MUST HEAR BEFORE YOU VOTE! One of the BEST sermons I’ve ever heard – ACTION ITEM!

This is astonishingly good.  Listen to EVERY word… especially before you vote.

This sermon was delivered by the Rector of Ss. Simon and Jude Cathedral in Phoenix, Fr. John Lankeit.  I have written about him before.

I may just steal this word for word.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. Ages says:

    Oh, that every pastor spoke as clearly. Many souls would be saved!

  2. Kerry says:

    In the ten ring, at 1500 meters, uphill, at night, and a high cross wind, with open sights!!

  3. MouseTemplar says:

    Spot on! So glad to hear he has the support of his bishop.

  4. HealingRose says:

    That was amazing. I wish every Christian, not just Catholics could hear that sermon.

  5. Orlando says:

    Wow! Let us all pray a Rosary tonight for Father John because the forces of darkness will look to destroy him. Truth spoken clearly and passionately is a wonder to behold.

  6. thomas tucker says:

    He grew up where I live and says Mass here when he is visiting his hometown. He is fantastic.

  7. stephen c says:

    Any pastor of souls – deacon, priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, or a Pope or even, perhaps, a “Pope Emeritus”, who does not care enough about the victims of legal abortion – the sad perpetrators, their sad enablers, and their dead targets – to preach a similar sermon, needs to pray for greater love in their heart than they currently have. I am so tired of living in a world where there are so few men willing to preach the truth that this good priest decided to preach, and I am so sad that even in the (for now) blessed part of this world that is called the Catholic church there are so few deacons, priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and Popes and “Pope Emeriti” who think it might be important to preach a similar sermon. Who is stopping them? Why are sermons like this not preached as often as anti-Nazi sermons and anti-Communist sermons were preached not that many years ago? There are people who could make this happen – as soon as tomorrow, or in the near future, a Vatican document like “mit brennender sorge” could easily be published – and, failing that, even a Pope Emeritus can simply write an open letter to a newspaper, by the way, and such an open letter would be unquestioningly published and widely read – but, apparently, the people who could make this happen are agreed that it is not worth it. Sad, sad, sad. Are the innocent little victims not worth a few more heart-felt sermons and a little more support than they are getting? And please don’t tell me, as some might do, that preachers should be quiet about the contraception and abortion of all those innocent children because popular and powerful Christian leaders have said that we should not focus on contraception and abortion too much, for some undefined modernist reasons. The most innocent of us are the best of us, and they cannot speak for themselves. Sure, God, Mary, the Saints, the Angels, and all the souls in Purgatory are on the side of the unborn children; but they want us to be on their side, too. When I was very young, a half a century ago, I expected that the church I was confirmed in would be always clearly on the side of the innocent. Of course, if sincerely asked, I have to forgive those, including myself, who precluded that from happening the way it should have; but I really wish it was otherwise.

  8. joan ellen says:

    Wow! Their is hope! Thanks be to God.

  9. joan ellen says:

    That should be there.

  10. Sofia Guerra says:

    Steal the sermon and do it on Periscope … LIVE! Rock the boat as only you can! #ooRAH

  11. Facta Non Verba says:

    I thought I knew who I was voting for, but recently, someone who’s opinion I value told me to look into each candidate’s position on another intrinsic evil — torture. If one candidate is pro-life on abortion but also espouses the use of torture (I’m not referring to only water-boarding, whether or not that is actually torture), does our conscience still permit us to vote for that candidate? This person’s solution is to write in the name of a failed primary candidate, who is both pro-life and against torture.

  12. Makemeaspark says:

    Facta Non Verba Listen to that homily again, he is pretty thorough, and I think torture would be under the same category as Capitol Punishment, you “might” torture an innocent person, however, you torture, and cruelly rip an innocent, unborn baby limb from limb or burn them to death chemically EVERY TIME by your choice. EVERY time! That cannot hold a candle to water boarding!

  13. Facta Non Verba says:

    Makemeaspark: my understanding is that while capital punishment is permissible under certain situations, torture is not — torture being defined in the Cathecism as intrinsically evil, regardless of whether the person being tortured is innocent or not.

  14. WVC says:

    @Facta Non Verba
    Torture, honestly, stands in need of some serious study by astute moral theologians. What is the explicit definition of torture? (e.g., what differentiates torture from getting a root canal or receiving radical chemotherapy . . .etc.) How does that compare with capital punishment? (which is absolutely morally licit under the correct circumstances) Was it morally licit to send someone to the guillotine or have them hung but immoral to waterboard a known (i.e. no doubt about the person’s guilt) terrorist with intent to harm others? Is it always immoral to torture in order to coerce another individual’s free will, or is it justified in the case of heretics because it is akin to harsh medical treatment trying to eradicate a disease and keep it from spreading? That is, it is making the heretic understand the eternal consequences of his position in the hopes that it will convince him to change his mind? Please note, I’m not defending torture. It’s my thought that a nuanced study needs to be made on the topic free from modern liberal sentimentality and hysterics (i.e. Sr. Prejean’s need not apply).

