Thanks, once again, to all of you who stayed home rather than vote

He sure can pick ’em.

From LifeSite:

Gay teen activist honored by Obama charged with sex crimes against a 14-yr-old boy

PHOENIX, November 20, 2013 ( – An openly homosexual teenager, who was given a position as an “adviser” to Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton and honored by President Barack Obama at a White House “gay pride” dinner, has been indicted on more than a dozen counts of sexual misconduct with a minor under the age of 15.


From American Thinker:

Gloria Steinem Gets Medal of Freedom for Abortion Advocacy

How fitting that abortion zealot and self-proclaimed Marxist Gloria Steinem received the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Wednesday from Barack Hussein Obama. The male-bashing, anti-family, anti-American Steinem beamed as the guy who voted three times against a partial-birth abortion ban while in the Illinois state Senate placed the medal around her neck.
What exactly is the meritorious contribution Steinem has made to our national interests that would warrant such an honor?
Ever since the radical feminist attended an “abortion speak-out” in 1969 hosted by the radical man-hating group Redstockings, she was “instantly committed” to the abortion movement.
As one of the architects of the abortion holocaust, Steinem summed up her philosophy in a 2005 New York Observer interview. The 71-year-old was asked what her advice to young women in the 21st century would be. She replied, “To do whatever they f—ing well please.” Six years after that statement, a young Florida woman named Angie tweeted her own abortion in real time after using the drug RU-486.
No one should underestimate Steinem’s part in the murder of 55 million babies and counting. Her mainstream good looks, media savvy, and Smith College degree landed her on talk shows, lecture circuits and magazines in the 1960s — something the dowdy, militant-looking Shulasmith Firestone, leader of the Redstockings, could only dream about. Steinem looked all-American, making her message more palatable to the masses.


I want to thank, once again, all the people who stay home rather than vote.

Thanks. Thanks a lot.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Dogs and Fleas, The Drill, The future and our choices, You must be joking! and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Supertradmum says:

    I voted…via absentee ballot. I hope it got to the States….

  2. Magpie says:

    Obama: a very bad, exceedingly dangerous man.

  3. StJude says:

    Well.. at least we dodged that no funding for Big Bird bullet…and Sandra Fluke has free birth control.. whew… imagine a world where Sandra would have to march her self to target and shell out $8.
    I am with ya Father… evil is now in our White House. ….. good job all those folks that couldnt vote for the self made rich guy/mormon and stayed home.

  4. Lin says:

    I voted absentee in a very BLUE state! Thank GOD I was on pilgrimage in Italy when the election results were announced. Needless to say, we were all broken hearted. God has permitted this too happen. Satanic forces are at work in this world. Much prayer and fasting is required!

  5. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Mitt Romney, 18 August 1994: “Well, I think you’re partially right in characterizing Ted Kennedy as supportive of the gay community, and I respect the work and the efforts he’s made on behalf of the gay community and for civil rights more generally, and I would continue that fight.

    “There’s something to be said for having a Republican who supports civil rights in this broader context, including sexual orientation. When Ted Kennedy speaks on gay rights, he’s seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay rights, he’s seen as a centrist and a moderate. It’s a little like if Eugene McCarthy was arguing in favor of recognizing China, people would have called him a nut. But when Richard Nixon does it, it becomes reasonable. When Ted says it, it’s extreme; when I say it, it’s mainstream.

    “I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican party and I would be a voice in the Republican party to foster anti-discrimination efforts.”

    Should we be thanking the people of Massachusetts who voted him Governor?

  6. lsclerkin says:

    He is demonic.

  7. Charles E Flynn says:

    Sandra Fluke should start shopping for an opthamologist:

    Using Birth Control Pills May Increase Women’s Glaucoma Risk
    , by Nancy Shute.

  8. govmatt says:

    A rare disagreement with Fr. Z

    Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I voted my conscience, and that amounted to voting for a third-party/write-in… I was able to sleep at night.

    Now, I guess that raises the criticism: if GovMatt and all his ilk had just compromised their principles and voted for someone who was ambivalent (at best) on abortion and disturbingly eager for additional wars in the Middle East (not trying to be a peacenik here, but we should really learn from our history and realize that blow-back is a reality)? We could have won!

