Pres. Obama has promoted abortion 241 times. Do you want him to choose two more Supreme Court Justices?

If re-elected, Pres. Obama would probably get to nominate two more Supreme Court Justices.

Think about that.

No vote at all is a “yes” vote for Obama.

Now read this from Life News:

President Obama’s Abortion Record: Promoting Abortion 241 Times

Dear LifeNews.com Readers,

We truly appreciate the generous response from LifeNews readers to help us with our campaign to educate and inform people about President Barack Obama’s pro-abortion record.

The election is now down to the final two full weeks before Election Day.

We know many of you are spending countless hours telling voters about the differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney on abortion.

Mitt Romney has campaigned on a pro-life platform — overturning Roe v. Wade and appointing the right kind of judges to reverse that horrible case, de-funding the planned Parenthood abortion business, stopping taxpayer funding of abortions, signing pro-life laws that will continue providing legal protection for unborn children, and doing everything possible to reverse and repeal pro-abortion Obamacare.

But President Obama continues to ad dto his pro-abortion record: Did you know he has taken 241 actions to promote abortion or destroying human life via embryonic stem cell research?

These actions range from bill signings to speeches, and the include major appointments and placing pro-abortion judges on the Supreme Court and other important courts. Many of them involve using your tax dollars to pay for or promote abortion or pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. 241 times! Virtually every month President Obama has been in office, he has done something to promote abortion.

[…]

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Emanations from Penumbras, The future and our choices and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

111 Responses to Pres. Obama has promoted abortion 241 times. Do you want him to choose two more Supreme Court Justices?

  1. Patti Day says:

    Yesterday in our religious education class I was speaking to the fourth graders about forming a good conscience and obeying God, about discerning how our conscience guides guides us in our choices, and that God has given us free will. One of the choices for discussion was voting. The children, all boys as it happens, seized on this as an opportunity to talk about which candidate they would vote for. It got very raucous very quickly, so I had to shut it down. I wanted to tell them how it might have been very different for them personalky if their candidate had his way.

  2. Angie Mcs says:

    I shudder at thinking about four more years. The justices sit for their rest of their lives, and bring their philosophies with them. Two more justices chosen by Obama ( and something tells me they would be approved in this climate of PC) will leave us a lasting trail of his ideology that would remove any hope of balanced, reasonable outcomes. His final gift to the nation.

  3. Timothy Ephesus says:

    I do not want Pres. Obama to choose our Supreme Court Justices, but the election of a different presidential candidate does not mean we get Catholic (in wisdom) Supreme Court Justices, or even pro-life Justices. (One could presume that any man less demented might make better choices.)

    “No vote at all is a “yes” vote for Obama.”

    Father, I hear what you are saying, but I respectfully disagree with this misleading and often used slogan. Not voting is simply not voting. Obama might win because someone did not vote for the candidate who is deemed most likely to beat Obama (Romney in this election). Not Voting is not morally the same as voting for Obama, or the same as saying ‘yes’ to Obama being in office. Not voting is laziness, or it is saying ‘no’ to all the candidates available.

    Voting is not going to change this society. Show me a candidate that gives truly sufficient sufficient guarantees for the protection of the rights of God and of souls, for the true good of individuals, families and of society, according to the love of God and Catholic moral teaching… and I will vote for them in heartbeat.

    [Given the stakes, I think your approach is ill-advised at best. If the incumbent wins by a narrow margin in your state and the electoral votes go to him, then I think we’ll all remember your position and give you a big “Thanks for nothing, pal.”]

  4. frjim4321 says:

    Well, Romney was pro-choice before he was “pro-life,” and aside from nominating justices for SCOTUS presidents don’t have much power to end elective abortions anyway; and in the unlikely event that Roe-Wade would be overturned (a long shot) elective abortions will still take place.

    We’ve already seen Ryan flip-flop over elective abortion in the case of rape and incest (vice presidential debate). So, just as LFN inflates and exaggerates the President’s record on choice, the “pro-life” rhetoric of Romney and Ryan isn’t to be trusted.

    Frankly, yes I do want to see President Obama nominate the next two supreme court justices. The court needs to be brought back to the center. Citizens United was a devastating blow to democracy, and without a truly democratic system of government it is unlikely that the dignity of human life will enjoy any greater degree of recognition in our society.

    I respectfully reject the logic inherent in single issue voting, particularly when advocates of an issue which on the face would tend to be preferable cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

  5. JKnott says:

    To Timothy Ephesus: Colin Donovan and Father Mitch Pacwa, had a whole program last week on the very point you are addressing. Basically, they did a very nice job addressing the many concerns of Catholics who are considering not voting, and also related answers to the current election.

    Father Pacwa made the statement that if a Catholic does not vote, and an unworthy candidate is elected, it would constitute a mortal sin!
    I was looking to see a link for the show but I have included a paper in this link. It might be worth your while seeing if you can find it. http://www.ewtn.com/vote/voting_faq.htm

    Realistically, no candidate is the perfect practicing Catholic able to right all wrongs.
    Colin Donovan pointed out that to stand on a principle that one considers personally above all, is a mark of pride and does not contribute to the common good.

    Romney is not the Pope but he is certainly far more moral and pro-life than the evil of Obama.
    This is not a normal election. Romney will eliminate the mandate against the Church as well as taxpayer funded abortions here and overseas. That in itself should be enough to give us reason to put on the armor of God, and engage in this spiritual warfare, fully expected by the grace of our Confirmation.

  6. Thank you JKnott. I am aware that I may not vote for an “enemy of religion or liberty” (a man against our Faith). I am aware that I am permitted to vote for a “lesser evil”. (You would be incorrect to state that I am morally required to vote for the “lesser evil”. Prudentially there are good arguments, but it is not a moral requirement.) I am aware that failure to vote out of neglect is sinful. The link you provided does not conflict with these points.

    I would be interested in looking more into the program you mentioned if you could provide a link.

  7. JKnott says:

    Timothy Ephesus, Thank you for asking. The program aired on Oct. 14, Tues. Oct. 16, Thurs. Oct. 18
    Catholicism & Voting

    EWTN Theology Roundtable features Colin Donovan and staff discussing Church teaching on Catholic voting responsibilities.
    http://www.ewtn.com/tv/prime/theologyroundtable.asp

    I’m afraid I haven’t been able to find it on YouTube as yet. It may go up a little later in the week.

  8. chcrix says:

    Jknott. The following is not directed at you but at certain quotes in your post. I do however rely on the accuracy of your post.

    “Father Pacwa made the statement that if a Catholic does not vote, and an unworthy candidate is elected, it would constitute a mortal sin!”
    Stuff and nonsense.

    “Colin Donovan pointed out that to stand on a principle that one considers personally above all, is a mark of pride and does not contribute to the common good. ”
    So…those who vote on the basis of perceived abortion policy are indulging in their pride at the expense of the common good? Perhaps Mr Donovan ought to think through the implications of what he says before he says it.

