Immortali Dei : Pope Leo Xlll 1885


44. Furthermore, it is in general fitting and salutary that Catholics should extend their efforts beyond this restricted sphere, and give their attention to national politics. We say "in general" because these Our precepts are addressed to all nations. However, it may in some places be true that, for most urgent and just reasons, it is by no means expedient for Catholics to engage in public affairs or to take an active part in politics. Nevertheless, as We have laid down, to take no share in public matters would be as wrong as to have no concern for, or to bestow no labour upon, the common good, and the more so because Catholics are admonished, by the very doctrines which they profess, to be upright and faithful in the discharge of duty, while, if they hold aloof, men whose principles offer but small guarantee for the welfare of the State will the more readily seize the reins of government. This would tend also to the injury of the Christian religion, forasmuch as those would come into power who are badly disposed toward the Church, and those who are willing to befriend her would be deprived of all influence.

45. It follows clearly, therefore, that Catholics have just reasons for taking part in the conduct of public affairs. For in so doing they assume not nor should they assume the responsibility of approving what is blameworthy in the actual methods of government, but seek to turn these very methods, so far as is possible, to the genuine and true public good, and to use their best endeavours at the same time to infuse, as it were, into all the veins of the State the healthy sap and blood of Christian wisdom and virtue. The morals and ambitions of the heathens differed widely from those of the Gospel, yet Christians were to be seen living undefiled everywhere in the midst of pagan superstition, and, while always true to themselves, coming to the front boldly wherever an opening was presented. Models of loyalty to their rulers, submissive, so far as was permitted, to the sovereign power, they shed around them on every side a halo of sanctity; they strove to be helpful to their brethren, and to attract others to the wisdom of Jesus Christ, yet were bravely ready to withdraw from public life, nay, even to lay down their life, if they could not without loss of virtue retain honours, dignities, and offices. For this reason, Christian ways and manners speedily found their way not only into private houses but into the camp, the senate, and even into the imperial palaces. "We are but of yesterday," wrote Tertullian, "yet we swarm in all your institutions, we crowd your cities, islands, villages, towns, assemblies, the army itself, your wards and corporations, the palace, the senate, and the law courts."(26) So that the Christian faith, when once it became lawful to make public profession of the Gospel, appeared in most of the cities of Europe, not like an infant crying in its cradle, but already grown up and full of vigour.

I think we have to vote for the unborn, whatever little our vote might matter..it may very well matter. Even women.

 Women voting was part of the feminist movement to divide families.  

I am going offline until Wednesday 11/9/16 at about 7:AM.

Will not be watching the election returns. My computer and TV will be
off.

This is just a spoof. I already voted and hope that this is what I wished for.
Political Satire:

Women voting was part of the feminist movement to divide families.  

Yes! I firmly disagree with Women's suffrage as well and in the initial threads, said I would not vote (I am also a monarchist). I had never voted in my entire life. However, it is so much my repugnance for Hillary and everything she represents that I decided to vote for the first time this year; so I exercised my "right" and voted TRUMP, with the hopes of contributing somehow to Hillary's defeat. That is how much I detest the radical Left.

Unfortunately, in this election, if Hillary wins, and if it's not rigged, it will have been the women's vote that tilted it to Hillary.

An "identity group" which for most generations has been uninvolved in U.S. military service, and thus never absorbed the routine practices for protection of classified docuмents affecting national security, and therefore have no idea how gravely criminal were HilLIARy's breaches of national security, and how shamelessly fraudulent have been her defenses of her own actions.

Security breaches which easily reach the level of compelling disqualification from any future job that requires a valid security clearance, especially the presidency of the U.S.A., but also including a broad swath of jobs below it on the org-chart of the  the Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government.

Alexandria:

Women should never have been given the right to vote.

Having said that, if that woman wins, it will not be on account of women voting for her, but Catholics. It was the novus ordo Catholics who put that buffoon we have in the White House not once, but twice.

Bingo! I agree entirely.  With notable exceptions like Alexandria, women should not be allowed to vote.  They are too governed by emotions.  Bp. W. I think, would agree.

But she is right, Catholics put "that buffoon" in office twice.  What I'm not so certain about is that they were all NO Catholics.  I have a feeling that many trads voted for him too.  It is difficult to prove one way or the other.

But she is right, Catholics put "that buffoon" in office twice.  What I'm not so certain about is that they were all NO Catholics.  I have a feeling that many trads voted for him too.  It is difficult to prove one way or the other.

We have to be fair to Novus Ordo Catholics here, it was Diverse NO Catholics that voted overwhelming for Obama, not whites. Romney won white Catholics 59-40, but won those who attend mass weekly 57-42.  So, race/ethnicity is a better predictor of how a person will vote instead of mass attendance. I recall reading somewhere that higher church attendance in the black community, regardless of religion, correlates positively with voting Democrat.

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Ladislaus

In my lifetime, Patrick Buchanan was my all-time favorite (not unworthy) candidate.  Alan Keyes would be a strong second (but a tad too pro-Israeli for my tastes).  Both are relatively devout and serious Catholics, even if Novus Ordo.  Patrick Buchanan has Traditionalist sympathies and has written in defense of Archbishop Lefebvre and against Pope Francis (even dropping the "heresy" term).

After these two, Ron Paul was the least unworthy candidate.

I agree about Buchanan and Keyes.  I had hopes of Trump picking Buchanan for VP.  Imagine how the world may be better now if Buchanan had won in '92, '96, or '00.  I had his pic cut out of the newspaper hanging in my apartment for months after his '96 NH primary victory.  Go Pat Go!

Buchanan, but not Keyes. He's always been an affirmative action hack who has a history of whining racism. Similar traits to Martin Luther King. Groomed by Jews (college roommate at Harvard with Bill Kristol), dumb, rhetorical skill.

Nah, he uses the racism card to get heard.  I remember how he played that to get into the debates one year.  And, then, EVERY single question he was asked he turned into a monologue about the evils of abortion; my sides were practically splitting.  He also gave a tremendous defense of capital punishment, the most articulate I have ever heard, against the views of John Paul II.

After Obama was selected, he just kept referring to him casually as "the Kenyan usurper."  :roll-laugh1: