in this case, the entire SYSTEM is evil. There's not just 2 evils; there is evil everywhere. Evil exists whether we vote or not. Whether we act or do nothing, the evil will continue. So, in the practical sense, evil has already triumphed. It's over. Only God can fix this.
As such, we live in a war/military/occupied country. So survival is the most important (practical) focus. Thus, you vote for the best chance to survive. Same concept that Christians used in Rome during the first 3 centuries. Catholic principles teach us that we are not allowed to "seek out" persecution/martyrdom. So, we must vote for the candidate which will a) avoid war, b) not try to kill us, c) pay lip-service to the moral law.
The choice is Death or Survival. It's shocking how little some of you grasp the depths that the Dems will go to kill you.
-
According to some , a soul can't vote against the more dangerous politician because voting for the less dangerous politician means the voter is consenting to all the views of that less dangerous politician. Not true. Do you pay taxes? Sales tax, property tax, income tax, and on and on? Those taxes as you KNOW, are in part funding the perversion taught in public schools, and planned parenthood, and illegal immigration, while at the same time those taxes also fund maintenance of roads, bridges, etc. Do you consent to the perversion your tax money pays for, just because you pay taxes? I didn't think so.
Put your money where your mouth is. If you won't vote for the less dangerous politician because it would mean you consent to all their perversion, then stop paying taxes, sales tax, income tax, property tax, etc. since you know your taxes fund perversion. But you won't stop paying taxes, although you know taxes are funding perversion and abortion, because the consequences would be immediate and personal. There are no immediate and personal consequences from refusing to vote; just an illusion of being so firm and staunch and holy that you play right into the hand of the enemy; being deceived into inaction, holy hypocrisy, although unwillingly, unknowingly.
-
There are no immediate and personal consequences from refusing to vote; just an illusion
I agree with this. The illusion is, you're making a difference by not voting. In NORMAL situations, then yes, a protest of not voting would make a statement; it would make the political parties stop and think. But in the case of where the SYSTEM is controlled, from every angle, then not voting is worse than voting. Again, the choice is survival vs imminent destruction.
of being so firm and staunch and holy that you play right into the hand of the enemy; being deceived into inaction, holy hypocrisy, although unwillingly, unknowingly.
No, I think this is too harsh and it doesn't apply to most people. Most people's motivation (at least on this site) is trying to do the correct, moral thing. But in modern politics, there is no moral choice, so you choose practically.
Also, you're comment about "being deceived into inaction" is not totally applicable either. Prayer and good works are actions, and mighty ones. At this point, those are the only actions we have.
-
Voting for Good or Evil? (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7QOp7omvf0)
-
According to some , [...]
Put your money where your mouth is. [...] There are no immediate and personal consequences from refusing to vote; just an illusion of being so firm and staunch and holy that you play right into the hand of the enemy; being deceived into inaction, holy hypocrisy, although unwillingly, unknowingly.
And some (whether here or elsewhere on tradCath social media) choose to perpetuate the big-fish-small-pond circular firing squad (:fryingpan: to me for mixing metaphors) among others of us whose beliefs and worldview are most similar to their own in every other way aside from politics. There's more than one way to be deceived, and the enemy knows intimately each person's weaknesses, whether that's following the crowd or believing that the crowd can be humanly led to safety contrary to the crowd's own lemming-like choices.
Put your money where your mouth is, indeed, only if we live each day fully cognizant of our respective words and actions, fully believing we'll each be accountable to God at a sooner moment than we'd assume.
-
Yes, Pax Vobis, by inaction I meant specifically refusing to vote. Prayer and good works though are not the only actions. There will be occasion for other actions. God isn't a pacifist.
-
And some (whether here or elsewhere on tradCath social media) choose to perpetuate the big-fish-small-pond circular firing squad ((https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/fryingpan.gif) to me for mixing metaphors) among others of us whose beliefs and worldview are most similar to their own in every other way aside from politics. There's more than one way to be deceived, and the enemy knows intimately each person's weaknesses, whether that's following the crowd or believing that the crowd can be humanly led to safety contrary to the crowd's own lemming-like choices.
Put your money where your mouth is, indeed, only if we live each day fully cognizant of our respective words and actions, fully believing we'll each be accountable to God at a sooner moment than we'd assume.
We live in the world. We can't ignore the world. We can contemplate on God all day, but we still have to peel the potatoes for dinner.
-
No, I think this is too harsh and it doesn't apply to most people. Most people's motivation (at least on this site) is trying to do the correct, moral thing. But in modern politics, there is no moral choice, so you choose practically.
Yes. Most people here are doing that. But there are some who, either by their silence in condemning others when they say it (or possibly upthumbing them) or actually saying it themselves, believe anyone who votes for Trump is committing a mortal sin. Although most posters here won't speak out against this dogmatic belief, I will continue to do so even if it's not welcome.
-
Although most posters here won't speak out against this dogmatic belief, I will continue to do so even if it's not welcome.
And you (and others here) will be held accountable for promoting that others commit mortal sin.
-
Most people's motivation (at least on this site) is trying to do the correct, moral thing. But in modern politics, there is no moral choice, so you choose practically.
False, on two counts.
1) You absolutely have a moral choice. There's always a moral choice, and at no point can anyone's free will be violated to make an immoral choice. But in this case, it's quite simple and requires nothing overly dramatic. You can simply write in a candidate or refrain from voting.
2) One does not make decisions based upon "practicality" but upon the Catholic principles of moral theology. That has to be one of the dumbest things you've ever posted. If an action is immoral based upon Catholic moral principles, you may not do it regardless of "practical" considerations.
-
Is there any comparison with Catholics tolerating religious liberty in fact, but not principle?
-
1) You absolutely have a moral choice. There's always a moral choice, and at no point can anyone's free will be violated to make an immoral choice. But in this case, it's quite simple and requires nothing overly dramatic. You can simply write in a candidate or refrain from voting.
I don't believe that voting for Trump is immoral. You do. That's where we differ.
2) One does not make decisions based upon "practicality" but upon the Catholic principles of moral theology. That has to be one of the dumbest things you've ever posted. If an action is immoral based upon Catholic moral principles, you may not do it regardless of "practical" considerations.
But catholic moral principles say that certain (normally immoral actions) are moral, in extreme cases. That's because these actions are not implicitly evil and depend on circuмstances. It's a sin to steal food, but circuмstances of starvation override *normal circuмstances* because the principle to stay alive outweighs the principle of stealing.
There are countless examples of this type of distinction in moral theology. When it comes to war and survival, circuмstances change (and override) normal, moral principles. We're in the middle of a war, like it or not.
-
And you (and others here) will be held accountable for promoting that others commit mortal sin.
Who are you to judge a person's mortal sin?
Most people here are making their decision not on just their own stature, but following the suggestions of Father Jenkins, Bishop Sanborn, and Father Radecki, etc.
The mortal sin would lie to these priests and bishops, not the laity. I think your zeal for saving souls has overstepped your natural authority.
-
And you (and others here) will be held accountable for promoting that others commit mortal sin.
Huh? Where have I promoted that others commit mortal sin? It's you and others that judge Trump voters as committing mortal sin. I have yet to see one Trump voter do the same to non-voters. Is there a post I've missed?
-
Huh? Where have I promoted that others commit mortal sin? It's you and others that judge Trump voters as committing mortal sin. I have yet to see one Trump voter do the same to non-voters. Is there a post I've missed?
Encouraging others to vote for either Trump or hαɾɾιs may constitute a sin of omission, as both candidates hold positions that are pro-abortion, which stands in direct opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the sanctity of life.
-
Encouraging others to vote for either Trump or hαɾɾιs may constitute a sin of omission, as both candidates hold positions that are pro-abortion, which stands in direct opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the sanctity of life.
If we want to get technical, every (99%) Federal candidate for office (i.e. Congress, Senate, President, etc) has held that there are "exceptions" for pro-life and abortion (i.e. rape, incest). These exceptions are in direct opposition to Catholic teaching.
So, to summarize, 99% of all Federally elected officials (and a very high % of state/local officials too), since 1973 (i.e. Roe vs Wade start) has been anti-catholic. Which means...if we want to get technical...anyone who has voted (at any time) since 1973, has committed a mortal sin, because you've voted for somebody that has held these anti-natural law exceptions.
If that's the logic you want to use, then voting is inherently a mortal sin (in America, at this time). And we're all guilty.
-
Encouraging others to vote for either Trump or hαɾɾιs may constitute a sin of omission, as both candidates hold positions that are pro-abortion, which stands in direct opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the sanctity of life.
Oh, I see what happened. I misunderstood the way the post was phrased. Thank you. He's charging me (and others who encourage voting for Trump) as promoting others to commit mortal sin. Got it. Originally, I thought he was saying that Trump voters charge non-voters with mortal sin.
-
If we want to get technical, every (99%) Federal candidate for office (i.e. Congress, Senate, President, etc) has held that there are "exceptions" for pro-life and abortion (i.e. rape, incest). These exceptions are in direct opposition to Catholic teaching.
So, to summarize, 99% of every Federally elected official (and a very high % of state/local officials too), since 1973 (i.e. Roe vs Wade start) has been anti-catholic. Which means...if we want to get technical...anyone who has voted (at any time) since 1973, has committed a mortal sin, because you've voted for somebody that has held these anti-natural law exceptions.
If that's the logic you want to use, then voting is inherently a mortal sin (in America, at this time).
Absolutely, this "logic" is just Catholic reasoning.
-
I am so confused, now. :confused:
Off the internet:
"In Roman Catholic theology, a mortal sin is a deliberate act that is committed with full knowledge of its gravity and with the full consent of the sinner's will. It is considered the gravest of sins and represents a turning away from God."
This is why I dislike very much lay catholics throwing "It's a mortal sin" accusation around. If we don't know, we look to a person who knows more ie Bishop Sanborn, Father Radecki, Father Jenkins, to name a few. (Please post which priests are saying the opposite, I haven't seen any yet.)
The laity cannot answer the mortal sin question for others. All they can do is encourage the sinner to take it up with their husband (if a wife), a parent (if a child under their parent's care), and/or a priest.
-
Absolutely, this "logic" is just Catholic reasoning.
No, it's flawed reasoning, because it ignores distinctions. To say that every person who has voted since 1973 has committed a mortal sin is beyond stupid.
-
To use another analogy: If your OBGYN tells you that he is anti-abortion, but you find out he endorses birth control, are you going to choose another doctor? Perhaps you might find a doctor who does not endorse birth control - good luck with that! Are you not going to shop at Walgreens or Walmart because they sell condoms? If every grocery store in your neighborhood sells condoms - and they all do - are you going to just grow your own food? Or are you forced to pick the lesser evil? This grocery store does not support LGBTQ, even though they do sell condoms, so I will go with them.
Some of you on here, methinks, will not apply these principles to your own life, but you will apply them to the upcoming presidential race.
Or more to the point: I will be an election officer here in Jefferson Co. (Louisville) on Nov 5th. Let us assume that I do not vote. Am I committing a mortal sin by working as an election officer, assuming that 90% of the people will vote for either Trump or Kamala.
-
To use another analogy: If your OBGYN tells you that he is anti-abortion, but you find out he endorses birth control, are you going to choose another doctor? Perhaps you might find a doctor who does not endorse birth control - good luck with that! Are you not going to shop at Walgreens or Walmart because they sell condoms? If every grocery store in your neighborhood sells condoms - and they all do - are you going to just grow your own food? Or are you forced to pick the lesser evil? This grocery store does not support LGBTQ, even though they do sell condoms, so I will go with them.
Some of you on here, methinks, will not apply these principles to your own life, but you will apply them to the upcoming presidential race.