    “Romney is not the Pope but he is certainly far more moral and pro-life than the evil of Obama.” I disagree. The warmongering of Romney cancels his so-called ‘pro-life’ credentials.

    “This is not a normal election.” Once again, I disagree. This is exactly the kind of election the rigged “two party” system is intended to produce and has produced for decades. It gives the illusion of choice with the actuality of no significant changes in the policy of government.

    “Romney will eliminate the mandate against the Church as well as taxpayer funded abortions here and overseas. ” Want to bet? Perhaps he will fiddle with the first one – but then so has Mr. Obama. I seriously doubt the second. Remember Obama Care is Romney care.

  9. Dear Fr. Z.,
    Could I ask you to read Timothy Ephesus’ post, above, and give it a considered reply? With all Christian love and greetings to him, I very much regret his stance in this matter and hope that something (or someone) can change his mind and the minds of others who think as he does. I believe you are 100% correct when you write

    No vote at all is a “yes” vote for Obama.
    and I hope you will continue with other posts on this theme between now and election day. I do not mean to accuse Timothy of anything — far from it. But his orientation seems to me to be exclusively toward the preservation of what he sees as his own moral purity, without a sufficiently balanced regard for the practical consequences of the action (not voting) he contemplates. Is it not an offense against charity to refrain from giving needed practical help to one’s fellow citizens? And I wonder, too, if we do not each owe our country our vote, as a means of making good on the Lord’s commandment to “render unto Caesar.”
    I know a good many people who aren’t planning to vote because they are thinking along lines like Timothy’s, and I can’t help thinking that they are are in danger of falling into a kind of political Quietism. I read a bit about Quietism a few years ago, and recall that it was recognized as a heresy by Holy Mother Church and suppressed.
    Thanks, Father.
    RoR
    PS. Timothy, I hope you recognize that none of what I’ve written above is aimed at you personally. You simply have been the first in this thread to articulate (very clearly, I might add) an attitude with which I have been at issue for some time. RoR

  10. No worries RomeontheRange. It would not hurt me to get set straight by Fr. Z, or to have my post made an example of… especially if what I have written is being understood as “quietism”!

  11. mamajen says:

    Well, I hope that all of the Catholics who plan to sit on their duffs live in solidly red or blue states where it won’t hurt the outcome. Fr. Z recently shared a quote on his FB which sums up the matter nicely. I don’t know how any Catholic can reconcile giving Obama four more years whether by voting or stubbornly refusing to do so. I know otherwise good Catholics who have threatened to sit out every election at least since W ran the first time, because there wasn’t a candidate good enough for them. This attitude is nothing new, and it disgusts me every time.

    p.s. Father Z, I was wondering if you could perhaps link to that election prayer you posted a while ago so it would be easy to find and use daily?

  12. Sissy says:

    “Voting is not going to change this society. ”

    Timothy Ephesus, this is cynical and suggests you have given in to despair. If the last four years prove anything, it is that voting does indeed change society. And if Obama is elected, our society will continue to change for the worse. We are not helpless, and our efforts do have consequences, for ill or for good. Voting does not result in a perfect result, and never will. But that doesn’t mean it does not good at all.

  13. czemike says:

    I am amazed by the lack of logic displayed on this topic! Those on the political right claim that a non-vote is a vote for Obama; on the left they scream that a non-vote (or vote for the Green Party) is a vote for Romney. A vote for a candidate is a vote for that candidate; a vote for nobody is not a vote for any candidate. If you are going to assert that my non-vote supports a given candidate, then please explain why that non-vote supports only one candidate and not all possible candidates.

    More serious is the assertion that not voting could be a mortal sin. A quick refresher: for a person to commit a mortal sin (1) the act has to objectively be a mortal sin, (2) the actor must know that it’s a mortal sin, and (3) with sufficient reflection and clarity of mind we commit the act anyway. How does a non-vote meet these conditions (please back up all three points if you care to defend this position)?

    Saint Thomas — and others — assert that it is the right of a people who are oppressed by a tyrant to rise up and overthrow that tyrant. That said, those carrying out the overthrow must (1) must be reasonably able to achieve success in the overthrow, (2) accept the penalties that come with a failure to achieve the overthrow, (3) must be able to maintain law and order and see to the needs of the people if they succeed with the overthrow, and (4) must be reasonably certain that not acting will result in worse conditions than if they attempt the overthrow (in short, it’s just war theory of the internal variety). Given the conditions we face in this country it is my personal opinion that (1) a force capable of overthrowing the government would be morally justified in doing so, and (2) the men in power are so well protected that no attempt to overthrow them will be successful without enormous collateral death and evil far exceeding leaving the men in power alone.

    That leaves the ballot box as the only theoretical way to change the government. If you believe the elections are being conducted in a fair manner then I will agree that you have the obligation to vote. I, however, believe this election was rigged from the beginning. Regardless of who wins the election, Roe v. Wade will not be overturned, authentically pro-Life judges will not be appointed to the bench, the foreign wars of against terror will not be ended, so-called gay “marriage” will not be outlawed or overturned, oppression of the poor and middle class through inflation and taxation will not be abated, and society will be no closer to recognizing Christ as their Social King as well as their Savior and Eternal King.

    It makes no practical difference whether Romney or Obama wins: the system itself is immoral and illegitimate at this point. I consider voting to be as much an endorsement of this criminal regime and morally culpable as taking part in non-Catholic “worship” which is why I will not be voting for President.

  14. Texana says:

    Timothy Ephesus
    Thank you for your post! Choosing Obama over McCain in 2008 because he would end the war in Iraq and take care of the poor through Obamacare was encouraged by many priests and bishops. 54% of Catholics justified voting for evil to end a greater evil. Rather than thinking we can save the nation by voting for Romney who does advocate abortion and same-sex marriage, why can’t Catholics vote with their own souls in mind–vote for what God would find pleasing. Remember when the Israelites asked God for a king like all the other nations had? He gave them what they wanted and it wasn’t pretty! God bless your efforts, Timothy!

  15. Sissy says:

    Timothy Ephesus, you might find this interesting:

    “In the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation. This obligation is rooted in our baptismal commitment to follow Jesus Christ and to bear Christian witness in all we do.” Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, para. 13.

  16. Sissy, I think you were mislead by my comment. Please see the linked article to understand what I meant. http://anonisnowhere.blogspot.com/2012/03/weight-of-your-vote.html

  17. wmeyer says:

    I don’t know how any Catholic can reconcile giving Obama four more years whether by voting or stubbornly refusing to do so. I know otherwise good Catholics who have threatened to sit out every election at least since W ran the first time, because there wasn’t a candidate good enough for them. This attitude is nothing new, and it disgusts me every time.

    Amen, amen. And confusing a rationale with logic doesn’t make it any better. History shows that in most cases, those who abstain or vote a third party aid the incumbent in achieving a second term. Head in the sand blather can’t alter that reality.