    Well, no. To be quite honest, I’d much rather the obvious devil rule than the devil I’ve compromised my morality to support. That’s not to insinuate either side is per se evil, but, folks… if we really think the two party system is going to appeal to any sense of actual conservative morality, we are, respectfully, kidding ourselves.

    I may have taken Fr. Z’s point a bit too far afield, but I’m still content with my vote against progressivism on the left and neo-con (progressivism) on the right. Quite frankly, I don’t intend to compromise that view in 2016 and I think more people are starting to share that view.

    As I said, a rare, hopefully respectful, disagreement with Fr. Z.

  9. If you chose not to vote in the last presidential election because none of the candidates was good enough for you, then
    Go stare in a mirror and repeat until you get it through your head.

  10. JMJT says:

    If I am reading this correctly, (and I hope I am not) this sarcasm toward those who in good conscience could note vote for either party candidate–is really uncalled for, Father. With all due respect, you cannot say that Romney was the moral candidate. Even though I could never ever vote for Obama the ProAbort–the idea of voting for Romney who has done a great deal to advance the culture of death in his own right -was no picnic either. Romney is responsible for the issuing of Massachusetts same sex marriage licenses. He could have and ought to have refused the illegal order to issue them as there was no law legalizing same-sex marriage at the time–so he paved the way and did not fight for what was right, later he was responsible for the closing of Catholic Charities Adoptions in Massachusetts. And then we have “Romneycare” in Mass–the model for Obamacare. Romney’s plan called for the implementation of mandated health insurance (forcing the uninsured to buy in or be fined by the Mass DOR) and now we already live in that state which forces citizen to pay for abortions and contraception. I am a bit appalled by this post today, How is this jab at those who stayed home because there was no good candidate helping to unite the flock? Rather it is pitting one person who voted in good conscience (albeit wrong) against those others who stayed home in good conscience. And both sets are in line with the Church teaching. In fact in Mass, we went to the polls to vote down the Euthanasia ballot question –but in good conscience the only presidential candidate was a “write in”. We are called to be faithful. We don’t have to take the blame or the pride for whether we are successful or not. I agree with the person who said that at the end of the day when you vote the lesser of 2 evils–all you are left with is evil. We were not talking a choice between what was good and evil here. Or the less good vs evil. We know Romney here and to vote for him would be endorsing same sex marriage, contraception, and the attack on Catholics’ conscience rights.

  11. av8er says:

    I understand those who either refrained from voting or voted their conscience. I wonder if you would still have done so knowing what you know now about our current CINC? I voted for the lesser of two evils precisely because he was less evil.

  12. pannw says:

    I told anyone who would listen during the primaries that we needed a clear choice, good vs evil, live vs death… and we did not get it. In a way, I consoled myself by saying, “Well, self, at least this won’t be a complete sign that we have rejected good for evil, because we didn’t have that choice.” But I knew I was lying to myself, because we did have the choice, during the primaries! We did not choose wisely. I don’t completely blame those who didn’t vote for Romney. I do understand, because I kept saying I would not vote for him either, if he was the nominee. My husband listened to that rant so many days. He told me, “I will, because Obama has to be stopped.”

    I did vote for Romney, believing him the lesser of two evils and hoping that he had truly had a conversion. At least he said the right things, whereas Obama said he didn’t want to further burden mothers who had tried to murder their babies by making a doctor care for the little survivors. That was so much pure evil I had to vote against it and hope that even if Romney turned out as bad as I suspected, it would be a slower race to the abyss. Maybe then people would have a chance to wake up. I have minor children. I had to hope.

  13. inexcels says:

    It was against my better judgment that I voted for Romney. I now think that was a mistake and will never again vote for the “lesser of two evils” candidate. What little faith I had in the two-party system (and it was never much) is gone, and I’ve come to view both the Democratic and Republican parties as springing from the same corrupt soil. That could change if the internal battle currently happening in the Republican party ends in favor of the so-called “tea party,” and if the tea party itself does not become corrupted (but there are already signs of that happening). However, I’m doubtful of such an outcome. I think America’s decline is now irreversible; in fact that it crossed that threshold years ago, and if the Republican party continues to offer us candidates like McCain and Romney then I am simply going to vote third party from now on.

    As awful as Obama is, he is nothing but a symptom of much deeper problems. Had we gotten Romney instead, the only difference would have been that our continuing decline would now be slightly slower. The trajectory would be the same.