To piggyback off of your analogy. There is a burning schoolhouse full of children. If you do nothing, they are going to die.
the building is about to collapse. You can run in but you only have the strength to save one child. Do you run in and save one, or, because you can’t save them all, do you save none of them?
I know the analogy isn’t perfect but maybe it bears some ponderance.
children are dying by abortion on a daily basis. One candidate approves of some abortions, one candidate approves of all abortions. By voting for the candidate who approves of some abortions rather than the candidate who approves of all abortions, there will be less abortions taking place, moving us closer to the goal of zero abortions.
I know the analogy doesn’t totally apply to the 2024 election as Trump is also in favour of some other devious things. However I think the analogy is still a decent one.
-
To use another analogy: If your OBGYN tells you that he is anti-abortion, but you find out he endorses birth control, are you going to choose another doctor? Perhaps you might find a doctor who does not endorse birth control - good luck with that! Are you not going to shop at Walgreens or Walmart because they sell condoms? If every grocery store in your neighborhood sells condoms - and they all do - are you going to just grow your own food? Or are you forced to pick the lesser evil? This grocery store does not support LGBTQ, even though they do sell condoms, so I will go with them.
Some of you on here, methinks, will not apply these principles to your own life, but you will apply them to the upcoming presidential race.
Or more to the point: I will be an election officer here in Jefferson Co. (Louisville) on Nov 5th. Let us assume that I do not vote. Am I committing a mortal sin by working as an election officer, assuming that 90% of the people will vote for either Trump or Kamala.
Completely false analogy. When you vote for a candidate, you are a cause of his getting into office (assuming that the vote is not rigged ... which it is). You do not cause your OBGYN to prescribe birth control. When you are a cause of some evil, you're a formal cooperator in the evil, whereas the individual would be in material cooperation only with the OBGYN. Same thing holds if you go to a store or pharmacy that sells birth control (they all do).
You're obviously not committing a sin by acting as an election official, since elections themselves are not intrinsically evil (but indifferent). It's like selling guns at a gun shop ... and someone then takes one of the guns he purchased there and uses it for murder.
-
To piggyback off of your analogy. There is a burning schoolhouse full of children. If you do nothing, they are going to die.
the building is about to collapse. You can run in but you only have the strength to save one child. Do you run in and save one, or, because you can’t save them all, do you save none of them?
I know the analogy isn’t perfect but maybe it bears some ponderance.
children are dying by abortion on a daily basis. One candidate approves of some abortions, one candidate approves of all abortions. By voting for the candidate who approves of some abortions rather than the candidate who approves of all abortions, there will be less abortions taking place, moving us closer to the goal of zero abortions.
I know the analogy doesn’t totally apply to the 2024 election as Trump is also in favour of some other devious things. However I think the analogy is still a decent one.
The only viable option is to vote for Christ the King.
-
The only viable option is to vote for Christ the King.
Honest question: can anyone who holds the position that it would be intrinsically evil to vote for Donald Trump point to any statement from any traditional Catholic cleric supporting this position. It’s a yes or no question.
EDIT: I do not consider Father Hewko to be reliable given his extreme lack of judgement and prudence on a slew of other topics so If you quote Father Hewko or Father Ruiz, I will ignore it.
-
To use another analogy: If your OBGYN tells you that he is anti-abortion, but you find out he endorses birth control, are you going to choose another doctor? Perhaps you might find a doctor who does not endorse birth control - good luck with that! Are you not going to shop at Walgreens or Walmart because they sell condoms? If every grocery store in your neighborhood sells condoms - and they all do - are you going to just grow your own food? Or are you forced to pick the lesser evil? This grocery store does not support LGBTQ, even though they do sell condoms, so I will go with them.
Some of you on here, methinks, will not apply these principles to your own life, but you will apply them to the upcoming presidential race.
Or more to the point: I will be an election officer here in Jefferson Co. (Louisville) on Nov 5th. Let us assume that I do not vote. Am I committing a mortal sin by working as an election officer, assuming that 90% of the people will vote for either Trump or Kamala.
Your analogy is flawed because it overlooks a fundamental truth: abortion is a grave sin, and there is no justification for supporting candidates who endorse it, even partially. The Catholic Church teaches that the intentional killing of innocent life is always evil.
Rationalizing support for candidates like Trump or hαɾɾιs based on their differing stances on abortion is dangerous. Just as indulterers manipulate the “moto proprio” to ignore the validity of the priesthood, supporting these candidates only serves to normalize the murder of innocent children.
-
Your analogy is flawed because it overlooks a fundamental truth: abortion is a grave sin, and there is no justification for supporting candidates who endorse it, even partially. The Catholic Church teaches that the intentional killing of innocent life is always evil.
Rationalizing support for candidates like Trump or hαɾɾιs based on their differing stances on abortion is dangerous. Just as indulterers manipulate the “moto proprio” to ignore the validity of the priesthood, supporting these candidates only serves to normalize the murder of innocent children.
When did birth Control become excepted by both Democrats and Republicans? Because basically that is when the Catholics should have stopped voting. Yet moral theology says differently. Theologians say it is the 4th commandment that tells us we should vote. The 5th commandment is thou shall not kill. Isn't there a hierarchy to the Commandments?
-
To piggyback off of your analogy. There is a burning schoolhouse full of children. If you do nothing, they are going to die.
the building is about to collapse. You can run in but you only have the strength to save one child. Do you run in and save one, or, because you can’t save them all, do you save none of them?
I know the analogy isn’t perfect but maybe it bears some ponderance.
children are dying by abortion on a daily basis. One candidate approves of some abortions, one candidate approves of all abortions. By voting for the candidate who approves of some abortions rather than the candidate who approves of all abortions, there will be less abortions taking place, moving us closer to the goal of zero abortions.
I know the analogy doesn’t totally apply to the 2024 election as Trump is also in favour of some other devious things. However I think the analogy is still a decent one.
So, the issue here is that this typifies a purely "utilitarian" perspective, where you're looking at the end result only ("one extra childs saved") but not the means by which you'd accomplish that. Similarly, one could make the same calculus regarding the scenario where the life of the mother is endangered in carrying her unborn child to term. You could say, "Well, the baby's going to die no matter what I do. Therefore, the only thing I'm really doing is saving the mother. Consequently, it's OK for me to abort the baby." Viewed entirely from the perspective of the end result, yes, it may be true that the only "net sum" effect of your action would be to save the mother, and the non-Catholic (Protestant) utilitarian system would in fact hold that it's OK. But the Catholic system would hold that you cannot abort the child IN ORDER TO save the life of the mother ... simply because the child was going to die anyway, and the only net result would be to save the mother. As Catholics, we say that we may perform a procedure to save the mother, even if it has the regretable and unintended effect of causing the loss of the unborn child. That's why Catholic hospitals for instance would never permit a surgeon (under such circuмstances) to simply directly kill the baby (by, say, vacuuming him out or chemically killing him). They would remove the child ... which would result in his death.
In any case, for Catholics it's not sufficient to consider the outcome, but the MEANS by which said outcome is achieved is just as critical in determining the liceity of an action.
-
When did birth Control become excepted by both Democrats and Republicans? Because basically that is when the Catholics should have stopped voting. Yet moral theology says differently. Theologians say it is the 4th commandment that tells us we should vote. The 5th commandment is thou shall not kill. Isn't there a hierarchy to the Commandments?
No, there's no hierarchy of commandments in the sense that you can violate one commandment in order to prevent violation of another.
But it's not true that one would be required to stop voting simply because both parties had accepted birth control. No one is arguing that a candidate has to be perfect and sound on everything.
So, for instance, if you had a candidate who was pro birth control (assuming a non-abortifacient variety) but anti abortion, your vote for the candidate would have the double effect, one good, one bad. One would be permitted to vote for such a candidate under double effect, since this passes the test of proportionality. Now, there is one other test that would apply here, namely, that you don't really have any other alternative. That means that if there was a candidate who was against both abortion and BC, you could vote for the mixed double-effect one ... since there is an available alternative.
-
Honest question: can anyone who holds the position that it would be intrinsically evil to vote for Donald Trump point to any statement from any traditional Catholic cleric supporting this position. It’s a yes or no question.
EDIT: I do not consider Father Hewko to be reliable given his extreme lack of judgement and prudence on a slew of other topics so If you quote Father Hewko or Father Ruiz, I will ignore it.
Father Hewko and Father Ruiz reference numerous bishops and traditional clerics who support the position that voting for Donald Trump is intrinsically evil due to his stance on issues like abortion. If you choose to dismiss their sources based on your criteria for "prudence," that’s on you. But let’s be clear: by participating in this modern-day Aztec sacrifice, you are turning a blind eye to the grave moral implications of supporting any candidate who condones the killing of innocent lives. Your "prudence" should guide you to seek the truth, not to justify compromise.
-
But it's not true that one would be required to stop voting simply because both parties had accepted birth control. No one is arguing that a candidate has to be perfect and sound on everything.
Of course ... if the US were a country with, say, 50 million SOLID Catholcs who would simply refuse to accept a candidate who was pro birth control, at least one of the political parties would be forced to also run a candidate who also opposes BC, since someone couldn't win if that base of 50 million refused to vote for you.
So there's that aspect of the question also. If significant numbers refused to buy stolen cars, for instance, then there would be no incentive for the thieves to steal cars. If large numbers of people would have refused the abortion-tainted jab, then it would have created a market and incentive for some pharma company to develop a version that wasn't tained, etc. That's one aspect of not cooperating with evil that isn't often discussed, since it's a bit slippery. If everybody, say, boycotted stores that sold birth control, then some stores would emerge that didn't have it, but in reality you know that not enough people are going to do that to where it would make any difference. That's where a real Catholic hierarchy would come in, where the bishops could order all Catholics to, say, boycott certain companies, and the sheer numbers would make such a hit on the company that it would have to comply.
-
Father Hewko and Father Ruiz reference numerous bishops and traditional clerics who support the position that voting for Donald Trump is intrinsically evil due to his stance on issues like abortion.
Interesting. Do you have any links or citations?
It doesn't sound like they would apply even double effect. There's something to be said for that position also. Theologians who describe double effect scenarios tends to state that while it may be permitted to engage in double effect actions, there's no moral obligation to do so.
Where does one draw the line? I think that Angelus article draws the line at aspects of natural law ... since very few candidates in the US would ever not promote the notion of religious liberty, separation of Church and state, etc.
-
No, there's no hierarchy of commandments in the sense that you can violate one commandment in order to prevent violation of another.
But it's not true that one would be required to stop voting simply because both parties had accepted birth control. No one is arguing that a candidate has to be perfect and sound on everything.
So, for instance, if you had a candidate who was pro birth control (assuming a non-abortifacient variety) but anti abortion, your vote for the candidate would have the double effect, one good, one bad. One would be permitted to vote for such a candidate under double effect, since this passes the test of proportionality. Now, there is one other test that would apply here, namely, that you don't really have any other alternative. That means that if there was a candidate who was against both abortion and BC, you could vote for the mixed double-effect one ... since there is an available alternative.
Thank you on your kind response.
Passing the test of proportionality?
Do you mean too many cons on both sides to vote for either candidate? Please list the cons of Trump, so far I have only seen two, abortion and LGBT support (by the way being friends with people who are sinning is not a sin, is it?) I am just trying to understand you better, please bear with me.
-
Honest question: can anyone who holds the position that it would be intrinsically evil to vote for Donald Trump point to any statement from any traditional Catholic cleric supporting this position. It’s a yes or no question.
EDIT: I do not consider Father Hewko to be reliable given his extreme lack of judgement and prudence on a slew of other topics so If you quote Father Hewko or Father Ruiz, I will ignore it.