    While it may be argued that failing to vote against Obama is not, per se, a mortal sin, one must also recognize that foreseeable outcomes (see my point above) alter the point of view. If we can foresee that abstaining or voting a 3rd party is more than likely to give Obama a 2nd term, then I posit that we can see such actions as mortally sinful.

  18. Sissy says:

    Timothy Ephesus, czemike, and Texana: is the deliberate failure to perform a moral obligation, after you have been informed of that moral obligation, a sin?

  19. I think that not voting for President in this election is foolish.

    If you wait for a perfect candidate you will contribute to the decline of this nation.

  20. Sissy says:

    Texana asked: “why can’t Catholics vote with their own souls in mind–vote for what God would find pleasing.”

    I’ll bite, Texana. Which candidate are you endorsing in this post? Which candidate do you believe has found favor with God?

  21. czemike says:

    If you wait for a perfect candidate you will contribute to the decline of this nation.

    Agreed. But we don’t even have an acceptable candidate in this election. Our choices are a candidate who will masochistically take pleasure in slowly and painfully killing what morality is left in society and the other who will dispassionately put two bullets to the head of that morality. A vote for either Romney or Obama is a vote for the Culture of Death (as is a vote for the Green Party and the Libertarian Party). How is it foolish to disavow the whole system and not vote?

  22. wmeyer says:

    But we don’t even have an acceptable candidate in this election.

    Objectively false. The case has been made, again and again, for those with eyes to see, and ears to hear.

    How is it foolish to disavow the whole system and not vote?

    Again, that has been explained again and again. As Santayana said, those who will not study history are doomed to repeat it.

  23. frjim4321 says:

    I think that not voting for President in this election is foolish.

    If you wait for a perfect candidate you will contribute to the decline of this nation.

    Agree.

  24. wmeyer says:

    frjim4321, I am pleased to see we are in agreement. Uncommon.

  25. Sissy says:

    czemike, is it your contention that the HHS mandate requiring everyone to pay a sur-charge for abortions (due to begin in 2013) will continue under President Romney? On that issue alone, it is worth voting for Governor Romney.

  26. czemike says:

    Sissy: what makes you think Romney will remove that mandate? It’s possible that he will make that directive, sure.

    It’s also possible that Obama and Biden will make full conversions, appoint Father Z’s as their personal chaplain, and serve as altar boys at his Masses as well (once they learn the Latin).

    The former is only slightly more likely than the latter.

  27. frjim4321 says:

    frjim4321, I am pleased to see we are in agreement. Uncommon. wm.

    Actually it happened about four times in a row three weeks ago.

  28. wmeyer says:

    czemike, Romney has made a public commitment to cancel the mandate, and he can do that with an EO.

    As to the conversion of Obama and Biden, you would be betting heavily and naively against history.

  29. wmeyer says:

    frjim4321, I know. I’m getting worried…. ;)

  30. Sissy says:

    czemike: Romney will not only win the Presidency, but the Republican party will also regain both Houses of Congress. Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare. President Romney will have no choice but to get rid of the mandate (and I believe he fully intends to do so). We have two choices: vote for Obama and the absolute certainty of having the HHS mandate forced on us OR vote for Romney and hold his feet to the fire to keep his promise to get rid of Obamacare. Those are the only two choices. I’m voting for a sure thing when I vote against Obama….I’m voting to get him out. We’ll worry about what Romney does or doesn’t do after we get rid of Obama. We KNOW for sure what Obama is going to do. So, let’s stop that first.

  31. czemike says:

    “Romney has made a public commitment to cancel the mandate, and he can do that with an EO.”

    Are we to believe this as fervently as our pro-abort opponents believed Obama when he said that passing FOCA would be his top priority?

  32. czemike says:

    “Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare.”

    Sorry, Sissy… this isn’t true.

  33. wmeyer says:

    Are we to believe this as fervently…

    We can listen to the candidates and reach our own conclusions about whom we can believe. Your only logical alternative is to believe nothing you hear from any candidate, and that path is useless. Your responsibility as a citizen does not vanish because you decide the two candidates are unbelievable. And again, to abstain is to fail in your responsibility.

  34. wmeyer says:

    “Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare.”

    Sorry, Sissy… this isn’t true.

    Names?

  35. Sissy says:

    czemike: who are the Republicans who voted for HR3200?

    “Are we to believe this as fervently as our pro-abort opponents believed Obama when he said that passing FOCA would be his top priority?”

    Romney can stop the HHS mandate with an EO on his first day in office, which he has promised to do. Obama would have needed an act of Congress to get FOCA. Romney doesn’t. Look, if you support Obama, that’s your right.

  36. wmeyer says:

    czemike, the rino list (which certainly would be trumpeting the names of any turncoats) reports no Republicans voted for it. http://www.rinolist.org/2010/08/list-of-republicans-that-voted-for-healthcare-reform/

    They also provide a link to the government’s own voting report.

  37. Sissy says:

    wmeyer, no Republican voted for HR3200, as we both very well know. I suspect czemike knows it, too.

  38. acardnal says:

    frjim4321 says:
    22 October 2012 at 2:34 pm
    I think that not voting for President in this election is foolish.

    If you wait for a perfect candidate you will contribute to the decline of this nation.

    Agree.
    wmeyer says:
    22 October 2012 at 2:36 pm
    frjim4321, I am pleased to see we are in agreement. Uncommon.

    I don’t think either of you are voting for the same candidate, however. ;-)

  39. wmeyer says:

    acardnal: Probably not. I can’t vote for the most pro-abortion man I have ever heard.

  40. czemike says:

    wmeyer and Sissy: While I forgot it was a committee vote, Olympia Snowe voted for it when her vote against it could have killed the bill in committee.

  41. wmeyer says:

    czemike: Snowe is the most notorious of the RINOs, and even she voted no on the floor. Committee votes are of much less interest.

  42. acardnal says:

    Olympia Snowe and her Maine counterpart Susan Collins are RINOs.

  43. Sissy says:

    czemike, sorry, that committee vote was unfortunate, but it was miles away from being a vote for final passage of the completed bill…..not even close. So, again, no Republican voted for HR3200. And the next Congress is even less likely to go along with Obamacare, as we are likely to have a majority in both Houses. Romney will have no choice in the matter, not that I suspect him of lying. I think he is quite sincere when he says he wants to repeal it. A vote for Obama, on the other hand, is a vote for the HHS mandate.

  44. wmeyer says:

    JKnott: The really scary thing is that these people vote!

  45. Sissy says:

    JKnott: thanks for that. Now I know why I’m voting for Romney; my husband is making me!!! LOL. Have you ever noticed that the women who are most exercised over retaining the “right to abortion” are of an age where they aren’t likely to ever get pregnant?

  46. acardnal says:

    JKnott: ROTFLOL. That was hilarious! I cannot even respond right now because of all these stupid, ignorant people’s comments.