  14. stephen c says:

    Fr Z, thank you for this compassionate comment. I would ask the narcissists who can not vote for a less than perfect candidate to ask themselves if, faced with a neighborhood or household situation where someone they loved was faced with danger, would they refuse to ask for help from an unpleasant stander-by because the person they might need to ask help from did not meet their moral standards? Even if there is no doubt, no doubt at all, that their moral standards are absolutely correct? If the answer is that they would not ask for such help, then the next question is what they plan to do to fix the harm their deficiency of love and compassion- and that is what everyone agrees it is, a deficiency of love and compassion for those specific individuals in harm’s way, some calling it justifiable, others calling it not justifiable – has caused. Then the next question is what are they going to do next. I suggest they pray, because once you have abandoned someone in their hour of need (and there should be no question for any reasonable Christian that those too much in love with their selves to vote against Obama abandoned millions of helpless people in their hour of need), and once that agonizing hour of need is over, and their suffering on this earth has irrevocably occurred, you can’t go back in time and help them at that hour. Only prayer can overcome past losses that humans cannot fix.

  15. SKAY says:

    Along with the travesty that Father Z made me aware of with this post, Obama’s partner in evil (Harry Reid) just changed 200 years of precedent in the Senate in order to make it impossible for the Republicans to stop the appointment of “very” far left judges of Obama’s choice to federal courts.
    Expect some really bad activist court decisions and as we well know–Obama and his cronies do not like the Constitution “as written” so they will be trying to use the courts to re-write it.
    My Romney vote was to stop an ideological power grabbing politician and those behind him from destroying the God given freedoms we were all blessed with that our founders recognized and fought for. Obama spoke to his ideological base a few days ago and told them to be patient and be ready to work because he had a lot more to accomplish before this term is up. If you like the HHS mandate you will love the next 3 years.He is working to keep the Democrat Senate and take back the House so that he will have no opposition and he certainly does not let the Constitution get in his way.
    My Republican Senator has been trying to stop some of the worst Obama appointments
    but one of the tools has been taken away–one the Democrats used quite often themselves when they were the minority and fought to keep.
    I disagree that all Republicans are just like Democrats. There are some that are truly trying to stop what they can. Not all –that is true also-and they need to be replaced As a former Democrat, I would prefer that ninety nine percent of the Democrats be replaced but that’s not going to happen.


  16. Mike Morrow says:

    Obama is obviously the candidate that represents the real ideals of most US catholics. Without any doubt most US catholics, including the corrupt self-serving clergy, supported this beast enthusiastically in both elections. Eat it up, US catholics, you helped make all of this possible!

    To the few Catholics for whom traditional church principles are still valued and observed, I would simply ask how long it will take before you awake to the realization that Catholics and catholics are two fundamentally and starkly different churches, each with goals that are diametrically opposed to each other?

  17. rcg says:

    None of the alternatives were any better. McCain and Romney would have done exactly the same things, only they would have tried to hide it. Obama only lies about what he is doing, not where he stands.

  18. David Zampino says:

    Thank you, Father, for articulating something I’ve felt for a very long time.

    Once upon a time in the United States, multiple parties (meaning more than two) can and did win elections. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. I wish that it was — but that is something that is out of our control.

    John McCain and Mitt Romney were not perfect candidates. Because of the way the system operates, perfect candidates will never happen. But to suggest that there was essentially no difference between McCain/Romney and Obama nauseates me — and is patently untrue. Three words: SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS!

    In 2008, millions of Evangelicals stayed home, because Dr. Jim Dobsen felt that McCain wasn’t quite “conservative enough”. I hold him partially (but personally) responsible for Elana Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor. In 2012, millions of conservative Catholics stayed home (or wasted their vote) because Mitt Romney wasn’t quite “conservative enough”. And look what we’ve got.

    Romeontherange has it exactly right.

  19. bookworm says:

    The bottom line — according to multiple pronouncement made by various bishops and by Popes John Paul II (Evangelium Vitae) and Benedict XVI — is that when faced with a choice between two candidates that are both pro-abortion, or pro-anything intrinsically evil, one of whom WILL win the election no matter what you do, you have three morally acceptable (though not necessarily equally wise or prudent) options: 1. Vote for the less evil candidate; 2. Vote third party or write-in; 3. Don’t vote at all.