    That issue aside, one candidate (candidate “A”) proposes practical policies to reduce both dangers to national security (restrictions on immigration, a non-interventionist foreign policy) that would drastically reduce either the need or even opportunity for torture. The other candidate (candidate “B”) clearly favors policy that would only increase such circumstances. That Candidate B would also continue insane policies that would potentially result in an actual nuclear war, at which point most of this discussion becomes moot. In all seriousness, we are standing absurdly close to a direct confrontation with Russia over whether Syria should be ruled by a secular but ruthless dictator (who at least protected Christians) or a virulently anti-Christian and anti-Western Muslim cabal. And we’re on the side of the Muslims. How did we get here? How is this any concern of ours? Why would we risk nuclear war over this?

  15. aquinasadmirer says:


    In order to have a meaningful conversation, one must begin by defining terms.

    We know what abortion is, and what it is not. The question of what is and is not torture is much more subjective.

    In addition, do we have a side-by-side comparison of the candidates’ positions on torture?

    Also, what would a proportionate reason be to vote for a candidate who wishes to promote and expand the current abortion status quo? Under what circumstances would it be proportionate to do so?

  16. Packrraat says:

    EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT. Would that ALL pastors were so courageous. This needs to be proclaimed from EVERY pulpit in the nation. I’m sharing this on my FB page. This, for me, is a prod to write a letter to the editor of our small town newspaper. I haven’t done that in quite a long time. It’s time for me to speak up too.

  17. quamquam says:

    @Facta Non Verba

    Intrinsic evil is always such from the perspective of the acting subject (see St John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor 78)

    So, to be strictly accurate, it is not intrinsically evil to vote for a candidate who supports intrinsic evil – as long as one does not agree with their support for the intrinsic evil. (Their intrinsically evil act is not one’s own.)

    However, it still might actually in the given circumstances nonetheless be evil to vote for that candidate (albeit not intrinsically evil – meaning, evil in and of itself in all possible circumstances and not just the given circumstances) – if there was not a proportionate reason that justified doing so, that would outweigh the evil of this legislation that was going to be brought in by the candidate (albeit evil legislation not directly intended by oneself). (Sorry, this is a convoluted topic!)

    Thus, it is intrinsically evil for a politician to vote in promotion of either abortion or torture, and intrinsically evil for a voter to support such votes by the politician. It is not intrinsically evil to vote for a politician who supported abortion; but my prudential judgment (and I think the prudential judgment of any reasonable and well-informed person) is that in the given circumstances in America today, it is evil nonetheless to vote for that politician (assuming their opponent is better on this question), since there is no proportionate set of good effects that outweighs the evil effect (albeit unintended) of one’s vote.

    This all comes from the principles in moral theology of double effect and material cooperation.

    Principle of Double Effect: if an action has two different effects, one good, one evil, it is permissible to perform the action as long as (1) one’s own action is not intrinsically evil; (2) one does not intend the evil effect, merely permits it; (3) the evil effect is not a means for achieving the good effect (since this would necessarily involve intending the evil to achieve the intended good); (4) there must be proportionate reason for permitting the evil effect (i.e. the good effect must in some sense ‘outweigh’ the evil effect).

    Related to this are the principles governing the morality of cooperation in evil. Formal cooperation in evil is cooperation in which one shares in the evil intention, and is never permitted. Material cooperation is where one’s action is somehow associated with the evil being done, but one does not share in the evil intention; it may sometimes be permissible, depending on such factors as the closeness of the cooperation, the existence of a proportionate reason for one’s action, etc. (God, for proportionate reasons of his own, materially cooperates with all the evil done in the world, since he maintains the evildoers in existence even as they commit their sins – but he never formally cooperates by causing or approving of the sin itself.)

    So: it is intrinsically evil to procure an abortion, and intrinsically evil for a politician to vote for the legalisation of abortion. But it could be permissible (in theory) for a voter to vote for Candidate A who was going to commit the intrinsic evil of voting for the legalisation of abortion – if there were even worse evils that the only alternative candidate, Candidate B, was going to vote for. (To take an imaginary example, if Candidate B was going to vote for both the legalisation of abortion and of infanticide.)