I think you're wrong to dismiss Father Hewko on everything just because you disagree with him about some things. So if Father Hewko were to say that Our Lady was immaculately conceived, you would dismiss that also?
As with other issues where Trad clergy disagree, you really have to make up your own mind about who's right and who's wrong based on their arguments.
Here's the thing. With those clergy who promote lesser evil, end-justifies-the-means, utilitarian moral relativism, I've never seen them articulate any kind of argument or attempt to apply the principles of Catholic moral theology. They merely say, gratuitously, that it's permitted to vote lesser evil. That's unsatisfactory.
Burden is on them to explain why it's licit. Catholic Moral Theology 101 lays out the core principles that you can never do evil in order to prevent a greater evil, that the end does not justify the means. None of the "lesser evil" crowd have ever demonstrated or even made a credible attempt to demonstrate how they're not violating these core principles.
Absent such a credible explanation, even IF it turns out that they happen to be right here, the damage they're doing by giving the impressiont that "lesser evil" and end justifies the means are legitimate Catholic principles of moral theology goes far beyond the question of voting in this election, since now we're going to have Catholic applying the same false principles in other scnearios. They have a grave obligation to avoid scandal by explaining how their position is Catholic.
And here's another consideration. Even if one could make a case for the liceity of voting for Trump, there's an implication floating around out there that Catholics are even "obligated" to vote for Trump. There is absolutely no such obligation. Pius XII simply stated that we must vote, but then gave no direction about WHO we can and cannot vote for.
-
When did birth Control become excepted by both Democrats and Republicans? Because basically that is when the Catholics should have stopped voting. Yet moral theology says differently. Theologians say it is the 4th commandment that tells us we should vote. The 5th commandment is thou shall not kill. Isn't there a hierarchy to the Commandments?
Just off the top of my head here are a few, but for the past few weeks he has brought it up in almost every sermon or every other at the very least:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT8trgJE6lE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT8trgJE6lE) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvp01UPjkBk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvp01UPjkBk) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG5ULGUj6LA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG5ULGUj6LA) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYiABAfOohY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYiABAfOohY)
-
I think you're wrong to dismiss Father Hewko on everything just because you disagree with him about some things. So if Father Hewko were to say that Our Lady was immaculately conceived, you would dismiss that also?
As with other issues where Trad clergy disagree, you really have to make up your own mind about who's right and who's wrong based on their arguments.
Here's the thing. With those clergy who promote lesser evil, end-justifies-the-means, utilitarian moral relativism, I've never seen them articulate any kind of argument or attempt to apply the principles of Catholic moral theology. They merely say, gratuitously, that it's permitted to vote lesser evil. That's unsatisfactory.
Burden is on them to explain why it's licit. Catholic Moral Theology 101 lays out the core principles that you can never do evil in order to prevent a greater evil, that the end does not justify the means. None of the "lesser evil" crowd have ever demonstrated or even made a credible attempt to demonstrate how they're not violating these core principles.
Absent such a credible explanation, even IF it turns out that they happen to be right here, the damage they're doing by giving the impressiont that "lesser evil" and end justifies the means are legitimate Catholic principles of moral theology goes far beyond the question of voting in this election, since now we're going to have Catholic applying the same false principles in other scnearios. They have a grave obligation to avoid scandal by explaining how their position is Catholic.
And here's another consideration. Even if one could make a case for the liceity of voting for Trump, there's an implication floating around out there that Catholics are even "obligated" to vote for Trump. There is absolutely no such obligation. Pius XII simply stated that we must vote, but then gave no direction about WHO we can and cannot vote for.
I am not disagreeing with you about this. You’re clearly more knowledgeable than most of the posters here.
my question is: if a large number (I’d say the majority but I obviously don’t know) of traditional Clergy hold that it would be morally licit to vote for Trump under certain conditions, then how can we fault traditional Catholics? Wouldn’t voting for Trump based on a majority opinion from the clergy be in the spectrum of acceptable behaviour? you have a lot of good points, but I still think that Catholics may be able to vote for Trump as many reliable clerics who are traditionally trained hold that you could.
-
Thank you on your kind response.
Passing the test of proportionality?
Do you mean too many cons on both sides to vote for either candidate? Please list the cons of Trump, so far I have only seen two, abortion and LGBT support (by the way being friends with people who are sinning is not a sin, is it?) I am just trying to understand you better, please bear with me.
So, the test of proportionality is one of the (typically listed as) 4 criteria for determining the liceity of some action under the principle of double effect. I have to run out here, but I can list them again, but it's really the only one that's relevant here. We can assume that no one here intends the evil effect. We know that voting is not intrinsically evil (but at least indifferent). We also know that there's no practical alternative whereby we might obtained the good without also the evil that would come with it. So the remaining test is the one of proportionality.
As I said, if one wanted to make a case for that under double effect, I have no issues with that. I'm more upset about the prevalent thinking that "lesser evil" is a valid principle and that the end can justify the means, and various other expressions of utilitarian moral relativism that I keep reading everywhere.
So, here are some of the evils of Trump:
1) promises to fund IVF (which would lead to myriad abortions)
2) would veto any federal ban on abortion
3) pro-sodomite policies (including having attempted to get other countries to de-criminalize sodomy)
4) [this one to me is huge] ... his aggressive support for the Jєωιѕн genocide and general intention to enable and cooperate with and fund various Jєωιѕн evils
5) in his last term, federal funding for Planned Parenthood reached record levels
In the good column, I see that if there were SCOTUS openings or federal judge openings, he'd pick some marginally decent candidates.
I just don't see him doing anything practical to curb abortion. Since Dobbs, and his agreement that it should stay with the states and his promise to veto any federal abortion ban (all that's left after Dobbs) ... means that he's not going to do very much practically against abortion (resting complacent on Dobbs).
In addition, Matthew brought up earlier that he's (likely?) to end the war in Ukraine more quickly than the Dems would.
I cannot vote for him because I don't see a possible quicker end to the Ukraine war as outweighing his funding of IVF (which results in myriad abortions) and his backing of Israel's ongoing genocidal activities. If I were to vote for Trump, I'd feek like Lady Macbeth, constantly going around washing my hands of blood while muttering "Out, damned spot, out, I say." If you see what's going on over there, the merciless butchering of innocents, contemplate how myriad unborn children will be aborted via IVF procedures ... I don't see how it's possible to vote for this guy and contribute to his taking office.
-
Trump will be elected, presenting himself as the world's 'savior.' Pro-Trump posts will not stand the test of time, and it will be fascinating to witness the inevitable backtracking that unfolds.
-
I am not disagreeing with you about this. You’re clearly more knowledgeable than most of the posters here.
my question is: if a large number (I’d say the majority but I obviously don’t know) of traditional Clergy hold that it would be morally licit to vote for Trump under certain conditions, then how can we fault traditional Catholics? Wouldn’t voting for Trump based on a majority opinion from the clergy be in the spectrum of acceptable behaviour? you have a lot of good points, but I still think that Catholics may be able to vote for Trump as many reliable clerics who are traditionally trained hold that you could.
Certainly, any degree of subjective "fault" or sin committed by any individual Catholics is a matter of the internal forum and between them and God. I am speaking about objective principles. So, one part of culpability tends to be whether one takes an opinion because they "want" to for various ulterior motives, and not necessarily because it's right and true. You could have someone who, for instance, takes the more lax opinion regarding some other question of moral theology over the strict opinion, which is, objectively speaking, permissible ... but they could be at fault if they went with that opinion for ulterior motives (because they wanted the laxity) rather than that it was because they came to the conclusion that it was the right and true opinion most pleasing to God. At that level, only God can discern such motivations.
If someone sincerely (without ulterior motives) goes with what the Trad clergy overall say, then I'm sure they will not be judged harshly by God. But I would caution against the "Nuremberg" defense. They might try to plead that at their judgment before God, "But Father so and so said it was OK.", to which God [may, if it's the case] respond, "You knew very well that it was wrong. You sided with that priest's opinion because it was what you wanted to do, not because you believed it to be right and pleasing to Me." How many souls went along with Vatican II simply because the Pope and all the bishops and all the theologians and all the priests (that they knew) went along with it and told them it was Catholic ... to the ruination of their souls. Some perhaps sincerely went along, whereas others secretly just liked the Modernism and liberatlisation ushered in by V2, and God will be able to sift those souls out.
I find the principles being bandied about out there to be very dangerous and very un-Catholic. I have yet to see any of the Trad clergy explain how their conclusion regarding the liceity of voting for Trump does not violate core Catholic principles of moral theology, and they have a very serious buden to do so ... since otherwise they could be causing grave scandal and doing serious damage, well outside the realm of voting, by promoting principles that lead to moral relativism (end justifies the means, lesser evil, etc.). Being a Traditional bishop or priest is not all glory, having lay people bow their heads in reverence while calling you "Father", making you feel like a bigshot when perhaps in the world you'd be bagging groceries the supermarket (at least for some of them). There's a grave responsibility there due to the influence they have, and I don't see any of them meeting their obligation to clearly explain this particular matter to the faithful.
You see very carless stuff put out there like, "Well, you're voting to limit the damage." OK, well, by aborting a baby when both mother and baby would die otherwise, you're just "limiting the damage", no? Since when does "limiting damage" by itself establish liceity?
-
Trump will be elected, presenting himself as the world's 'savior.' Pro-Trump posts will not stand the test of time, and it will be fascinating to witness the inevitable backtracking that unfolds.
Yes, I believe that Trump has most likely already been "selected".
-
So, here are some of the evils of Trump:
1) promises to fund IVF (which would lead to myriad abortions)
2) would veto any federal ban on abortion
3) pro-sodomite policies (including having attempted to get other countries to de-criminalize sodomy)
4) [this one to me is huge] ... his aggressive support for the Jєωιѕн genocide and general intention to enable and cooperate with and fund various Jєωιѕн evils
5) in his last term, federal funding for Planned Parenthood reached record levels
In the good column, I see that if there were SCOTUS openings or federal judge openings, he'd pick some marginally decent candidates.
I just don't see him doing anything practical to curb abortion. Since Dobbs, and his agreement that it should stay with the states and his promise to veto any federal abortion ban (all that's left after Dobbs) ... means that he's not going to do very much practically against abortion (resting complacent on Dobbs).
...I cannot vote for him because I don't see a possible quicker end to the Ukraine war as outweighing his funding of IVF (which results in myriad abortions) and his backing of Israel's ongoing genocidal activities. If I were to vote for Trump, I'd feel like Lady Macbeth, constantly going around washing my hands of blood while muttering "Out, damned spot, out, I say." If you see what's going on over there, the merciless butchering of innocents, contemplate how myriad unborn children will be aborted via IVF procedures ... I don't see how it's possible to vote for this guy and contribute to his taking office.
I've also seen this writeup:
Trump and Vance have both backed the abortion pill, which is responsible for 63 percent of all abortions in this country. Donald Trump has said he will use taxpayer dollars to fund IVF for all -- which destroys more human embryos per year than abortion. Most importantly, Trump has stripped the GOP platform of all Christian moral considerations so that in the future there will be no pro-life political party to defend the babies of which you speak. Now for the first time in 40 years, there will is no political party in America that defends the basic right to life. And then they dropped the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Millions of babies in the future will thank those who are demanding that Trump drop this insane pro-abortion compromise and restore the basic right to life to the GOP platform, especially since a leak out of the Trump camp last week made it clear that, despite all the good things Trump did for pro-life in the past, he will not be doing that again if he gets in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5CXwaDHPZE&t=102s Again, please pray for Trump to go back to his base, and stop alienating Christian voters before it's too late.