    Until recently I was firmly in the camp of those whose believed that even though the GOP was far from perfect they HAD to be voted for no matter what in order to stop the far more evil Democrats. Now I’m beginning to think that perhaps it is time to think about forming a third party. After all, the Republicans themselves started out as a third party formed by anti-slavery people who no longer felt welcome in either the Democrat or Whig parties.

    On the other hand… let’s not forget that if you were a committed abolitionist in 1860, you would probably have sat out that election because no candidate, including Abraham Lincoln, would have been morally acceptable to you. Lincoln didn’t advocate immediate emancipation of all slaves; he merely advocated not allowing slavery to expand to new territories. He would have been just fine with maintaining the status quo and letting then-current slave states remain that way. The abolitionists’ favored candidate was William Seward and when he failed to win the Republican nomination many of them were extremely disappointed. Even in office Lincoln did not always act boldly against slavery — the Emancipation Proclamation was carefully worded to apply only to the Confederate states that wouldn’t obey it anyway so it didn’t actually free ANY slaves. Yet, in the end, it was on Lincoln’s watch that slavery ended. So who’s to say that abortion could not be ended on the watch of a less than perfectly pro-life president?

  20. bookworm says:

    Also, it is not just presidential elections that count. Elections for the U.S. Senate are critical as well since the Senate approves all judicial and Cabinet nominations. State legislative and gubernatorial elections are critical since they determine state policies that may be adopted as models elsewhere (e.g. Romneycare) and because successful governors may end up becoming presidents (Reagan, Clinton).

  21. Scott W. says:

    I voted…blank ballot. Probably not even going to do that again. Voting is the lex orandi to satanic liberalism’s lex credendi.

  22. Supertradmum says:

    We better get use to the idea of going for the lesser evils. Remember, Hitler was voted in.

    We cannot get on a high-horse of wanting only the best when America (and Europe, btw) experiencing a leadership crisis. Years of liberal academics and nastiness in business have created the leaders we have now, as well at least two generations of people who seem to have no framework for judging moral issues.

    If there are only narcissists and egotists running for offices, we have to vote for the lesser evil. Otherwise, we shall end up in tyranny.

  23. Facta Non Verba says:

    I subscribe to the rule put forth by William F. Buckley: Support the most conservative candidate who is electable. I echo those who commented above that one critical difference between the 2 presidential candidates is who they appoint as judges to the federal bench. Federal judges have lifetime appointments and can have a far greater impact on law / policy than the president.

  24. Southern Catholic says:

    Dear friends who voted with their conscience, who exactly did you vote for in the presidential election? The Libertarian or Green party candidate ? Both are pro-abortion and pro-gay “marriage”. What was the better choice out there?

  25. The Masked Chicken says:

    Gloria Steinem and the, “gay,” teen activist (let’s take back that word, eh), who certainly can’t be gay about his probable incarceration are both symptoms of the growing presence of mammon in the world. The word, mammon, can be used in two, interconnected, senses. According to, The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1921 – quoted in Wikipedia),

    “Scholars do not agree about its etymology,[1] but it is theorized that Mammon derives from Late Latin mammon, from Greek “????????”, Syriac mámóna (“riches”),[2] Aramaic mamon (“riches, money”),[1][3] a loanword from Mishnaic Hebrew ‘???? (mmôn) meaning money,[4][5][6] wealth,[7] or possessions;[8] although it may also have meant “that in which one trusts”.[1]”

    What we have growing like cancer in the world, today, is a shift in trust from trust in a God to trust in man. Everywhere, people are looking for THE PAYOFF. This empowers the rich to control the poor and even whole legislative bodies. Congress is, by-and-large, composed of either wealthy people or those beholden to wealthy backers. No poor people need apply. I will say this over and over and over again, but who will listen – we used to think that Pentecostalism was a poor man’s religion until we actually looked at the data and found that it flourishes during times of prosperity and among the rich. Likewise, abortion was not thought up or socially advanced by poor people. It was promoted by the idle rich. It began in the U. S., at least, after WWI and found its support among an aimless, rich, spoiled-brat youth who wanted their own way with sexual license. It was picked up by Margaret Sanger, herself a leftist libertine and the rest is history.