  47. PA mom says:

    Our choices are a candidate who will masochistically take pleasure in slowly and painfully killing what morality is left in society and the other who will dispassionately put two bullets to the head of that morality.
    I am certain that the Democratic Party feels quite relieved not to need to worry about such hyper-concern/rationalizing in their members.
    The man was governor of Massachusetts FOR FREE. He donates 30% of his income. He obviously loves children and family life. He was a pastor of his church. He has run a very moral campaign against a person who has accused him of greed, dishonesty, distain for others and destruction of livelihoods and lives.
    In response, Romney firmly states his case again, firmly corrects his opponent that he does not get to decide both campaign agendas, and states his case yet again. He treats Obama with respect, allowing him to state his case, and even call him a liar on national television four times, without any evidence of hatred developing.
    He is living “turn the other cheek”, and “correct gently” and “winning the opposition with love.”
    WHAT MORE DOES IT TAKE?

  48. wmeyer says:

    PA mom, well said. The people who wish to vote for Obama, however, do not yield to logic and reason. And certainly not to moral positions.

  49. acardnal says:

    PA mom said speaking of Romney, “The man was governor of Massachusetts FOR FREE. He donates 30% of his income. He obviously loves children and family life. He was a pastor of his church. He has run a very moral campaign against a person who has accused him of greed, dishonesty, distain for others and destruction of livelihoods and lives.”

    Excellent points!

    What I have found particularly disturbing the last two years is how little our Vice President, a “catholic”, has given to charity. Not much. Bleeding heart? I don’t think so. He has free housing, free transportation, free security, etc. AND yet he gave less than 2 percent of his AGI ($379,178) to charity in 2011 ($5,350) and about the same in 2010. Shameful!

    If you don’t believe me, go here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/18/president-obama-and-vice-president-biden-s-tax-returns-and-tax-receipts

    At least Obama gave 14 percent in 2011 to charity.

  50. wmeyer says:

    acardnal: Our household AGI is a small fraction of Biden’s, yet our donations are about 2/3 of his. And I feel badly that we have been unable to do better.

  51. czemike says:

    “[Romney] was governor of Massachusetts FOR FREE.”

    Where he supported pro-abortion, pro-gay-“marriage”, and the forefunner to ObamaCare.

  52. czemike says:

    wmeyer: You said “Snowe is the most notorious of the RINOs, and even she voted no on the floor. Committee votes are of much less interest.”

    I find it hard to believe you’re being serious here. Snowe could have killed the whole bill by voting against it leaving committee (her vote broke the tie). Who cares how she voted in the end when her vote wasn’t enough to kill the bill!

  53. Sissy says:

    czemike, you can complain about Romney all you want. But you only have two choices: vote for Obama or vote against him. You have a moral obligation to vote. You have a moral obligation to do what you can to help reverse course that this president has led us down. Hold your nose if you must, but voting Obama out of office is really the best you can do at this point. Let’s work on Romney later.

  54. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Since Mr. Romney promotes actual abortion in some cases, it seems likely that he uses ‘contraception’ loosely to include abortifacients. If so, is he as likely to guarantee the availability of abortifacients as president as he said he would be to guarantee ‘contraceptives’ were he again governor?

  55. Sissy says:

    “Promotes”?

  56. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    “In the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation. This obligation is rooted in our baptismal commitment to follow Jesus Christ and to bear Christian witness in all we do.” Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, para. 13.

    I do not quite see how “responsible citizenship” and/or “participation in political life” = a moral obligation to vote for abortion advocate A in preference to abortion advocate B

    Or does that fail to do justice to what is being asserted? If so, what is being asserted?!

  57. PA mom says:

    Venerator-seriously. He doesn’t “promote”abortion. Allowing the continuance of it in extremely rare instances is the polar opposite of what we are currently facing.
    Last thing I have to say. Don’t debate me, ask God. Really. I did last time, knowing almost nothing about Obama, but that everyone seemed so infatuated with him. I asked for a sign, and I got it. I read an article in some woman’s magazine about Mrs McCain, where it told of how she adopted their last child from Mother Teresa’s nuns. I figured, if they would say yes to Mother Teresa, that was all I needed to know.

  58. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    If ‘wishes to guarantee the availability of’ is not the same as ‘promotes’, what is it?

  59. PA mom says:

    Expansion vs contraction. Perhaps not a theological theory, but it clarifies it for me.

  60. AnAmericanMother says:

    I’ve commented before that politics is not religion, and it is fatal to get them confused.

    One thing that political conservatives seem to be unable to comprehend is the concept of “incrementalism”. Brick by brick, as you might say in another context. :-)

    If you wait for a candidate sufficiently “pure” to satisfy an absolutist position, you will be waiting forever. You get the best candidate you can, hold his feet to the fire, and then get a better candidate.

    In the situation we have here, we have a choice: (1) an amoral abortion absolutist who has viciously attacked our Church, has no respect for the Constitution or the rule of law, and has already indicated that he will have “more flexibility” in a second term to resort to even more radical governance; (2) a man of more traditional moral positions and demonstrated respect for laws, who says that he has undergone a conversion wrt abortion after being the governor of a very liberal state some time ago. He was not my preferred candidate, and I’m not sure I trust what is the rough equivalent of a “jailhouse conversion”. BUT – with a pro-life majority in the Congress we can hold his feet to the fire, given that he presumably wants a second term.

    The choice seems very clear to me. Besides, we believe in conversion, right? :-)

  61. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Where is there a clear commitment to scale back to “extremely rare instances” as a salami-tactic step to abolition (or reduction to ‘double-effect’)?

  62. Sissy says:

    Well, we have a clear commitment from Romney to re-implement the Mexico City Accords and to support defunding of PP. We have a clear commitment to reverse the HHS mandate immediately, and to support Congressional repeal of Obamacare. We have a vastly improved chance of getting decent SC appointees. And all of that is better than the future we are guaranteed under a second Obama term.
    Inaction is a deliberate choice to ignore evil. In this case, refusing to actively vote Obama act is just a tacit way of supporting him. Silence is assent, and inaction is an act of omission.

  63. Southern Catholic says:

    We’ve already seen Ryan flip-flop over elective abortion in the case of rape and incest (vice presidential debate). So, just as LFN inflates and exaggerates the President’s record on choice, the “pro-life” rhetoric of Romney and Ryan isn’t to be trusted.

    Please do explain this statement, instead of just spouting what the liberal media tells you.

    Frankly, yes I do want to see President Obama nominate the next two supreme court justices. The court needs to be brought back to the center. Citizens United was a devastating blow to democracy, and without a truly democratic system of government it is unlikely that the dignity of human life will enjoy any greater degree of recognition in our society.

    The court is at the center, 4 liberals and 5 conservatives with one of those that mostly sides with the liberal. Frjim you can’t serve two gods, but it seems you are hell bent on worshiping the liberal politics.