-
I've also seen this writeup:
In terms of the video, he cut off the rest of what J.D. Vance said which was important, he omitted the fact that Trump still calls them out for their radicalism in late term abortion and furthermore, these people have to stop cutting and pasting to suit their own narratives, put it in context and then we can deal with the subject matter, by cutting and pasting like that you lose a lot of credibility.
God Bless
-
In terms of the video, he cut off the rest of what J.D. Vance said which was important, he omitted the fact that Trump still calls them out for their radicalism in late term abortion and furthermore, these people have to stop cutting and pasting to suit their own narratives, put it in context and then we can deal with the subject matter, by cutting and pasting like that you lose a lot of credibility.
God Bless
What did Vance say that got cut out? :confused:
-
What did Vance say that got cut out? :confused:
A lot! Talking about the family, that people should be able to raise a family on one income again etc etc, all very important and part of pro-life and moving in the right direction compared to the other... yes I would like them to go further nevertheless, this wasn't going to be turned around overnight and on a dime. Rome wasn't built in a day.
It's like condemning those pushing for informed consent (ultrasounds to see that they are clearly a human being, they are already a mother, not 'preventing' anything) before having an abortion because they aren't far enough... a step in the right direction is still a step in the right direction, why sabotage it? Yes it's very sad and I too wish they'd go further and we must continue to work and pray for that but don't sabotage ground being made in light of the alternative. Legitimate criticism yes, but blind condemnation especially in light of the alternative is not good.
Neither should we be lulled to sleep with a false status quo, but you don't have to sabotage yourself either.
God Bless
-
The only viable option is to vote for Christ the King.
This is the type of out-of-touch, head-in-the-clouds, fantasy thinking of many Trads. It’s directly contrary to last Sunday’s gospel. You can’t vote for Christ and the answer is non-sensical.
Firstly, He’s not an American citizen. (Although, I’m sure he could *create* a green card without any trouble).
Secondly, He’s not 35 yrs old. (He died at the age of 33). So He’s not even eligible to be President.
Thirdly, I don’t think He qualifies as a resident of any state. (Last known place of address was Jerusalem).
All kidding aside, saying one should vote “For Christ” is just not living in reality. As the Gospel says, “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”. God created govts to be run by and through mankind. Govts are part of humanity and the world. Real life.
You can’t marry God, or work for Him, or have lunch with Him, or buy a car from Him. And you certainly can’t vote for Him. That’s not how He created the world to operate.
-
Father Hewko and Father Ruiz reference numerous bishops and traditional clerics who support the position that voting for Donald Trump is intrinsically evil due to his stance on issues like abortion.
Link with Bishop names and quotes that show they agree with him?
-
You can’t marry God, or work for Him, or have lunch with Him, or buy a car from Him. And you certainly can’t vote for Him. That’s not how He created the world to operate.
And even if they somehow got all of that which as you rightly point out is impossible, we have what He did when He was here -
Jesus therefore, when he knew that they would come to take him by force, and make him king, fled again into the mountain himself alone. - John 6:15
God Bless
-
One would be permitted to vote for such a candidate under double effect, since this passes the test of proportionality.
The test of proportionality is similar to the “lesser of two evils” (in the practical world) even though most people incorrectly articulate the concepts (theoretically speaking).
Most people say “Oh candidate X isn’t perfect (therefore he’s evil, from a catholic perspective).” This is theoretically true.
But practically, the word “evil” must be defined properly. I can’t vote for a “lesser evil” but I can vote for a “proportionately less good” candidate.
So who decides what is “evil” vs “less good”? Some of this semantics.
If a candidate is 100% pro contraception but I could vote for him based on proportionality, then this also also applies to a candidate that is 100% pro IVF.
The Dems have 0 redeeming qualities. They are literally a score of 0 when it comes to supporting catholic principles or the natural law.
Trump gets various scores (good and bad) in the issues. How does proportionality not apply here?
As I said earlier, the choice is to vote for a satanist agenda vs a Protestant agenda. Neither are catholic agendas (and far from it) but the Protestant agenda is proportionately pretty good.
And, we’ve had 4 yrs already of some good results. We have some evidence that Trump's team would do *some* good.
-
The test of proportionality is similar to the “lesser of two evils” (in the practical world) even though most people incorrectly articulate the concepts (theoretically speaking).
Most people say “Oh candidate X isn’t perfect (therefore he’s evil, from a catholic perspective).” This is theoretically true.
But practically, the word “evil” must be defined properly. I can’t vote for a “lesser evil” but I can vote for a “proportionately less good” candidate.
So who decides what is “evil” vs “less good”? Some of this semantics.
If a candidate is 100% pro contraception but I could vote for him based on proportionality, then this also also applies to a candidate that is 100% pro IVF.
The Dems have 0 redeeming qualities. They are literally a score of 0 when it comes to supporting catholic principles or the natural law.
Trump gets various scores (good and bad) in the issues. How does proportionality not apply here?
As I said earlier, the choice is to vote for a satanist agenda vs a Protestant agenda. Neither are catholic agendas (and far from it) but the Protestant agenda is proportionately pretty good.
And, we’ve had 4 yrs already of some good results. We have some evidence that Trump's team would do *some* good.
Good post PAX!
-
So, for instance, if you had a candidate who was pro birth control (assuming a non-abortifacient variety) but anti abortion, your vote for the candidate would have the double effect, one good, one bad. One would be permitted to vote for such a candidate under double effect, since this passes the test of proportionality.
All birth control, both abortive and preventive, is against the natural law, ergo, it's intrinsically evil in all cases.
Therefore, every candidate in the last 30 years has failed this test. Because they've all been either passively or actively pro-birth control. And they've voted for such, again and again and again, every. single. year. when birth control is part of budgetary bills, and spending bills, so that govt can subsidize such on federally-funded insurance plans. And federally-funded insurance plans are everywhere...state universities, state public school systems, state medicare/medicaid plans, state retirement plans for federal/state workers (i.e. teachers, politicians, any and all workers in state/local/federal govt).
These plans cover MILLIONS of people. In every state. And all these plans offer free/reduced birth control. And without this funding, birth control wouldn't be offered. It's a DIRECT supporting of evil as you can get. Vote for this spending/budget bill and you subsidize birth control/intrinsic evil. This evil is much more far reaching than abortion will ever be.
Again, if we're going to get technical, then none of us can vote. And if any of us have voted in the past 30 years, then we're guilty of supporting birth control, which as an intrinsic evil, is just as sinful as abortion or IVF.
-
All birth control, both abortive and preventive, is against the natural law, ergo, it's intrinsically evil in all cases.
Therefore, every candidate in the last 30 years has failed this test. Because they've all been either passively or actively pro-birth control. And they've voted for such, again and again and again, every. single. year. when birth control is part of budgetary bills, and spending bills, so that govt can subsidize such on federally-funded insurance plans. And federally-funded insurance plans are everywhere...state universities, state public school systems, state medicare/medicaid plans, state retirement plans for federal/state workers (i.e. teachers, politicians, any and all workers in state/local/federal govt).
These plans cover MILLIONS of people. In every state. And all these plans offer free/reduced cost birth control. And without this funding, birth control wouldn't be offered. It's a DIRECT supporting of evil as you can get. Vote for this spending/budget bill and you subsidize birth control/intrinsic evil. This evil is much more far reaching than abortion will ever be.
Again, if we're going to get technical, then none of us can vote. And if any of us have voted in the past 30 years, then we're guilty of supporting birth control, which as an intrinsic evil, is just as sinful as abortion or IVF.
-
And without this funding, birth control wouldn't be offered. It's a DIRECT supporting of evil as you can get. Vote for this spending/budget bill and you subsidize birth control/intrinsic evil. This evil is much more far reaching than abortion will ever be.
Again, if we're going to get technical, then none of us can vote. And if any of us have voted in the past 30 years, then we're guilty of supporting birth control, which as an intrinsic evil, is just as sinful as abortion or IVF.
Yeah, I'm sure you believe this ... since you've been promoting the liceity of voting for Pro-Abortion Trump.
That's one argument to be made, but one could vote for someone who's in favor of BC due to double effect since being against abortion would pass the proportionality test.
This demonstrates that you still have no clue about the principles involved.
-
The test of proportionality is similar to the “lesser of two evils” (in the practical world) even though most people incorrectly articulate the concepts (theoretically speaking).
No. You're not even close and have absolutely no clue about the principles involved.
Double effect is a single action that has both good and evil effects, and the litmus test for liceity of a double effect situation is proportionality. In other words, the good effect cannot be something relatively trivial, whereas the evil effect is grave. Proportionality is simpley one of 4 standard tests (put forth by Catholic theologians) to determine the liceity of the double effect scenario.
So we know the textbook case of proportionality where a procedure saves the life of the mother, resulting in the unintended bad / evil effect of losing the child. But let's say that someone wanted to perform the same procedure (that would result in the loss of the child) in order to spare the mother the hardship of raising a child. In effect, the Pro Abortion argument is an argument from double effect ... that fails the test of proportionality.
Lesser evil entails two evil actions, wherein taking the one evil action you're preventing another evil.
Essentially, the one test of double effect, where the evil action cannot be the cause of the good action, flushes out a diguised end justifies the means from a true double effect situation.
In voting, you're attempting to prevent the evil of hαɾɾιs getting into office. HOW or BY WHAT MEANS do you plan on accomplishing that? By means of voting for Trump (helping Trump get into office). Consequently, the effect you seek is caused by the means of vorting for Trump.
So the liceity of voting for Trump must be established on its own. If that, by itself, is evil, then you're pursuing the good end via an evil means, and it's an end justifies the means scenario and it not licit.
Some of your minds are so fogged over that you're clearly in some kind of diabolical disorientation unable to think clearly.
-
The proportionality test cannot be used when an intrinsic evil is involved (i.e. birth control).
-
but one could vote for someone who's in favor of BC due to double effect since being against abortion would pass the proportionality test.
No, this is an example of "lesser of two evils". Even many Bush-era "conservatives" promoted this idea...let's reduce high school abortions by offering free birth control in schools. And that's how the rise of birth control began for the younger generations. And you know what? It worked. Abortions dropped a lot.
But you can't support Birth Control just as you can't support abortion. BC is intrinsically evil. The proportionality test cannot apply.
-
The proportionality test cannot be used when an intrinsic evil is involved (i.e. birth control).
:facepalm: You're still muddling things. Whether the action is intrinsically evil and proportionality are to distinct tests of double effect. They're both considered at the same time. What you're trying to say is that double effect cannot be in play when the action taken is itself intrinsically evil.
What action are YOU actually taking in an election? Using birth control? No, the action involved in the electoin is VOTING. Since voting is not evil (indifferent by itself), voting in an election may be considered from the standpoint of a double effect scenario.
So birth control is not the action you're taking, but rather one of the EFFECTS (an evil one) of the action you're taking.
Here's a case where birth control would fail a double effect scenario. We're using birth control because the mother (and child) would die if she conceived. So, the good effect would be to save the life of the mother. But since birth control is intrinsically evil, it cannot be used (as the action being performed) for any kind of doubl effect consideration. Of course, this scenario would fail yet another test, namely, that there's no other non-double-effect scenario that could accomplish the same end ... since abstinence (which has no evil effect) would certainly obtain the same good.
-
But you can't support Birth Control just as you can't support abortion. BC is intrinsically evil. The proportionality test cannot apply.
See my previous response. Birth Control is (one) evil EFFECT of the action you're taking, but it isn't the action that you're taking. You're not trying to USE birth control in order to accomplish some good thing with the double effect of some bad thing. That's what is meant by an action that's intrinsically wrong not qualifying for liceity under double effect.
-
So the liceity of voting for Trump must be established on its own. If that, by itself, is evil,
And i've yet to see why voting for Trump is evil.