    What these both have in common is a trust derived through oneself rather than independent de-personalized dogma. Both Pentecostalism, to a certain extent (obviously, much more properly Christian in outlook) and abortion activism are philosophies of personal revelation, where knowledge comes to the person from within. There are no effective safeguards against self-deception. I do not mean to equate Pentecostalism with abortion (both just happened to start flourishing after or near the end of WWI), obviously, but I do mean to call attention to the single biggest flaw undergirding the defects in modern life, in most developed countries of the world, and it exists in both Pentecostalism and abortion advocacy, namely: the Principle of Private Judgment – Modernism, writ in human lives.

    Congress has devolved from group that has at least some notion of right and wrong left over from its Christian heritage, to a group based on private judgments that are ratified once a necessary number of people are reached (be it a majority or a supermajority). While the love of money is Mammon writ large, The Principle of Private judgment is nothing more than Mammon writ small and both flourish during times of prosperity. There is almost a lock-step agreement between increasing wealth of a country and the decrease in the average family size. It was the rise of the rich entitled youth after both WWI and WWII that made abortion and, ultimately, Gloria Steinem, possible. Although it seems counter-intuitive, I suspect that abortions do not grow during an economic depression or any period where there is a lack of personal control of one’s life. There are many bad sources of statistics, but this table, derived from Johnston’s archives, shows the raw data from 1909 to the present. The statistics are sobering. If one clicks on the link for regional data, one can get a state-by-state breakdown, over time.

    I fear this will not change. There is massive evidence that everywhere wealth increases, family size shrinks. People become more selfish and more confident in their own, private, judgments. There was a recent, very controversial report in England that says that the higher the I.Q. Of a woman, the less urge to reproduce. I suspect the study was poorly designed. If it had looked at confidence in self-judgments, it might have made the correlation more correctly. Many modern smart women (in a sense measured by I.Q. tests) tend to be confident in their own ability to derive a correct moral code. This is, again, a form of Mammon. What they will not do is trust someone else to do it. This ego-centric idea of right and wrong will, almost always, tend to a very limited view of life, here-and-now, taking into account nothing about eternity (if they believe in it at all). Children are a pointer to eternity.

    I could go on, but I trust the point is clear. I do not have high hopes for the state of the world unless we have an economic collapse. Unlike most, I think a Depression would be a good thing, in some ways.

    In related news, the vote to stop filibustering in the Senate, on Thursday, was very bad, although it does not apply to Supreme Court nominees.

    The Chicken

  26. AA Cunningham says:

    I certainly hope that those who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Romney, thus ensuring that Soetoro would be reelected, will accept that same dogmatic absolutism during their particular judgments.

  27. inexcels says:

    It sure is great how people who sincerely believe that not voting for the lesser of two evils is the most moral choice get smeared as “narcissists” (because surely self-obsession is the only possible explanation for believing the last few Republican candidates have been unacceptable) and become the subject of vitriol up to and including implications that they deserve to burn for eternity in Hell for “dogmatic absolutism.” Talk about spittle-flecked nutties.

  28. BBJohn says:

    I just want to say this.

    Initially my reaction to this article was that Fr. Z is misinformed. As I was arranging my thought to type this reply, I realized I was the one who hadn’t thought it through.

    It is true that during the past election we had two persons to choose from neither of which were by no means saints. Obama with his pro-Gay and pro-Abortion/contraception agenda vs. Mitt Romney with his power hungry, lying, “there is no major problem with the health care system”, and his retarded sounding foreign and economic policy. Honestly, I would say Mitt Romney lost the election because of these things. He lost credibility. All he had to do was be honest. Oh it didn’t help that he was speaking of outsourcing damage while he had lead such endeavors in the past.

    Now can Catholics see Romney as a noble guy against abortion? Or perhaps even his choice as VP as a good Catholic? Unfortunately no. Both had the logically inconsistent position that Babies out of rape are fair game for abortions. What sort of a logical inconsistency is that? If they are against abortion because the babies are innocent lives, then what does an abortion have that justifies killing innocent lives? At least Obama seems to be consistent in his thought by saying he thinks abortion is always right.

    So to me, personally, the Republicans in the last race seemed like a joke. They were, at best, trying to use the Christianity to get some votes.