  64. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Were there to be a pro-life majority in Congress, would they be likely to do anything about a more flexible Mr. Obama (should he continue to be ‘Occupier in Chief’)? Would they be able, or unable to do so? Has whatever sort of majority there now is in the House done everything it could have done to restrain (etc.) Mr. Obama? If not, why not?

  65. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    A refusal to support evil, is a refusal to support evil, whether a greater or a ‘lesser’ evil.

  66. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Incidentally, ‘Qui tacet’ may also have gone off line… :)

  67. Texana says:

    It is not about saving the nation, people. It is all about saving your souls!

  68. Sissy says:

    Well, thank you, Texana. I appreciate you trying to save my soul. Since our Catholic leaders are urging us to choice the “lesser evil”, perhaps you can find time to save their souls, as well.

  69. AnAmericanMother says:

    But what do you mean by “evil”? It’s unclear from your proposal.
    It seems that how you are defining “evil” is “an evil candidate”, or perhaps “a candidate who supports, even in part, something evil.”
    I think we need to cut to the chase here: “evil” = “abortion”, that evil and that sin which we all are trying to oppose.
    Looking at it that way, by sitting home and refusing to vote for a candidate who has committed to oppose abortion-promoting legislation and reinstate policies which discourage abortion, you are refusing to vote for an actual reduction of “evil” – a decrease in the actual number of babies slain by the abhorrent practice, even if it is not eliminated entirely. Therefore, you are failing to support the elimination of some abortions.
    By so doing, you are also refusing to challenge (by the only means possible to us as individuals) the policies of the incumbent, who is in full-throated support of abortion for any reason and no reason, and even declined to oppose the killing of babies who somehow manage to survive an abortion. (Unless, of course, you subscribe to the ‘seamless garment’ theory of one of our posters here, who believes that ‘social justice’ will somehow magically reduce the number of abortions.)

  70. Sissy says:

    AAM: Thank you for that post. I can’t understand how any faithful Catholic can seriously think it’s ok to sit home waiting for the perfect, pure candidate to come riding up like Sir Galahad while the rest of us are laboring to free our country from imminent disaster.

  71. acardnal says:

    Let’s simplify this: more babies will die under Obama’s policies than under Romney’s.

  72. Sissy says:

    acardnal: game, set, and match.

  73. AnAmericanMother says:

    Sissy,
    I understand where they’re coming from — but the place to get the best bang for your ideological buck is in the primaries.
    Probably the most ideologically “pure” of the major Republican candidates was Santorum. He wasn’t able to get sufficient support to prevail, and I wonder how many people who are now complaining about Romney’s insufficient credentials on abortion actually sent money to or worked to get Santorum on the ballot or TV or mailings in their state.
    But even if you knocked yourself out and gave substantial sums to Santorum, the reality of the primary process is that one candidate prevails. As I said, Romney wasn’t my preferred candidate, but he’s the one we’ve got. (Santorum, by the way, has endorsed Romney.)

  74. AnAmericanMother says:

    acardnal,
    Exactly. A good and memorable summary.

  75. Sissy says:

    AAM, I didn’t support Romney in the primaries, either. He was my last choice. But, I think I sold him short; he has impressed me since winning the nomination. But even if I still disliked him, I could never just sit idly by and take a chance on Obama winning a second term. There is too much at stake.

  76. Katheryn says:

    I can’t even look at my Facebook page right now… People are making fun of Romney with Obama’s comment about bayonets and horses and all I want to do is scream
    “HOW DOES THAT MAKE IT OKAY TO KILL BABIES!?!?!? “

  77. AnAmericanMother says:

    Oh, the political commentary on FB is polarized, to say the least. Of course, most of my FB friends are well to the right of the soup spoon, since they are mostly hunters, dog trainers, and such like folks. The only liberals I’ve ‘friended’ are the musicians, who sadly tend to be both (1) very liberal and (2) incredibly ignorant on practical matters, including politics (as well as such essentials as how to change a tire or run a chainsaw). Guess it goes with the territory – my mom is a professional dancer and possibly the most politically naive person that I know. Fortunately my dad’s vote cancels hers out!
    I occasionally try to talk sense with some of my liberal FB acquaintances, but on the subject of Obama they are completely indoctrinated (and completely unhinged). It’s like trying to reason with a lunatic who thinks he’s a poached egg (to crib from C.S. Lewis).

  78. Katheryn says:

    Yeah, musician here, lots of liberal friends. I just want to see funny cat videos and baby pics on FB.
    Save the babies!

  79. AnAmericanMother says:

    Agree on the videos, but funny dog videos are good too :-)

    My personal fave: Ultimate Dog Tease

  80. Texana says:

    Sissy
    I can pray for you but I cannot save your soul. That is up to you and our Lord Jesus Christ.

  81. Sissy says:

    Texana, I always appreciate prayers.

  82. Johnno says:

    Why the ‘voting for the lesser of two evils’ mentality is stupid.
    http://youtu.be/4R4KtYVF-74

    8 Years ago, people are told to vote for the lesser of two evils to prevent greater evil from winning
    Things get a little worse.

    4 years ago, people are told to vote for the lesser to two evils to prevent a greater evil from winning.
    Things get a little worse.

    This year, people are again encouraged to vote for the lesser of two evils to prevent a greater evil from winning.
    And you bet things will get worse. Not as worse, but worse none the less.

    Next election, people will again be encouraged to vote for the lesser of two evils, because we absolutely again cannot let a greater evil win…

    And the next election after that, people will again be encouraged to vote for the lesser of two evils, because we absolutely again cannot let a greater evil win…

    What’s that definition of insanity again? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

    Eventually, things get a little worse and a little worse and a little worse, until one day you wake up to find that the greater evil is already accomplished and you helped it all along. It was just willing to be more patient than you were.

    You know why all these evil people have won and why America and the world in general is so evil? Because those evil people didn’t compromise! They stuck to their principles unerringly. They were patient, and every time they gained a little more ground and a little more ground and a little more ground, knowing their their opponents (ALL OF US!) Were willing to compromise and settle for always electing the lesser of two evils. All they had to do was wait and keep at it.

    Sorry Fr. Z, I’ll have to agree with those that have said enough is enough and are no longer going to compromise. This isn’t just an American thing. The same pattern is happening in democracies worldwide. When time comes for me to vote. I will not choose the lesser of two evils. I’ll go with the one that has no evil, even if their chances of winning are niche. But I’m going to keep voting for them and encourage others until inevitably we weather the storm and grow and come out on top.

    If there is no such party then I will exercise my right not to vote. Because enough people not voting will also send a message to certain parties about what principles they ought to care about if they want our votes for next time. I’m going to obey God to do only what is right even in the face of grave circumstances and let Him worry about the long term solution. That’s all He expects of us. Your method has never worked, and the mess America and the world is in is due to that ‘lesser of evils’ attitude. You may vote however you strategically feel is best, and I understand why you would and respect your right to. But I believe you will not accomplish much in the long run, and it is the long run you ought to worry about, rather than the short one. That’s what the progressives concentrated on, and that is why they are winning, and we are losing. The children of darkness are more cunning than the children of light.