Most of us voted for Bush Jr the first and second terms. He promoted birth control in schools, subsidized it in govt insurance plans, started wars, continued wars, etc. Bush Jr also didn't appoint a lot of good judges (John Roberts is horrible).
Trump has not started any wars, though he may help Israel. How is the Israeli war worse than what Bush did to the Middle East people with the lies about 'weapons of mass destruction'? Plus Trump has arguably appointed better judges to both SCOTUS and federal areas.
If voting for Bush wasn't a mortal sin, then it's not wrong for Trump. Arguably, Trump is better than Bush Jr. To play devil's advocate, Trump is not any worse.
-
You're not trying to USE birth control in order to accomplish some good thing with the double effect of some bad thing. That's what is meant by an action that's intrinsically wrong not qualifying for liceity under double effect.
Ok, yes, that's a better explanation. Sorry I'm butchering the argument.
But I'm also not USING abortion to accomplish something good. Same thing with IVF. So if BC gets a "pass" then why doesn't IVF/abortion?
-
This is the type of out-of-touch, head-in-the-clouds, fantasy thinking of many Trads. It’s directly contrary to last Sunday’s gospel. You can’t vote for Christ and the answer is non-sensical.
Firstly, He’s not an American citizen. (Although, I’m sure he could *create* a green card without any trouble).
Secondly, He’s not 35 yrs old. (He died at the age of 33). So He’s not even eligible to be President.
Thirdly, I don’t think He qualifies as a resident of any state. (Last known place of address was Jerusalem).
All kidding aside, saying one should vote “For Christ” is just not living in reality. As the Gospel says, “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”. God created govts to be run by and through mankind. Govts are part of humanity and the world. Real life.
You can’t marry God, or work for Him, or have lunch with Him, or buy a car from Him. And you certainly can’t vote for Him. That’s not how He created the world to operate.
Thanks for putting it so well Pax!
-
Completely false analogy. When you vote for a candidate, you are a cause of his getting into office (assuming that the vote is not rigged ... which it is). You do not cause your OBGYN to prescribe birth control. When you are a cause of some evil, you're a formal cooperator in the evil, whereas the individual would be in material cooperation only with the OBGYN. Same thing holds if you go to a store or pharmacy that sells birth control (they all do).
You're obviously not committing a sin by acting as an election official, since elections themselves are not intrinsically evil (but indifferent). It's like selling guns at a gun shop ... and someone then takes one of the guns he purchased there and uses it for murder.
Ok, so like you, I believe the vote is rigged. Unlike you, I think they will put the commie woman in......"because Trump."
So explain how it is a sin to vote for either crook when the outcome is already decided? And explain how it is a sin to vote for Trump, if/when Trump looses?
-
Good discussion. And nice to see that it's mostly pleasant.
I've considered the possibility too. Just recently, President Trump posted on X/Truth Social a post praising Polish Catholic martyr and priest who died giving a heroic resistance to Communism. Others posted that that priest Fr. Jerzy Popieluzko led an atheist Communist to convert on the spot because that former KGB agent could no longer believe anyone could withstand such painful torture and demonstrate such heroic virtue without some inner supernatural strength. So that was a good testimony, and Trump highlighting this clearly shows he is, at the least, favorable and friendly to the Catholic Church and Her rights, and that his second administration will continue the pro-life and pro-Church policy of the first. It should be noted his VP nominee JD Vance is a devout pro-life Catholic. Trump has also posted the St. Michael's prayer and wished Mother Mary a happy birthday. He is at least friendly to Catholicism though, of course, a little confused about abortion. Or maybe, since he ended Roe v Wade after all, and as this thread speculates, he firmly intends to be really pro-life once he gets into office but needs to appear moderate to be elected. We have to remember even Gorsuch, when being confirmed, appeared to reaffirm Roe but then destroyed it.
-
...Most of us voted for Bush Jr the first and second terms. He promoted birth control in schools, subsidized it in govt insurance plans, started wars, continued wars, etc. Bush Jr also didn't appoint a lot of good judges (John Roberts is horrible).
Trump has not started any wars, though he may help Israel. How is the Israeli war worse than what Bush did to the Middle East people with the lies about 'weapons of mass destruction'? Plus Trump has arguably appointed better judges to both SCOTUS and federal areas.
If voting for Bush wasn't a mortal sin, then it's not wrong for Trump. Arguably, Trump is better than Bush Jr. To play devil's advocate, Trump is not any worse.
You make a good case against voting for "lesser-of-2-evils"-Bush, which is why I didn't.
Ok, so like you, I believe the vote is rigged. Unlike you, I think they will put the commie woman in......"because Trump."
So explain how it is a sin to vote for either crook when the outcome is already decided? And explain how it is a sin to vote for Trump, if/when Trump looses?
I don't understand why people want to compromise, even take the chance that it might be a sin, if the outcome is already decided. All these arguments might appeal to me more if I thought there was any reality to our 'selection'. But why bother, especially in very 'blue' states where he doesn't stand a chance, why bother taking the risk that maybe it might displease Our Lord, when my vote won't make a difference anyway? :confused:
(https://i.imgur.com/Kccmjfk.png)
-
Ok, so like you, I believe the vote is rigged. Unlike you, I think they will put the commie woman in......"because Trump."
So explain how it is a sin to vote for either crook when the outcome is already decided? And explain how it is a sin to vote for Trump, if/when Trump looses?
The answer is clear: both candidates support the atrocity of abortion. Catholics cannot compromise on such fundamental issues.
Reading through the comments in this thread, I wonder—if the scenario were this: Kamala openly supports the complete destruction of the Eucharist, while Trump only supports defiling it in minor ways—what would the response be?
Lord, have mercy on us.
-
Good discussion. And nice to see that it's mostly pleasant.
I've considered the possibility too. Just recently, President Trump posted on X/Truth Social a post praising Polish Catholic martyr and priest who died giving a heroic resistance to Communism. Others posted that that priest Fr. Jerzy Popieluzko led an atheist Communist to convert on the spot because that former KGB agent could no longer believe anyone could withstand such painful torture and demonstrate such heroic virtue without some inner supernatural strength. So that was a good testimony, and Trump highlighting this clearly shows he is, at the least, favorable and friendly to the Catholic Church and Her rights, and that his second administration will continue the pro-life and pro-Church policy of the first. It should be noted his VP nominee JD Vance is a devout pro-life Catholic. Trump has also posted the St. Michael's prayer and wished Mother Mary a happy birthday. He is at least friendly to Catholicism though, of course, a little confused about abortion. Or maybe, since he ended Roe v Wade after all, and as this thread speculates, he firmly intends to be really pro-life once he gets into office but needs to appear moderate to be elected. We have to remember even Gorsuch, when being confirmed, appeared to reaffirm Roe but then destroyed it.
Your points remind me of the devil's classic tactic: using a bit of truth to lure us into sin, as seen in the diabolical deception of Faustina or the false apparitions at Medjugorje. In both cases, some truth or piety was presented, yet they ultimately led people away from true Catholic teaching.
Trump’s recent posts about Catholic martyrs, the St. Michael prayer, and even honoring Mary might seem like signs of respect for the Church, but we need to recognize this for what it is—a calculated strategy to win Catholic support. It’s a bait-and-switch, using these gestures to sway us into overlooking his moral inconsistencies, particularly on issues like abortion.
We cannot afford to be deceived by partial truths or friendly gestures. The devil often disguises lies with bits of truth to tempt souls into compromise. Similarly, a candidate who uses Catholic symbols and rhetoric to gain our vote while remaining unclear on critical moral issues is attempting to win our consent under false pretenses. As Catholics, we must reject this manipulation and stand firm on non-negotiable principles.
-
The answer is clear: both candidates support the atrocity of abortion. Catholics cannot compromise on such fundamental issues.
M1913: Did you find the links to the sources that support Fr Hewko's assertion in your post #33 that:
"....numerous bishops and traditional clerics who support the position that voting for Donald Trump is intrinsically evil due to his stance on issues like abortion. If you choose to dismiss their sources based on your criteria for "prudence," that’s on you." ?
-
The answer is clear: both candidates support the atrocity of abortion. Catholics cannot compromise on such fundamental issues.
Reading through the comments in this thread, I wonder—if the scenario were this: Kamala openly supports the complete destruction of the Eucharist, while Trump only supports defiling it in minor ways—what would the response be?
Lord, have mercy on us.
If that were the scenario, then I assure you this thread would be completely different.
But as long as the vote is already fixed and the outcome is already decided, how is it a sin to vote for Trump?
-
I don't understand why people want to compromise, even take the chance that it might be a sin, if the outcome is already decided. All these arguments might appeal to me more if I thought there was any reality to our 'selection'.
Sure, some things are fixed, but not the whole system. Otherwise Trump wouldn't have won in 2016. And Brexit wouldn't have happened in 2015. *They* don't control everything. They aren't God.
-
*They* don't control everything. They aren't God.
Such an important point in all of this.
-
Sure, some things are fixed, but not the whole system. Otherwise Trump wouldn't have won in 2016.
:facepalm: ... Trump won in 2016 becaue he was supposed to win and they wanted him to win.
-
M1913: Did you find the links to the sources that support Fr Hewko's assertion in your post #33 that:
"....numerous bishops and traditional clerics who support the position that voting for Donald Trump is intrinsically evil due to his stance on issues like abortion. If you choose to dismiss their sources based on your criteria for "prudence," that’s on you." ?
While I chose to overlook your initial post, I will address your current inquiry regarding Fr. Hewko's assertion.
I provided videos where Fr. Hewko discusses his stance on voting, including his condemnation of both hαɾɾιs and Trump. If you have not yet taken the time to watch them, I encourage you to do so to fully understand his position. The sources and reasoning are there, and it's crucial to approach this matter with diligence.
In another post, I highlighted the following, which serves as a foundational understanding for any Catholic on this topic:
To thoroughly reject the notion of voting for the "lesser of two evils," we turn to Traditional Catholic sources that emphasize moral absolutes and uncompromising adherence to Church teachings on cooperation with evil:
1. St. Thomas Aquinas on Cooperation with Evil
St. Thomas Aquinas provides a foundational argument against choosing any evil, regardless of its degree. He teaches, “No one is permitted to commit sin, even for the sake of avoiding a greater sin or obtaining a greater good” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 78, Art. 1). The principle here is clear: choosing the lesser of two evils still involves committing an evil act, which is never permissible. Aquinas’s teaching underscores that we cannot engage in moral wrongdoing, even with the intent of achieving a supposedly greater good.
2. Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii
Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Casti Connubii (1930), condemns abortion as a grave evil that Catholics must oppose without compromise. He states: “In this matter, Catholics cannot allow themselves to be guided by mere expediency but must obey the dictates of the moral law.” This directive is not limited to abortion; it applies to all actions that conflict with the moral law. Voting for a candidate who supports any form of abortion, even if perceived as the lesser evil, amounts to indirect cooperation with evil, which Catholics must reject.
3. Pope Pius XII on the Dangers of Moral Compromise
Pope Pius XII emphasized the Church’s duty to uphold moral truth without compromise. In his Allocution to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Jurists (December 6, 1953), he proclaimed, “The good end does not make right an action which is in itself wrong.” This means that even if a candidate’s election might lead to certain good outcomes, voting for them still involves endorsing moral wrongs. This statement directly refutes the idea of supporting a lesser evil, as it reveals how this approach leads Catholics to justify morally unacceptable actions for perceived benefits.
4.Pope St. Gregory the Great on Leadership and Moral Integrity
Pope St. Gregory the Great advised against selecting leaders who fail to uphold moral principles. In his Pastoral Rule, he emphasizes, “It is better that scandals arise than the truth be suppressed.” Here, he underscores the need for Catholics to uphold moral truth at all costs. Supporting a candidate who promotes or tolerates grave evils like abortion constitutes a form of moral surrender. St. Gregory’s words call Catholics to choose leaders who are fully aligned with Catholic values, not merely lesser evils.