    In this case you, the voter, do not do anything intrinsically evil (you submit a ballot); you don’t intend the evil of the legalisation of abortion (and you hope it doesn’t actually happen); the legalising of abortion is not a means to the end of the good you want to achieve (the prevention of the legalisation of infanticide); and the good outweighs the evil (it is better that only abortion be legalised, than that both abortion and infanticide be legalised). So by the Principle of Double Effect, voting for Candidate A is legitimate – it is permissible material cooperation.

    This is standard moral theology, not the errors of ‘consequentialism’ or ‘proportionalism’, since it does not say that we may ourselves intend an intrinsic evil to achieve a proportionate good consequence. It just means we materially cooperate, for a proportionate reason.

    On prudential matters, as Fr Lankeit says, the politicians themselves can take different positions, and we can support one or the other position, and we all remain in line with Catholic teaching. On matters of intrinsic evil, such as abortion or torture, neither the politician nor the voter can ever support such. However, the voter could still support the politician for other reasons, as long as the good involved in those reasons outweighed the evil the politician was going to do. (If this were not permissible, no one could rightly vote for a candidate who wanted abortion to be legal only to save the mother’s life (as this is still an intrinsically evil law), even over a candidate who wanted to remove all prohibitions on the killing of anyone.)

    So if one candidate supports torture, and the other supports abortion, one has to weigh up the overall consequences of voting for one or the other. It seems to me that in America today, the deliberate killings of millions of innocent boys and girls is an evil which is not outweighed by any competing factors.

  18. s i says:

    Excellent! At the end he says these are the words of your Bishop – is that Bishop Thomas James Olmsted? Is the entire homily quoting the Bishop?

  19. PTK_70 says:

    The image of putting the grieving and penitent mother’s hand in the hand of God was poignant. If there was one omission in the homily, perhaps it was this: that God’s mercy also extends to those who, by their past voting record, have facilitated a culture of death. These too, by turning back, by repenting, may know God’s forgiveness.

    In the legal sphere successes are being won on a state by state basis. I propose that the holy grail of legal achievements on behalf of the unborn is citizenship. That’s right…citizenship for the unborn, starting at the state level. My vote goes to the candidate who will strive for this. Why wait until birth to confer citizenship, the ultimate legal recognition of the dignity and personhood of the child?

  20. It was a powerful and courageous homily.

    That said, let’s not be unclear about the implication. If, as I suspect almost all of us agree, this analysis makes supporting Secretary Clinton impossible, it also makes supporting Mr. Trump problematic.

    Why? Because Father made very clear that we cannot support someone who endorses killing unborn children. And both major-party candidates support killing unborn children. One supports killing them pretty much any time and anywhere; the other supports killing them in narrower circumstances (rape and incest).

    Some folks are going to vote for Mr. Trump because they figure, he’s less bad. OK, that’s a reasonable approach. But let’s not be in any way unclear about the grave problems with Mr. Trump; because what Father said about the scandal of associating with evil applies to all candidates, not just one. If you vote for Mr. Trump, I believe you have a positive duty to make clear that you do not associate yourself with his endorsement of grave evil: some abortion, torture, targeting and “taking out” (i.e., killing) non-combatants, to cite three. And there are many other facts about Mr. Trump that should be profoundly troubling. It is a terrible judgment on our country that one of these two party candidates will be our next president.

  21. mo7 says:

    I’ve listened to so much blather from the pulpit. Why is this message so hard to deliver???
    To the priests: your people are dying for you to preach like this. Young people need to know why they should attend the Catholic Church instead of the happy clappy one. This sermon separates us from every other Christian group. Don’t be afraid of the vocal people who are exactly wrong. You need to lead the way.

  22. Why is this message so hard to deliver???

    It’s not. Dealing with the aftermath is.

    [Indeed. The Rector in Phoenix had the clear backing of his great bishop. However, imagine this in another diocese where the bishop isn’t at all like Bp. Olmsted. There are bishops who never back their priests when people whine. Not only they won’t back them, they’ll take sides against them. Bishops can torture priests in a thousand ways, which is the worst sort of cruelty. Also, it may be that some bishops forget than when they attack a priest, they attack the anointed of the Lord.]

  23. Kent Wendler says:

    These responses in part demonstrate why I am currently engaged in an admittedly feeble letter writing campaign to shift the language used from the “sanitized” (“abortion”) and demonstrably ineffective (“murder”) to something which I hope is more effective but completely accurate. To repeat:

    1. In law as I understand it you must have ownership of something to dispose of it – to put it to use, or simply to discard it. Otherwise you have a primitive form of communism.
    2. A human being is indeed a human from the moment of conception. Arguing otherwise will not stand examination and is strictly self-serving.
    3. Someone seeking to abort a human being (thus discarding that human) is thereby making an implicit ownership claim on that human.
    4. This “ownership claim” is the very definition of slavery.
    5. The “disposal” desired is only to kill that unborn human. The intentional killing of a human being by another is the definition of homicide.
    6. Thus we have that abortion is a kind of strictly *homicidal slavery* and thus should be illegal because of the laws against homicide and because of the 13th Amendment.