    Now you would be wondering why I still agree with Fr. Z. Well I agree with him because I think Romney was the better choice out of two bad ones. While it is true that considering the integrity issues of Romney, there is no reason to trust him to even keep his word on anything, to make such a broad judgement might be rash. So given what we know and taking both candidates on their word, voting for Romney could have brought about good by at least ending abortion to a large degree. The number of abortions due to rapes make up only a very low percentage from what I have seen.

    So while Romney is not the greatest president, he was a better choice at that time than Obama. People should have voted for him.

    But in slight disagreement with Fr. Z, I can see many Catholics still deciding to not vote for either because their consciences may very well not allow them to vote Romney knowing what I said about Romney above.

  29. PA mom says:

    To those who do not find anyone acceptable, perhaps it is your calling to public office.

    It does not seem enough to simply grumble about the state of affairs, but never extend ones own neck to change them. Liberals are willing again and again to make these kind of sacrifices, and it is why they win. I shudder at the concept myself, but what are we left with when all of the too principled people bow out?
    Whatever came out of Romney’s mouth, there was clear evidence that he had tasked himself personally with the assistance of those in need over a lengthy period of time. That kind of character we need as a country.
    That said, we would probably be at war with Syria right now if Romney had been elected. So perhaps in ways that are unknowable, it is better this way.

  30. tonyfernandez says:

    I myself cannot in good conscience vote and thereby show my support for a system that leaves to popular opinion awful programs such as welfare, minimum wage, tax hikes, abortion, compulsory schooling, etc. I cannot vote for any candidates because all candidates support at least one of these abuses. No, instead my protest is accomplished by not voting and encouraging others to do the same. In the end, a government where only 10% of the country votes is far less secure in their power than a government where more than 50% of the country votes.

  31. Cathy says:

    Both nominees were a reflection of our “nice” political culture. The tiniest pin-prick of conscience and the media wails while grave and deadly actions go unaccounted for. I could not vote for Mr. Romney because every evil embraced at the national level by Mr. Obama is the reflection of every evil embraced at the state level under Mr. Romney. I did not refuse to vote for the “lesser” evil, I refused to vote for the same evil. Would our country be going in a different direction under Mr. Romney? Would we be willing to rightly protest Notre Dame if it conferred like honors on Mr. Romney? Father Z, would you be making the same statement to those who voted for Mr. Romney if the young man in question had been honored by Mr. Romney?

  32. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:

    Not too long ago, a woman called from the RNC, asking for my support…. and asked if I felt that it was important for the Republicans to stand firm against Mr. Obama’s program. I replied that it would be nice if they did once in a while.

    I acknowledge that Mr. Obama’s victory is partly the result of his opponents staying home. I voted last time, so I can’t be tarred with that brush. Nevertheless, when the differences in policy are mostly based on regional accent and skin color, when the Republican primary voters choose the one candidate most like Mr. Obama, what’s a thoughtful Catholic voter to do? It has been the sad reality since the New Deal that the Republicrats have merely managed more effectively the programs which the Demnocrats have put in place.

  33. S.Armaticus says:

    Dear Father Z,

    I did not stay at home and voted twice, correctly may I add.

    And in the same spirit, I ran across this Open Letter to the Pope. The link is here:

    The author, Randy Engel is calling for the creation of a “Papal Commission of Inquiry into Homosexuality and Pederasty”. And since there is a reform of the Curia afoot, and new Commissions will be created, I think all Faithful Catholics should spread the word and get behind this noble effort.

    Don’t stay at home on this one.

    Yours in Christ,


  34. inexcels says:

    AA Cunningham: Excuse me. Did you just say I [Nope. No. I am deleting the rest. You two are done now, at least in the tone you are using. If you are going to have some discussion, tone it down.]

  35. Fr_Sotelo says:

    But Father, but Father! Didn’t you know that Mitt Romney bullied a kid in high school? And when he was in charge of the Olympics…and when he was governor…and….and…etc. etc. I could not possibly in my conscience vote for him, so at least I’m okay and feel at peace. So stop being so mean and blaming me for Obama. That is SO two-party system and we need to think outside the box, even if the Anti-Christ is elected! LOL

  36. The Cubs will win the World Series before voting for the lesser evil becomes a sensible or effective strategy for real change. The results of its repeated use prove it.

  37. CrimsonCatholic says:

    Again it needs to be asked, who was be the optimal candidate in the last presidential election for those who did not vote for the Republican? (I assume that most that voted who comment on this site, did not vote for Obama).