5. Catholic Moral Theology on the Misapplication of the Double Effect Principle
The principle of double effect does not justify voting for a morally compromised candidate. According to Traditional Catholic moral theology, this principle applies only when the bad effect is not directly willed, and there is no other way to achieve a necessary good. In the case of voting, however, Catholics knowingly endorse a candidate with morally flawed positions, which constitutes direct cooperation with evil. Therefore, the double effect principle does not provide cover for voting for the lesser evil.
Traditional Catholic teaching, as seen in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, and Archbishop Lefebvre, is unequivocal: Catholics cannot choose any evil, even if it is perceived as lesser. Supporting a candidate who endorses intrinsic evils like abortion is incompatible with Catholic principles. Instead, Catholics must seek alternatives that align with moral absolutes and uphold the Faith without compromise. The call is to reject any form of political manipulation that lures Catholics into accepting moral compromises and to remain steadfast in defending the Church’s teachings on non-negotiable issues.
If you choose to look past these teachings for an idolatrous adoration of Trump, I cannot help that. However, it is vital for all of us to engage with the truth and uphold the teachings of the Faith without compromise.
-
While I chose to overlook your initial post, I will address your current inquiry regarding Fr. Hewko's assertion.
I provided videos where Fr. Hewko discusses his stance on voting, including his condemnation of both hαɾɾιs and Trump. If you have not yet taken the time to watch them, I encourage you to do so to fully understand his position. The sources and reasoning are there, and it's crucial to approach this matter with diligence.
But I'm asking for the sources and support for his assertion that "numerous other bishops and clerics" agree with him. I'm not asking to hear what he states in a sermon or anything else.
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif) ... Trump won in 2016 becaue he was supposed to win and they wanted him to win.
Ok, so if one's vote doesn't matter, then there's no situation where voting can be a 'mortal sin'.
You can't have it both ways. You can't argue a) "Oh, I'm not going to vote because it's all controlled". and also b) "If you vote for X, then it's a mortal sin."
-
Ok, so if one's vote doesn't matter, then there's no situation where voting can be a 'mortal sin'.
You can't have it both ways. You can't argue a) "Oh, I'm not going to vote because it's all controlled". and also b) "If you vote for X, then it's a mortal sin."
Intent matters, if you pull the trigger of an empty gun you still committed mortal sin.
So sad how confident some are in their ignorance.
Incredible how one can be well-read and still clueless about the basics.
-
Ok, so if one's vote doesn't matter, then there's no situation where voting can be a 'mortal sin'.
You can't have it both ways. You can't argue a) "Oh, I'm not going to vote because it's all controlled". and also b) "If you vote for X, then it's a mortal sin."
As Marulus points out, that makes no sense. If you THINK that the election isn't rigged and that your vote counts, you're guilty of it even if you're wrong. If I see a $100 bill on the table and take it, thinking it belongs to someone else, but it's actually really mine, even though you don't objectively commit theft, you're still guilty of it.
Yes, the elections are 100% controlled ... and that's precisely why I don't understand why so many are compromising Catholic principles for nothing. Of course, even though they're rigged, I wouldn't go vote for either candidate since it would bother me even to go through the motion.
-
Intent matters, if you pull the trigger of an empty gun you still committed mortal sin.
Not if you know the gun is empty.
-
If you THINK that the election isn't rigged and that your vote counts, you're guilty of (voting) even if you're wrong.
Of course. But all this presumes that voting for Trump is wrong to begin with...which has not been proven. I contend that voting for him (whether the election is rigged or not) is not a mortal sin. There's plenty of "goods" that can happen due to his presidency.
-
What if Trump is just practicing "the ends justify the means" and saying what he THINKS he needs to say, to get enough votes so he can get into office?
His softening on Abortion, support for LGBT, even his support for Israel, etc.?
Here is my interesting theory -- feel free to discuss.
We should judge (and vote for) Trump as a KNOWN QUANTITY looking mostly at WHAT HE HAS DONE -- given that he was, in fact, president for 4 years.
Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. Could a Catholic vote for Trump based on his actions?
Imagine if someone said, "We can't vote for Trump. We can't let that man have the nuclear codes." I'd be like, "Um....how do I say this...he was president for 4 years already." The same for any other extreme fear porn his enemies might throw out there. Trump WAS president already for a whole term. Trump is not a scary unknown quantity. Not after his first term was served, that is.
AT THE VERY LEAST, Trump personally having the morality "The ends justify the means", while it's not morally valid, it's certainly not bad enough to forbid Catholics from voting for him under pain of mortal sin. Know what I mean?
To play devil's advocate here, let's see if voting for Trump could be justified by a good Catholic...
What a good Catholic would be VOTING FOR by pulling the lever for Trump is another 4 years of Trump as we actually experienced 2016-2020. You know, great economy, more respect on the world stage, tightening of abortion restrictions, reining in of unrestricted illegal immigration (from all countries) over the mexican border, fighting cнιℓd тrαffιcking, appointing of countless conservative (rather than highly liberal) judges, reversing of any/all communist "Green" climate change agendas, opening up of oil drilling, etc., and no new wars/police actions/military operations.
Yes, Trump didn't get to finish. Remember he was persecuted for many of those 4 years, which kind of throws a monkey wrench in the works, no matter how good you are. Also, he only had 4 years to undo decades of problems. It takes time to "build the wall". Trump most certainly kept his promise. But he only had so much support, and a few short years.
I think it would be justified for a Catholic to make an argument along these lines.
Also to add, he was never in politics before, especially POTUS, he took some really bad advice and kept some bad characters in play which came back to haunt him,which he admits will not happen again, he will clean house this time.
And although he didn't completely fulfill policies which mirr Catholic doctrine , we were definitely SAFER under Trump and don't forget the man IS NOT CATHOLIC.
Look at the complete roll call of "catholic" politicians who completely screwed us for years now, biden, Peℓσѕι, cuomo, etc. They're pathetic. Trump has a better track record than the damn "pope " for crying out loud.
This election is a no brainer for anyone with with the least ability for critical thought. If you stay out, it's a vote for the damn vampires who will suck us dry.
Just give us a break with this nonvoting sh*t, whether you like it or not YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE! Choose to get rid of the COMMIES! Snap out of it!
-
Look at the complete roll call of "catholic" politicians who completely screwed us for years now, biden, Peℓσѕι, cuomo, etc. They're pathetic. Trump has a better track record than the damn "pope " for crying out loud.
This election is a no brainer for anyone with with the least ability for critical thought. If you stay out, it's a vote for the damn vampires who will suck us dry.
Just give us a break with this nonvoting sh*t, whether you like it or not YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE! Choose to get rid of the COMMIES! Snap out of it!
Yes, yes and yes.
We're at war, people. It's a silent war at the moment. If the crazed libs get in, then hold on for WW3, famines, grid lockdowns, power outages on a nationwide scale, etc. The libs/China want to reduce the US to a third-world country. Trump wants to keep the US as a 1st world nation, on part with China.
This is ultimately a battle between 2 global views - the Liberals want China to be the world's new superpower...after they start WW3 and get the US and Russia to annihilate one another (as foretold by freemason Albert Pike). If the Libs win, expect drastic changes in our economy, and fast. And not for the good. And also war and more viruses.
Trump's side of globalism will keep the US as a superpower, with an even playing field between China, Russia, Europe, America. A multi-polar world.
Both sides lead to the NWO but Trump's version takes longer (and gives us more time to pray). It's a no-brainer.
-
Of course. But all this presumes that voting for Trump is wrong to begin with...which has not been proven. I contend that voting for him (whether the election is rigged or not) is not a mortal sin. There's plenty of "goods" that can happen due to his presidency.
One of those goods that can happen with Trump is what? We know one of the goods is not early term abortion, so with that one fact in mind…tell me again what good he can do that will outweigh that one YUGE bad? Abortion will continue but “did you see the stock market today? So glad Trump won!”
-
Yes, yes and yes.
We're at war, people. It's a silent war at the moment. If the crazed libs get in, then hold on for WW3, famines, grid lockdowns, power outages on a nationwide scale, etc. The libs/China want to reduce the US to a third-world country. Trump wants to keep the US as a 1st world nation, on part with China.
This is ultimately a battle between 2 global views - the Liberals want China to be the world's new superpower...after they start WW3 and get the US and Russia to annihilate one another (as foretold by freemason Albert Pike). If the Libs win, expect drastic changes in our economy, and fast. And not for the good. And also war and more viruses.
Trump's side of globalism will keep the US as a superpower, with an even playing field between China, Russia, Europe, America. A multi-polar world.
Both sides lead to the NWO but Trump's version takes longer (and gives us more time to pray). It's a no-brainer.
Pike specifically foretold that the antichrist will come from the right, as a reaction to the extreme nihilism, degeneracy, atheism and chaos wrought by the left.
Regardless of whatever techno utopia the elites desire, who are themselves tricked by the father of lies, the devil has but one agenda, to harvest as many souls as possible for his infernal kingdom.
Those on the left already belong to his kingdom. It's those who still identify as Christian, hold to traditional concepts of Christian morality, that he most desires. And for this reason I think Trump serves as an archetype of sorts for the
antichrist about to come. He will promise peace and prosperity right at the moment when the world is most lost and confused.
Satan achieves a foothold in our lives by one small compromise after another. Most Catholics/Christians I know took the jab, multiple jabs, due to Trump. No way they would have takin it if Hillary had been president.
Likewise these very same people will blindly follow Trump when he attacks Iran.
-
Pike specifically foretold that the antichrist will come from the right, as a reaction to the extreme nihilism, degeneracy, atheism and chaos wrought by the left.
Regardless of whatever techno utopia the elites desire, who are themselves tricked by the father of lies, the devil has but one agenda, to harvest as many souls as possible for his infernal kingdom.
Those on the left already belong to his kingdom. It's those who still identify as Christian, hold to traditional concepts of Christian morality, that he most desires. And for this reason I think Trump serves as an archetype of sorts for the
antichrist about to come. He will promise peace and prosperity right at the moment when the world is most lost and confused.
Satan achieves a foothold in our lives by one small compromise after another. Most Catholics/Christians I know took the jab, multiple jabs, due to Trump. No way they would have takin it if Hillary had been president.
Likewise these very same people will blindly follow Trump when he attacks Iran.
You are spot on. I was reading a quote today by St. John of the Cross. He said Satan cannot deceive a good soul with evil because that soul will outright reject obvious evil. So Satan uses what seems to be good to deceive him.
We know from the vision of Pope Leo Xlll that Our Lord gave Satan 100 years to try and destroy the Church. I think it's good to remember that the Church is not just a hierarchical structure with buildings but the Church is also each and every soul. The devil is trying to wipe out the faith in each soul. Our Lord said "think thou when the Son of Man returns, He will find FAITH on the earth?" He may find latin Mass attendees and conservative pro lifers but the dogma of faith will sparsely be preserved.
-
Satan achieves a foothold in our lives by one small compromise after another. Most Catholics/Christians I know took the jab, multiple jabs, due to Trump. No way they would have takin it if Hillary had been president.
Likewise these very same people will blindly follow Trump when he attacks Iran.
Ok but I don’t think it’s a damnable sin to have taken the jab. So where did satans foothold happen here? Those who got the jab are definitely stupid but if they didn’t jeopardize salvation, then satan didn’t gain anything.
Supporting any war nowadays depends on which propaganda you listen to/believe. Hard to say what true or false. God isn’t going to damn anyone for being duped by next-level/intelligence experts who spew lies for a living. Again, Satan wins nothing from this.