    A drastic change is needed. You might say, “well, we’ll take the short term victory now and worry about changing course next election.” That won’t happen Father Z. I bet if there ever is an election next time we’d be back here again with you encouraging American Catholics to vote the lesser of two evils because we can’t let greater evil win. And the same will be true for Canada, and Europe and the world over…

  83. Johnno says:

    acardnal:

    Let’s simply this:
    -Under Obama, babies will die, guaranteed.
    -Under Romney, you hope fewer babies will die, but there’s no guarantee.

    Simplifying further:
    -Your voting methods over the long term for a progressively lesser evil will always result in more babies dying, guaranteed.
    -Taking a different course of long term strategy to avoid the lesser evils altogether will hopefully result in fewer babies dying to no babies dying, but there’s no guarantee.

    Though as Alan Keyes pointed out…
    – Obama has trouble getting his greater evils passed due to opposition from Republicans.
    – Romney will have less resistance getting lesser evils passed because he is Republican, and the Democrats will always settle for lesser evils to take what they can get.
    -So which situation is really the lesser of two evils anyway?

  84. chantgirl says:

    FrJim4321 says- “I respectfully reject the logic inherent in single issue voting, particularly when advocates of an issue which on the face would tend to be preferable cannot be trusted to tell the truth.”
    Fr. Jim, with all due respect, how can you trust a man who is vehemently supportive of killing innocent children, and forcing Catholics to pay for it against their consciences? How does such a man deserve any trust whatsoever?! If the single issue we are talking about here is the murder of millions of innocent human beings, how does that not take precedent over anything else? How can a man who supports killing babies be trusted to uphold anyone’s rights? Romney is not 100% pro-life, and not my favorite candidate, but he is leagues better than Obama when it comes to abortion. We have a genuine holocaust going on here, and we need to at least apply a turniquet if we can’t achieve a full-blown cure right now. For goodness sake, what issue can possibly be more important to you?

  85. chantgirl says:

    Sorry, that should be “take precedence”.

  86. pmullane says:

    Can I offer another perspective?

    We in the UK have 3 mainstream political parties that are entirely and in lockstep united in their support for the gravest evils of modern society, that is unlimited abortion and the promotion of unnatural faux marriage. Catholics are forced, through taxation, to pay for abortion, IVF, ‘gender reassisgnment surgery’ (the mutilation of bodies) and other abhorrences. Our government gives money to NGO’s that advicate for the destruction of marriage and the killing of children here and abroad. This has all happened because people lost their moral sense and progressivists have managed to influence society. Faithful Catholics ceded so much ground and have failed in their duties towards their brothers and sisters. I would love to have a Mitt Romney or a Paul Ryan anywhere near elected office in this country but its so unlikely as to be fanciful. And if you, faithful Catholics of America, by your high handedness allow Obama a second term in office, this too will be your future, because you will have proved that the votes are there if you give away enough free stuff and promote the destruction of life and of marriage, but the votes are not there amoungst pro life and pro marriage people. If a candidate has to so perfectly match your standards before you vote for them, then you’ll find the general tenor of candidates drifting away from your positions, towards the positions of those who are willing to compromise a little.

    Elections are a bellweather of the times they are held in, if you want a candidate that reflects your views, you need to spend the four years between elections working hard to convince other that your positions are right. No point in waking up one November every 4 years and complaining that nobody thinks the way you do, you need to change the culture in between times. Many people in America are doing so, and from my perspective are doing so a lot more effectively than we are here. Vote for the best guy on the ticket (Romney/Ryan by a mile) then do everything you can to change the culture so that you can vote in an even more perfect candidate next time.

    Final thought, Romney may not be perfect, ok, but if he wins 2 terms its likely that faithful, practising, orthodox Catholic Paul Ryan will be running for president in 2020. Surely another reason to vote for this ticket?

  87. Imrahil says:

    I have said that I do not mind clergy politicizing when they have a clear, irreproachable moral cause to do so; and even defended that as necessarily included in the freedom of religion.

    But that is supposing they have an irreproachable moral cause to do so. Now according to the information stated it is vitally clear that to vote for Candidate Romney is no moral obligation; and then a clergy should not say so and even throw the threat of moral sin around (the case of mere laziness excepted). Also, whatever may be said about scolding others for their sins, I do not think it will help the political debate to scold them for things done in accordance with their conscience, a conscience that in this context cannot be proven to be ill-informed.

    Ethics of “let’s do good and may God sort it out (Max Weber’s “Gesinnungsethik”) does have, in other contexts at least, the benefit of being also the most effective forms of Practical Ethics (Verantwortungsethik). The point is that incrementalism also works other way, and – if I may even say it – human experience points rather to the contrary than “we will get a better candidate next time”.
    (And if I just say it, while it is immoral nonsense to speak of abortion as a right, we might remember that we are still technically and juridically speaking of tolerating evil. Hence it is at best misleading to say “the State kills so and so many millions of babies”. The principal sinner is, sorry ladies, the woman in question; and while there is a moral confusion about many things, still I do not think the moral confusion is as yet so big that the woman in case wouldn’t in most cases have an actual call of conscience not to kill her unborn child. The very amount of pressure to render it acceptable speaks for that.)

    Another thing: I would not personally think of voting as rendering Caesar his due. Rendering Caesar his due is taxes, military service, obedience to positive law where meant to be morally binding and acceptable in conscience, singing the national anthem, and the sort of thing. Voting is a militant action of fighting for the Kingdom of Christ; it is giving God His due. (That can be done by a temporal retreat from the lesser important target to attack with full force the more important.) Giving Caesar his due is being ruled, not ruling (even by marginal participation).
    But that’s rather personal feeling and of course I accept also the other way…

    All that being said, if I were an American citizen… but that’s mingling into foreign affairs, isn’t it? Let it be put this way: I would not choose the action I defended in this comment. [Also, it may be said that I assumed the assertion that Candidate Romney is a lesser-but-an-evil by hypothesis; I have neither authority nor knowledge to judge on the matter.]

  88. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    Citizens United was a devastating blow to democracy, and without a truly democratic system of government it is unlikely that the dignity of human life will enjoy any greater degree of recognition in our society.

    The Citizens United decision is overrated. It merely permits what was being done before indirectly to be done now directly.

  89. JonPatrick says:

    Well said pmullane.

    If I may add another perspective, it is that perhaps we expect too much out of our politicians. While I will vote for Romney I have no illusions that he is sincerely committed to pro-life policies based on his record here in Massachusetts. I suspect his main focus will be in turning the economy around and trying to undo the damage of the last 4 years. At least he may nominate more conservative supreme court judges than Obama would. However we are living in the world, a world that is not our ultimate home, and once that always has and always will have different values from God’s values. Working within the political system has its limitations as we will always come up against these compromises that are made because politicians are of the world. Our focus needs to be on trying to save souls by how we live our lives and by working withing our families and our communities, both within the church as well as our neighborhoods.