  38. Scott W. says:

    “Vote for Our Guy or the babies get it” isn’t a sensible argument.

  39. Elodie says:

    Quick google check shows the Constitution Party had Virgil Goode as a candidate. Perhaps that’s who the wise ones voted for.

    I voted GOP in 2012. Could be the last time. Individual politicians aside, conservatives and Catholics have been thrown under the bus so many times by the GOP since 2012, it’s unbelievable.

    Constitution Party platform is in line with Church Teaching.

    God doesn’t ask for results, he asks for attempts. Right now, my conscience would be more at ease in standing bare before God telling him I’d voted with my conscience, rather than strategizing with the “most electable lesser among evils.”

    Obama stole the last election, anyway. Didn’t matter if Romney did get the vote, because he wasn’t going to get the win. I firmly believe it was fixed.

  40. slainewe says:

    It is an easy thing for the Holy Ghost to move the hearts of the 60% who cast votes based on candidate personality to vote one way or another. The question is: what moves the Lord to do so?

    5 righteous men could have saved Sodom and Gomorrah. Perhaps if as little as 5% of Catholics voted their consciences – relying on God rather than their votes – the Lord would be moved to allow the better candidate to win. Or even give us righteous candidates!

    The bottom line is that I vote my conscience and then ask my guardian angel to change my vote to whatever the Lord wills for my nation’s healing (or chastisement). So I never know for whom I actually voted.

  41. kimberley jean says:

    I don’t mind the people who didn’t vote. I mind the people who didn’t vote and who complain about how things are going.

  42. Stephen Matthew says:

    It would depend why someone did not vote, but I generally agree.

    I think every eligible voter had a moral duty to go to the polls and vote against re-electing Obama-Biden. That does not translate automatically into a duty to vote for Romney-Ryan, there are reasonable arguments over what was morally permissible and politically prudent in that regard, be it a 3rd party candidate, or perhaps even a blank ballot in the extreme case as both major parties did have some serious moral failings.

  43. slainewe says:

    “moral duty to go to the polls”

    My understanding is that this is a teaching of the Church – we must vote under pain of sin even if it means writing in all candidates. Isn’t this part of our duty to evangelize?

    If one does not vote, how is this any sort of statement? Who knows we are dissatisfied with all candidates listed if we don’t say so by casting a ballot that confirms none of them.

    (I do not recommend a blank ballot because I fear another may fill it in. Write someone in; it can be anyone.)

  44. David Collins says:

    Thanks, once again, to all of you who stayed home rather than vote.

    You’re welcome, Father.

  45. Urs says:

    Wow! Are we in a time warp? All the comments are about the Presidential election in 2012!
    …the one that happened a year ago…and the discussion seems as if it could have occurred the day after the election… I had to go up and check the date…twice! Well…since we are on the subject….RON PAUL! ;)
    It is what it is…and we are where we are ….and it is from here that we must walk into the future…

  46. Urs says:

    I know Fr. Z’s article was about that election and NOT voting (and some of the consequences thereof) but the ‘lively’ discussion of the candidates in that election kinda threw me off….and BACK IN TIME!

  47. Sonshine135 says:

    I have often said that Abortion, Contraception, and Gay Marriage are losing propositions for candidates. While this may come across as brash and insensitive for a Catholic, it really isn’t if you think about it.

    Catholics need a majority to win an election. The only way to make this happen for a Catholic candidate is for the reach to be much deeper into the economic issues of today. We cannot expect, in the current social condition our world is in, to ever win because the candidate is anti-abortion.

    The work of the Catholic neither begins or ends at the ballot box. We have a much tougher issue- fixing this problem at a personal level. It begins in our homes and extends to those whom we care for. We must be a reflection of God in this world. When we do not act Catholic, either by sitting on our hands when we see evil in our own church or by continuously allowing evil by failing to confront it with truth. When we do this, we are part of the capitulating masses. Abortion, Birth Control, and Gay Marriage will never be defeated at the ballot box until it is defeated in the hearts of those who support it. This mean, we have to acknowledge we are the better way. It also means that we have to get the foxes out of the hen house. This means strength from our Bishops toward those Priests and Nuns who would use the church as their platform for social experimentation.

    It is high time we tore down the Baals and the High Places don’t you think?

Comments are closed.