Your comments about the antichrist are valid. But your connection with him and these 2 political examples fails.
-
Ok but I don’t think it’s a damnable sin to have taken the jab. So where did satans foothold happen here? Those who got the jab are definitely stupid but if they didn’t jeopardize salvation, then satan didn’t gain anything.
Supporting any war nowadays depends on which propaganda you listen to/believe. Hard to say what true or false. God isn’t going to damn anyone for being duped by next-level/intelligence experts who spew lies for a living. Again, Satan wins nothing from this.
Your comments about the antichrist are valid. But your connection with him and these 2 political examples fails.
The jab was made with aborted fetal tissue and wasn't even a traditional vaccine but an MRNA "gene therapy" This information was easily obtainable if people spent 10 minutes online doing some research but they chose instead to watch silly tik tok videos, porn, games, listen to liars like Fauci, Trump, Brix, Gates, etc. The bottom line is that these same Christians/Catholics didn't want their lives of travel and self indulgence perturbed so they submitted, just as they will when the mark of the beast comes....because it's convenient!
Even very intelligent men like Bishop Sanborn failed in guiding his flock.
About the only Trad priests who spoke out against it were Williamson, Hewko and Reylea. It's kind of a shame that even some evangelicals, with their garbage doctrine, saw through the scandemic but Trad Catholics were taken in by it
-
As Marulus points out, that makes no sense. If you THINK that the election isn't rigged and that your vote counts, you're guilty of it even if you're wrong. If I see a $100 bill on the table and take it, thinking it belongs to someone else, but it's actually really mine, even though you don't objectively commit theft, you're still guilty of it.
Yes, the elections are 100% controlled ... and that's precisely why I don't understand why so many are compromising Catholic principles for nothing. Of course, even though they're rigged, I wouldn't go vote for either candidate since it would bother me even to go through the motion.
I have a clarifying question for you. My understanding of your position is that the only correct and moral action here is to not vote at this time.
If there was a small pro-Catholic, anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-sodomy, anti-divorce party, would you then vote for it since it would be promoting positively, good? Or is the rigging of the election enough to keep you from voting in that case as well?
-
"My people die for lack of knowledge"-
All Catholics needed to know about the shot was that it involved fetal tissue for R and D and in it's components.
If they didn't know that, well that's not on them, but if they did it is a grave sin, even if "Francis" gave the ok.
In fact, Francis giving the OK should have been a sign that something was seriously off.
-
"My people die for lack of knowledge"-
All Catholics needed to know about the shot was that it involved fetal tissue for R and D and in it's components.
If they didn't know that, well that's not on them, but if they did it is a grave sin, even if "Francis" gave the ok.
In fact, Francis giving the OK should have been a sign that something was seriously off.
The SSPX hierarchy knew this and either feigned indifference or gave their full blessing to taking the jab
-
Yes, yes and yes.
We're at war, people. It's a silent war at the moment. If the crazed libs get in, then hold on for WW3, famines, grid lockdowns, power outages on a nationwide scale, etc. The libs/China want to reduce the US to a third-world country. Trump wants to keep the US as a 1st world nation, on part with China.
This is ultimately a battle between 2 global views - the Liberals want China to be the world's new superpower...after they start WW3 and get the US and Russia to annihilate one another (as foretold by freemason Albert Pike). If the Libs win, expect drastic changes in our economy, and fast. And not for the good. And also war and more viruses.
Trump's side of globalism will keep the US as a superpower, with an even playing field between China, Russia, Europe, America. A multi-polar world.
Both sides lead to the NWO but Trump's version takes longer (and gives us more time to pray). It's a no-brainer.
Actually, it's a psychological war using the Hegelien dialectic. As long as souls of good wiil keep playing the game of the "lesser of two evils", and compromising the natural law, society will continue to collapse.
-
Souls of good will are far outnumbered by sheeple, who are eligible to vote. The 80% of sheeple dictate where this country is going, not anyone on this site. And the Hegelian dialect isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. Ignoring it, and not taking part in it, won’t change anything.
-
Souls of good will are far outnumbered by sheeple, who are eligible to vote. The 80% of sheeple dictate where this country is going, not anyone on this site. And the Hegelian dialect isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. Ignoring it, and not taking part in it, won’t change anything.
https://youtu.be/Zaa-0PqXwGU?si=6aG2MB975k4BRSME
Just keep playing their game!
-
https://youtu.be/Zaa-0PqXwGU?si=6aG2MB975k4BRSME
Just keep playing their game!
Very interesting video, thanks for the share.
-
Just keep playing their game!
:facepalm: Whether I play or not, the game continues. You act like you playing or not playing makes a difference. It doesn't.
-
:facepalm: Whether I play or not, the game continues. You act like you playing or not playing makes a difference. It doesn't.
Playing the game in this scenario would be a sin.
-
I have often thought that the only way to overcome corruption by conventional means (aside from prayer and supernatural help) is to play the game of the corrupt against them; something Catholics cannot do. Would it work? Would God allow it to work; using wrongs to make right? If Trump and Vance are only compromising on issues to play the game to get in, then fight the system with good principles once in, would their initial compromise and intent of deceit prevent them the grace to bring about the intended good? It has crossed my mind if someone would dare risk sacrificing their soul to use such means to bring about good for the many. Of course, Trump might not really know the risk he takes or the evil he does by trying to use wrong to make right, but he doesn't seem very juuish, he just appears to go along with whatever makes them happy to get in. He's like " what now? Do I do it this way or that?"
-
The SSPX hierarchy knew this and either feigned indifference or gave their full blessing to taking the jab
The neo- SSPX has been doing a lot of that....
-
Actually, it's a psychological war using the Hegelien dialectic. As long as souls of good wiil keep playing the game of the "lesser of two evils", and compromising the natural law, society will continue to collapse.
Perfect!
-
:facepalm: Whether I play or not, the game continues. You act like you playing or not playing makes a difference. It doesn't.
It makes a difference for your soul- no compromise with evil. It has never been this clear. This is beyond an election spiritually. Are we under the spell or able to break away from it?
-
Playing the game in this scenario would be a sin.
Fellow Catholic, if it's a sin to play the game - as in vote, then it's a sin to pay into/for the game-as in taxes. At least be consistent.
Regarding the Vendee, the uprising in that area of France was four years after the revolution, the imprisonment of the King, all the atrocities committed against nuns, priests, and all the sacrileges and then months after the Kings execution.
The uprising in the Vendee was primarily a response to the intended draft of the Vendee men into the revolutionary army to fight against Spain.
While they did chase some of the Jurying priests out, generally the Vendee did not go on the offensive against the corrupt and immoral revolution. They tolerated it, although unhappily.
-
It makes a difference for your soul- no compromise with evil. It has never been this clear. This is beyond an election spiritually. Are we under the spell or able to break away from it?
You, Michelle, Lad are among the few who get it.
We have been voting for the lesser of two evils since the creation of this masonic nation. Where has it gotten us?
To the point of ethnic replacement of our people throughout Europe and North America, to the point where you will get fired from your job if you misgender a troon, have to pay for abortion mills out of your salary, an entire month devoted to gαy pride, a nation where your kid will be taken away from you if you object to him being castrated, etc, etc.
This is what compromise after comprise looks like...a population troglodytes whose lives revolve around porn, video games, professional sports, weed, marvel movies, rap. Imagine thinking your vote is going to affect this sickness of the soul.
In 2016 I voted for Trump and what I got was President Kushner
-
You, Michelle, Lad are among the few who get it.
We have been voting for the lesser of two evils since the creation of this masonic nation. Where has it gotten us?
To the point of ethnic replacement of our people throughout Europe and North America, to the point where you will get fired from your job if you misgender a troon, have to pay for abortion mills out of your salary, an entire month devoted to gαy pride, a nation where your kid will be taken away from you if you object to him being castrated, etc, etc.
This is what compromise after comprise looks like...a population troglodytes whose lives revolve around porn, video games, professional sports, weed, marvel movies, rap. Imagine thinking your vote is going to affect this sickness of the soul.
In 2016 I voted for Trump and what I got was President Kushner
All these arguments in these threads — the 'lesser of two evils' and how all we do is keep going down the slippery slope — I argued this decades ago. And yet, even when I was arguing with friends all those years ago, if someone had described what you just described above — well, let's just say, it's so much worse than I could have even imagined. I am so glad I stopped voting "lesser of 2 evils" those decades ago. Let-alone my vote would never have changed the outcome one iota.
And how anyone can even think our votes matter after 2020, well, as someone else said, if you believe that, I can't help you.
(https://i.imgur.com/d8oifwT.png)
-
Fellow Catholic, if it's a sin to play the game - as in vote, then it's a sin to pay into/for the game-as in taxes. At least be consistent.
They can’t be consistent. All their energy is spent every 4 years, clamoring that voting is as evil as satan himself. Meanwhile, every paycheck, they send $ to the very people they refuse to vote for.
We’re forced to play the game. They’ve yet to figure it out.
-
I'm reminded of that powerful passage in the Apocalypse where the angel commands God's people come out of Babylon and not be partakers of her sins. He didn't say, "get back in that voting booth and vote harder this time!
You might just get a capital gains tax cut or a different group of joos to run the state department!"
What's absurd about all these threads related to the election is that the number of eligible voters who are traditional Catholics wouldn't even fill the stadium of a single Taylor Swift concert.
Any thoughtful and well informed voter is outnumbered thousands to one. And that's precisely why democracy is the one political system the elites push on every nation or culture. They found the perfect formula for soft tyranny by
providing this farce of participation every 4 years.
In what other system could a Bush jr, an Obama, a Biden, Romney, McCain, Peℓσѕι, Schummer float to the top, like a turd you can't flush.
-
You, Michelle, Lad are among the few who get it.
We have been voting for the lesser of two evils since the creation of this masonic nation. Where has it gotten us?
To the point of ethnic replacement of our people throughout Europe and North America, to the point where you will get fired from your job if you misgender a troon, have to pay for abortion mills out of your salary, an entire month devoted to gαy pride, a nation where your kid will be taken away from you if you object to him being castrated, etc, etc.
This is what compromise after comprise looks like...a population troglodytes whose lives revolve around porn, video games, professional sports, weed, marvel movies, rap. Imagine thinking your vote is going to affect this sickness of the soul.
In 2016 I voted for Trump and what I got was President Kushner
What do you mean by ethnic replacement of our people? So God only loves one group of people? I do believe God loves all humans, no matter who they are.
I hope I misunderstood you.
Your language in this post worries me. It sounds like you fear demons and humans more than God. It feels like you put too much faith in man.
God is completely in control of all this crazy. He knows exactly what He is doing, we just have to do our little part.
Focusing on how people are going to vote in the election is misplaced. Do you really care for the souls you think are sinning? Are you focusing on offering up prayers and then listening for His answer?
I pray all the time. I get nos or not right nows all the time. Does that mean I should give up and hide in a corner?
God believing people heckled at a hαɾɾιs convention and she told them they were in the wrong place. With hαɾɾιs in office, God won't be allowed, with Trump, there might be a little, very little hope, but all we need is just a tiny little mustard seed of hope.
Vote or don't vote, God still wins in the end.
Prayers for all.
-
They can’t be consistent. All their energy is spent every 4 years, clamoring that voting is as evil as satan himself. Meanwhile, every paycheck, they send $ to the very people they refuse to vote for.
We’re forced to play the game. They’ve yet to figure it out.
Exactly, it seems there is a real lack of conviction.
-
They can’t be consistent. All their energy is spent every 4 years, clamoring that voting is as evil as satan himself. Meanwhile, every paycheck, they send $ to the very people they refuse to vote for.