    So while I will vote for the lesser of 2 evils, as well as 2 ballot questions here in Mass which are probably more important (given that Mass is sure to go for Obama anyway) one is to allow doctor assisted suicide, the other is to legalize medical marijuana.

  90. Texana says:

    Johnno
    Thank you for your heartfelt contribution!

  91. Sissy says:

    With respect to Texana, Johnno, I’m going to follow the guidance of my Bishop, Fr. Z, and yes, even Fr. Jim.
    Here’s what my Bishop has to say on the matter:
    http://www.vacatholic.org/documents/BishopsElectionStatement2012.pdf

    Texana’s concern for my soul notwithstanding, I’m going to be guided by my Catholic leaders. Others can “lean on their own understanding” as they see fit.

  92. wmeyer says:

    Others can “lean on their own understanding” as they see fit.

    Bearing in mind, however, that one of the things which distinguishes us from the Protestants is that we recognize the teaching role of the Magisterium. TO be Catholic and ignore the guidance of bishops and priests is surely to endanger your soul, Texana.

  93. Southern Catholic says:

    Which candidate supports no evil or hasn’t done any evil, Johno? The fact is they all are sinners, none of them are perfect. I’m waiting to hear who this good candidate is from people that say we shouldn’t vote for either candidate.

    At any rate, only four candidate have a possibility of winning, because only four are on enough ballets to win the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Besides Obama and Romney, the only other two that could win are Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. Both are just as “evil”, if not worse then Romney and Obama for what they support.

  94. Sissy says:

    wmeyer said: “one of the things which distinguishes us from the Protestants is that we recognize the teaching role of the Magisterium”

    Speaking as a former protestant, AMEN! The last thing I am interested in is “free-lancing”. I’m grateful for sound guidance and godly instruction from holy priests like Fr. Z and my Bishop.

  95. pmullane says:

    Thank you JonPatrick. I often envy America insofar as it still has polititians willing to stand up for the truth. I feel it would be a great shame to let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

  96. wmeyer says:

    Which candidate supports no evil or hasn’t done any evil, Johno? The fact is they all are sinners, none of them are perfect. I’m waiting to hear who this good candidate is from people that say we shouldn’t vote for either candidate.

    They are all sinners, as are we. Each of them has flaws, as does each of us.

    The damage of the last 4 years, as mentioned by JonPatrick, has been huge, and will take tremendous effort to reverse. The harsh reality is that our government is out of control, and spending as though money had no meaning. Of course, to a Keynesian, that’s pretty much the case. What Romney can’t campaign for with any chance of winning is to make serious and deep cuts, not to increases in spending, but to actual spending.

    Increasing taxes on the rich may sound pretty to some, but mathematically, it’s a poor joke. They do not have enough money–even if all were confiscated–to make even a tiny dent in our fiscal problems. Harping on this is one of the more heinous lies in which Obama has persisted.

  97. Imrahil says:

    Dear @Southern Catholic,

    the point is that we are not talking about sinners; indeed sins as such do not even enter the question. Would Ex-Governor Schwarzenegger in some position reenter politics, he should not be called down on the charge of adultery. He should be even praised for the nowadays rare thing of, after being dumped for adultery, wanting back to his wife.

    We vote not on moral refinement; we vote on plans, programs, and convictions. And while it is generally known that all men (save two) are sinners, there are a great amount of men who are entirely right on their convictions (known as the capital-C Catholics; I simplify, something regarding the completeness of even their information must be taken into account; but as a good simplification this will go). It should not be asking too much if we ask that some among them have enough education to put forth an entirely fine program.

    I do not know whether Candidate Romney has such a program; I do not know (though, judging from hearsay, it seems to me the most probably variety) that if he does not while some of his fellow-Primary candidates did; I do not know whether there has been such a problem at all. But

    [Just saying: The problem of not having a party to speak for the Catholics did arise in Germany in the 1870s. The result was that they founded a party of their own, the Center, and gave it massive support from official Church side.]

  98. Imrahil says:

    But… the thing should not be dismissed as unrealistic; because it cannot. It would mean surrendering before even seeking chances to fight.

  99. chantgirl says:

    Imrahil, there is no way we could have a Catholic Party in the US right now. Catholics in this country are deeply divided about social issues and governing strategies. It would be ugly, to say the least, to try to form a cohesive party. The Bishops can’t even agree with each other. It would be a huge scandal to see Catholics at each others’ throats over every single social issue of the day.

    Timothy Ephesus, a conservative congress is very important, but without a veto-proof majority, we still need a conservative President. Besides, presidents can funnel a lot of money to immoral things by executive order (Mexico City policy and embryonic stem cell research), so we still need a conservative President.

  100. Johnno says:

    Southern Catholic:

    I am not American, but we face the same issues here in Canada. Our own Conservative leader recently forced his own party to throw out the personhood debate that would’ve brought the issue of abortion to the forefront. Our own Conservative Prime Minister vowed during the election to never bring up the abortion issue. Every other party is so pro-abortion, it’s ridiculous. Nothing will change. As the old saying goes… “The Liberal Values of today, will be the Conservative values of tomorrow.”

    I don’t expect politicians to be perfect moral individuals themselves. However, I do demand that their policies be moral. Or at least that they will try their damnest to fight for these issues even if they fail. There is a limit to how much evil I will allow them to get away with. Maybe they might favor homosexual tolerance. But if they favor or do nothing against Abortion, then that is unacceptable. Period.

    I fully understand the dilemma you and other Americans are in. All your current candidates suck. You did have a chance to have a great man, Pon Paul run for President, but dirty tactics in the GOP that threw democracy out the window didn’t allow him to go through, because he was against things that both major parties were obligated to hold for the sake of a shadow government. I would have recommended the Libertarian position, but Gary Johnson is not strictly Libertarian and he is pro-abortion and pro-homosexual. Were he to only hold those opinions as his own personal evils and left it out of government hands like Ron Paul would’ve, then he’d be more electable. But he will not, so he is also evil and unelectable. Sadly your only options are :vote Romney, or not vote in protest and let them know why you take that stance, or find a lesser known party, I’ve heard some mention a Constitutional party in certain States who favors a return to strict Constitutional principles. They will not win in the current climate, but perhaps you can support them with the outlook of a long term solution. Similarly there is a small Christian party in Canada, but they are out of my area so I cannot vote for them.

    Only you can decide for yourself how best to vote. But if someone else chooses to vote in a different way or to not vote, then I believe you can also understand their dilemma. The other option of course is a nation-wide revolt. But thus far not many have the courage to stand up to the vast Assyrian Horde and the wall of Jericho that is the powerful U.S. Establishment State and the banking interests behind it. But keep this up and sooner or later we will lose permanently. Perhaps it is time that the remaining faithful Catholics became more stubborn in the face of the enemy and refused to play their game. This can be done peacefully.