We’re forced to play the game. They’ve yet to figure it out.
lol, I never thought of it like that.
God Bless
-
I'm reminded of that powerful passage in the Apocalypse where the angel commands God's people come out of Babylon and not be partakers of her sins.
What's absurd about all these threads related to the election is that the number of eligible voters who are traditional Catholics wouldn't even fill the stadium of a single Taylor Swift concert.
Ironically, I agree and if Hαɾɾιs wins I'm reminded of the verse "because she saith in her heart; I sit a queen" and destruction befalls her in a day, Revelation 18:7-8.
Then the second part you call it all pointless anyway so why waste time here condemning Trump and trying to tell people not to vote for him? It doesn't matter anyway according to you.
"For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."
-
Exactly, it seems there is a real lack of conviction.
There's a difference between being born into slavery (taxation) and voting in the slave masters.
-
There's a difference between being born into slavery (taxation) and voting in the slave masters.
Lame excuse. It appears your convictions have a limit, don't they?
-
There's a difference between being born into slavery (taxation) and voting in the slave masters.
You are correct Michelle.
I would point out however that the money we pay in taxes doesn't really go toward roads, bridges, tanks, schools, or abortions.
The Fed prints money out of thin air. We have a fiat currency not backed by anything really except the soon to vanish petrol dollar and waining military might.
The average American has a very quaint notion of how the economy actually works. They go to the local farmer's market, hand over some money and get a bag of tomatoes. They think the government acts the same way but on are far large scale. The money you earn which is sent to the IRS isn't bundled together with everyone else's then handed over to such and such a department to pay its salaries. There isn't a safety deposit box in some cavernous building with all the money awaiting you from what you paid into social security. The Fed just prints that.
Same goes with the bank you took out your mortgage with. With fractional reserve banking, a bank can lend you money to buy a house that it doesn't actually even have. But it will tack on interest.
It's just numbers on a computer.
No person you know could ever get away with the way the government and banks operate.
The average person hears about our 37 TRILLION debt and then sees congress hand out billions to other countries like it was chump change. Yet, the politicians don't seem the least bit perturbed by this debt. Every wonder why?
The reasons are manifold but they know this system is unsustainable and designed to collapse.
This will provide the pretext for a CBDC, central bank digital currency, another integral part of the beast system.
-
Valentine, you and the bunch are skirting the issue. If your vote means consent to the immorality of the politician, then your taxes imply consent to the immorality funded by those taxes. If you can't vote for this reason, then stop paying taxes- that is if your convictions are firm enough.
Lame excuse- "We are born into it". You're also born into the current political system.
Convictions should be firm no matter what the tax system is.
-
Valentine, you and the bunch are skirting the issue. If your vote means consent to the immorality of the politician, then your taxes imply consent to the immorality funded by those taxes. If you can't vote for this reason, then stop paying taxes- that is if your convictions are firm enough.
Lame excuse- "We are born into it". You're also born into the current political system.
Convictions should be firm no matter what the tax system is.
I could easily counter by saying that pro lifers lack the courage of their convictions otherwise they would go full Eric Rudolph.
If I saw someone in a Walmart parking lot abducting a child I would do anything, including using deadly force, to rescue that child. When you call abortion murder of an innocent baby and then say we'll just let the courts work it once we tip the number of justices in our favor.
It's to all of our collective shame we tolerate it. No wonder the Muslims must think us weak. When the governments in England tried to push the GLBT propaganda in mostly Muslim schools they shut that down immediately.
Because they were unified with outrage and would risk their jobs, citizenship, and lives to prove it. Catholics were once like that, in the grand old days of the Crusades and Inquisition.
-
I could easily counter by saying that pro lifers lack the courage of their convictions otherwise they would go full Eric Rudolph.
If I saw someone in a Walmart parking lot abducting a child I would do anything, including using deadly force, to rescue that child. When you call abortion murder of an innocent baby and then say we'll just let the courts work it once we tip the number of justices in our favor.
It's to all of our collective shame we tolerate it. No wonder the Muslims must think us weak. When the governments in England tried to push the GLBT propaganda in mostly Muslim schools they shut that down immediately.
Because they were unified with outrage and would risk their jobs, citizenship, and lives to prove it. Catholics were once like that, in the grand old days of the Crusades and Inquisition.
That is truly the militant spirit we are missing as Catholics! We cover our cowardness by calling it prudence. If the traditional Catholic leaders would stand up and sound the alarm, the laity would follow.
-
That is truly the militant spirit we are missing as Catholics! We cover our cowardness by calling it prudence. If the traditional Catholic leaders would stand up and sound the alarm, the laity would follow.
I can understand your frustration. We do live in a time with many cowards. Do you have these conversations with traditional Catholic leaders? Are their any traditional Catholic leaders on CathInfo?
Would you be willing to prayer the Rosary in front of a government building, ask some friends to join?
I live near DC and have the opportunity to walk around the White House praying the Rosary. We are very lucky that praying in public is still an option. I know at least in England and Italy you can get in trouble for praying the rosary in public. These little things matter much to God.
Just because I am tired of all the infighting between Catholics doesn't mean I have stuck my head in the sand. We can only fight where we stand.
-
That is truly the militant spirit we are missing as Catholics! We cover our cowardness by calling it prudence. If the traditional Catholic leaders would stand up and sound the alarm, the laity would follow.
Absolutely, all the Bishops are silent, it seems Archbishop Vigano is the only one and he is doing it only periodically and on certain issues.
-
I can understand your frustration. We do live in a time with many cowards. Do you have these conversations with traditional Catholic leaders? Are their any traditional Catholic leaders on CathInfo?
Would you be willing to prayer the Rosary in front of a government building, ask some friends to join?
I live near DC and have the opportunity to walk around the White House praying the Rosary. We are very lucky that praying in public is still an option. I know at least in England and Italy you can get in trouble for praying the rosary in public. These little things matter much to God.
Just because I am tired of all the infighting between Catholics doesn't mean I have stuck my head in the sand. We can only fight where we stand.
What they are really implying is another doomed rebellion like the Vendee which will spur on the reign of terror, they think they can take matters into their own hands and override legitimate authority, just as with the Vendee, the Sacred Heart was not given for them to use as a military standard, it was given to King Louis XIV who spurned it.
In the end, all sides ended up on the chopping block, the Vendee, the Moderates and the Radicals such as Robespierre, so all sides should think about that.
Shortly before his return to the Russian Federation after decades of exile in 1993, former Soviet dissident and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Literature Alexander Solzhenitsyn delivered a speech in Les Lucs-sur-Boulogne to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Vendée Uprising. Coming down strongly in favor of calling the Republican response genocidal, Solzhenitsyn compared Vladimir Lenin's Bolsheviks following the October Revolution with the leadership of the Jacobin Club during the French Revolution. Solzhenitsyn also compared the Vendean rebels with the Russian, Ukrainian, and Cossack peasants who similarly rebelled against the Bolsheviks, saying that both were destroyed mercilessly by "revolutionary despotism". He commented sadly that, while the French Reign of Terror ended with the Thermidorian reaction, the toppling of the Jacobin single party state by the French Revolutionary Army, and the execution of Maximilien Robespierre, its Soviet equivalent continued to accelerate until the Khrushchev thaw of the 1950s.
It was the Martyrs of Compiegne that ended the reign of terror, that's why it did not endure.
"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."
God Bless
-
What they are really implying is another doomed rebellion like the Vendee which will spur on the reign of terror, they think they can take matters into their own hands and override legitimate authority, just as with the Vendee, the Sacred Heart was not given for them to use as a military standard, it was given to King Louis XIV who spurned it.
In the end, all sides ended up on the chopping block, the Vendee, the Moderates and the Radicals such as Robespierre, so all sides should think about that.
It was the Martyrs of Compiegne that ended the reign of terror, that's why it did not endure.
"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."
God Bless
What they are really implying is another doomed rebellion like the Vendee which will spur on the reign of terror, they think they can take matters into their own hands and override legitimate authority, just as with the Vendee, the Sacred Heart was not given for them to use as a military standard, it was given to King Louis XIV who spurned it.
In the end, all sides ended up on the chopping block, the Vendee, the Moderates and the Radicals such as Robespierre, so all sides should think about that.
It was the Martyrs of Compiegne that ended the reign of terror, that's why it did not endure.
"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."
God Bless
Your comments reveal a disturbing misunderstanding of the essence of our faith and the heroic legacy of the Vendeans, who exemplified true Catholic resistance in the face of tyranny. To imply that invoking the Sacred Heart—a potent symbol of divine love and strength—leads to another doomed rebellion is to blaspheme the very nature of our faith. The Vendeans stood resolutely for their God-given rights and the true teachings of the Church, courageously defying overwhelming odds. Your perspective seems to reflect a troubling lukewarmness, a hesitancy to confront the moral crises that besiege us today. We cannot afford to be complacent; the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre calls us to unwavering conviction and action. Are you truly Catholic, or have you allowed fear and passivity to overshadow the call to defend our faith?
-
Usually there are miracles associated with people having heroic Faith. What were the miracles of the Vedeans? Who were the canonized Saints? I am not very familiar with their story.
-
I am not very familiar with their story.
Here are several books you might want to read.
This one is the personal memoirs of a woman who lived through that time. It is excellent!
A FAMILY OF BRIGANDS IN 1793
(https://angeluspress.org/products/a-family-of-brigands-in-1793-paperback?srsltid=AfmBOorvKzWPzxpPpSi5PzhH4KNAjHmBtGcddLOMapcV4f_NCN4HxK4h)This one is a general history. Also well worth the read:
FOR ALTAR AND THRONE
(https://angeluspress.org/products/for-altar-and-throne?srsltid=AfmBOoogsOpI-v5DEVSrMA9fZI-k3m3Nq4umRSXpEEbKvGsLRw2nJOPI)
To learn more quickly, here's a talk by Michael Davies.
The French Revolution: The Rising of the Vendee (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPIiPXMhhbY)
-
To imply that invoking the Sacred Heart—a potent symbol of divine love and strength—leads to another doomed rebellion is to blaspheme the very nature of our faith. The Vendeans stood resolutely for their God-given rights and the true teachings of the Church, courageously defying overwhelming odds. Your perspective seems to reflect a troubling lukewarmness, a hesitancy to confront the moral crises that besiege us today. We cannot afford to be complacent; the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre calls us to unwavering conviction and action. Are you truly Catholic, or have you allowed fear and passivity to overshadow the call to defend our faith?
They didn't defy overwhelming odds... they lost and were slaughtered, France has never recovered from it and they never achieved their objective. It also spurred on the reign of terror and atrocities committed by the revolutionaries. It was the Martyrs of Compiegne that ended the reign of terror and not the Vendeans. Just like the early Christian Martyrs could not take matters into their own hands and would have to wait for Constantine the Great and the Chi-Rho, which France did receive in the form of the Sacred Heart but King Louis XIV spurned it.
The third message asks the King: "to be painted on his standards and engraved on his weapons to make him victorious over all his enemies, by bringing down at his feet the proud and superb heads, in order to make him triumphant to all the enemies of the Holy Church".
This was not said to the Vendeans, this was said to King Louis XIV, the Vendeans with much worse odds (doomed from the start once the situation had deteriorated so badly) got slaughtered and simply spurred on the reign of terror.
The Martyrs of Compiegne ended the reign of terror, not the Vendeans.
"For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."
-
Nowhere does "it" say that you MUST sacrifice convictions, principles in order to vote in this "election". I don't think for one second I'm sacrificing my convictions by voting against the communist kamal. One of the politicians will be in the Whitehouse next year. One is worse than the other. The communists are very happy that many Catholics of good will believe that doing nothing (not voting) is doing something.