    If I were in the U.S. I’d personally hope that Catholics would as a bloc not vote for anyone out of protest and made this statement loud and clear to the press and the Republican party. And if Obama wins and tries to force the HHS mandate, that Catholic organizations would together simply be civilly disobedient. Throw federal money out. Refuse to pay the fines and face the harsher penalties and remain stubborn in the face of jail time. Let them persecute us, freeze our bank accounts and property under the unconstitutional NDAA. Maybe even kill us. Of course it’s all easy for me as a single man with nothing to lose to say this. So I can understand if others with family or employees to look after etc. would prefer to avoid all this. I do not have an answer as to what you should do. I can only say what I think is the better strategy for the sake of our souls and to demonstrate to the world the evil that it does for the sake of sexual pleasure.

    If we can weigh the lives of children on the scales between Obama and Romney and vote based on that. Then surely some of us can weigh their lives on the scales with regards to different short-term to long-term strategies. It is abhorrent either way that we must do this. But it is not immoral for Catholics to vote or not vote if they intend to seek a different strategy than the two-party ouroborous that we are forced to remain inside of.

    Another strategy that is too late to implement now, is that Faithful Catholics form together to begin another grassroots third party. One that is strictly Catholic and continuously vote for them year after year, city by city, State by State, letting the biological solution work over the long term, trusting in God to aid us in this long term quest where we throw ourselves wholly at His providence, just like the King of Israel did rather than just take the ‘choice’ offered by the invading Babylonians to fight and die or surrender and become slaves. After doing so, an Angel of the Lord wiped them out in a single night. THAT is a strategy I’m going to follow if enough Catholics can do so. So vote how you can now, and I recommend spreading that idea around for the next election time and throw off the yoke of the immoral 2-party system for a divine solution and a third way. The devil doesn’t need you to always choose the greater evil. He is perfectly fine if you pick the lesser one. So do as Lewis said, and pick the option the devil doesn’t tell you about. Follow God. And if there is no solution presenting itself. Begin one! There is always hope. But hope only works so long as someone is willing to take that narrow path that is open to them while the gates are still open. So it’s best not to delay for too long.

  101. Imrahil says:

    Dear @Johnno,

    we’ve been prophecied that we won’t come to end with the cities of Israel until Our Lord cometh back to Judgment.

    There’s always emigration.

    Wasn’t this why America was founded in the first place?

  102. David Collins says:

    No vote at all is a “yes” vote for Obama.

    Complete nonsense. If you live in a state that Romney will definitely win, like Kentucky, then not voting is a vote for Romney. If you live in hellhole, like New York, that Obama will win, then not voting means you don’t want to participate. If you live in a swing state where voting can make a difference, then not voting means dropping out of the charade our masters put on to titillate us.

  103. wmeyer says:

    You did have a chance to have a great man, Pon Paul run for President…

    Dr. Paul has had some terrific ideas, but he has also demonstrated clearly on a number of occasions that he may have one or two screws loose. In general, the Libertarian party has had a history of running people for office whose world view was… interesting. (I’m trying to be charitable.)

    I would credit many of Dr. Paul’s ideas and principles to his being a good student of economics. And I would say that our present woes owe much to the widespread ignorance among voters of that same science.

  104. Cathy says:

    We live in a Republic in which the people are supposed to choose representatives for government. If neither candidate bearing an R or a D is one who represents you, I see no moral problem with voting for a third party candidate that represents you. This is, in fact, the responsibility of a representational government. I have both the right, and the moral duty to oppose both candidates for president, not because they are imperfect, but because their words and their actions both support the same intrinsic evils. We have the experience of the rabidly evil agenda under Obama, but I would propose that Romney’s words and actions are radically evil. I will vote, there is no excuse not to. I don’t know if the elections will be rigged, if dead people or people who are not citizens will vote. All I know is I have a duty that extends beyond presidential candidates to vote. I will take the time to obtain a sample ballot, review all candidates for all offices and judiciary positions and proposed amendments, and I will vote. Sitting out the election is not responsibility, it is simply laziness or despair. There’s always hope.

  105. Southern Catholic says:

    Johno,

    I thank you for you in depth post, however I take issue with this statement, “You did have a chance to have a great man, Pon Paul run for President. While he should be commended for trying to pass the Sanctity of Life Act multiple times, he voted against an Act that would make it a crime to transfer women into another state to get an abortion. So he seems to be as pro-life as Romney when it comes to these issues(meaning he filp-flops a lot). He also has stated that he accepted that gays had the right to marriage.

    Lets also address Libertarianism, which in the American sense is free market policies and the expansion of social liberties(socially liberal). This political position conflicts with Catholic morality because a) the expansion of abortion rights, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc and b) the regulation of the economy solely by the laws of the free market(CCC 2425). So I can’t justify voting Ron Paul or Gary Johnson over Mitt Romney when it comes to which is supporting less evil.

  106. Imrahil says:

    Well dear @Cathy, I think the representative element within the American Constitution is meant to be represented in the House of Representatives, which has its name for a reason…

    Dear @Southern Catholic, someone here mentioned prudence. If you want any chance of success for the pro-life-movement, then – as far as can be done without actual lying and in honestly answering questions when posed – then the only thing which can look towards any success is doing one’s best to exclude from the debate the abortion-after-rape, abortion-or-mother-dead, abortion-or-mother-seriously-injured questions.

    To understand me right: we will not conquer by watering down what also is irrefutable truth; but there is no realistic chance either to do so by exhaustive investigation whether those who have, at any rate, publicly joined our flag really do hold all this flag stands for.

    And an important thing is also: we have an actual moral confusion about the said issues, and great masses think that abortion is justified after rape, as opposed to a mother’s death or serious injure. That renders it more or less impossible in a democracy to change law on that.
    On the other hand, we do not have such a moral confusion about abortion in general. About this, we have a lot of political correctness to protect an opinion noone really holds (viz. its justifyability).

  107. wmeyer says:

    If neither candidate bearing an R or a D is one who represents you, I see no moral problem with voting for a third party candidate that represents you.

    Cathy, history teaches us that a third party vote is likely to benefit the incumbent, rather than the challenger. Can you see that giving Obama a second term would be a moral problem? If so, then you must be able to see that contributing to that outcome would be a moral problem for any voter who chooses a third party candidate.

  108. Sissy says:

    Cathy said: “I see no moral problem with voting for a third party candidate that represents you.”

    That’s the problem, Cathy. That 3rd party candidate is not going to represent you. You might as well cast a write-in for yourself or for Pope Benedict XVI. It might feel morally satisfying to you, but it’s just another form of refusing to take action. You are fooling yourself that you are voting, when you are really just going through the motions and faking it. It’s still an act of omission, because you had a chance to eliminate a 100% evil candidate and refused to do it.