    However, I can only *propose* this. It must be the Holy Spirit Who will effect it.

  24. Facta Non Verba says:

    Quamquam, thank you for your helpful and thoughtful response.
    The problem I am wrestling with relates to your final paragraph. One candidate supports abortion, and under no circumstances would I ever vote for her because abortion is intrinsically evil. The other candidate says he is in favor of torturing terrorists. If I do not wish to be a hypocrite, I shouldn’t support the other candidate either for the same reason – torture is intrinsically evil. My friend’s solution to this is to write in another candidate’s name, who he thinks is not in favor of any intrinsic evils. This, to me, seems like throwing your vote away.

  25. THREEHEARTS says:

    Everyone of us should forward this to our parish priests and bishops. I have can the rst of you do so?

  26. davidscottpringle says:

    This is a very good example of a Pastor teaching his flock and leading them to make an informed decision about their secular lives based on Catholic moral principles. I admire the sound theological argument that Father puts forward.

  27. Glennonite says:

    I ache for lack of hearing such courageous clarity from the pulpit.

  28. Hans says:

    I like it. I wouldn’t say it word for word, for one thing because (as someone points out above) what he said of priests also applies to deacons who preach. Also, so far as ‘choice’ is concerned, probably north of half (according even to Guttmacher numbers I’ve seen) of all women have them under duress from others — so much for choice. And the abortion industry intentionally targets minority groups, so that they have abortions in numbers far out of proportion to their share of the population.

    The problem with what he said isn’t what he said or how he said it, however. It’s that those who need to hear it, and who would disagree with it most, typically aren’t there to hear it. I have included in homilies what might amount to glosses of what Fr. John said, fully expecting to get an earful from someone or reports of the earful my parish priest got (though I’m confident he would support me, even if my ordinary might not). The resulting complaints? Nada, niente, rien, nichts, nothing. I have seen a good deal of head-nodding, because the people in the pews where they might actually hear such a thing already have some sense of the truth of it. Those who don’t have already gone someplace “safe”, where they won’t be challenged by the truth.

  29. Hans says:

    I may steal bits of it to add to mine, however. I hope Fr. John won’t mind!

  30. DanS says:

    Thank you Father Lankeit. Thank you Father Zuhlsdorf.

    Our King is calling us to join the battle. He is moving forward with or without us. He stands with those who are the smallest castaways. Unsheath your rosary! If we stand with him, the strong wind will blow us backwards, but the whirlwind will push us forward. If we stand with him we will find our strengths , his spirit making his home in our heart. If we stand with him we will never be alone. If we cannot see these things around us then, listening very hard, we will hear the victory cheers of millions of unborn souls knowing God has won. They cannot lose again. Their heavenly mother and her angels are always with these small ones. Her heal shall crush the serpents head. Unsheath your rosary and join in prayer! Our King is calling!

  31. iamlucky13 says:

    “Some say a priest has no business discussing politics in church.”

    Many present this as a matter of separation of church and state. Some have even argued churches that do so should be fined, summarily forbidden from eligibility for non-profit status, or otherwise penalized.

    It’s not. Separation of church and state is a US constitutional policy, not a Catholic Church policy. The US government can not favor one religion over another in its policies or laws. That says nothing about whether churches in the United States can discuss the relationship between their beliefs and political decisions. Rather, the same Constitution protects their right to do so.

    The next argument made is usually that restricting abortion is imposing religious beliefs on others. If so, then so is restricting murder in general. Father Lankeit rather viscerally highlighted some of the issues with that argument.

  32. iamlucky13 says:

    Compliments to quamquam on the discussion of intrinsic evil in relation to other evils, prudential judgement, double effect, and proportionate harm. That’s a lot to take on in only a few paragraphs, and it was well done.

    With regards to the concern Facta non Verba raised, it appears to me that the principle of double effect is quite relevant here. One could not vote for a candidate who supports torture specifically because they support torture, but only because voting is itself is not intrinsically evil, and they honestly believe that less harm will come from their election than from the election of their opponent.

    In particular to this election, one candidate openly supports abortion, it is already performed 700,000 times per year, that candidate seeks to expand it, they have a majority or very close to it of open support in the legislature, and they have an overwhelming majority of tacit support in legislature, plus a majority of tacit support in the judiciary. There is very clear certainty about the harm of electing this person.

    The other candidate openly opposes abortion (leaving aside for the moment his purported change of heart on the matter around the time he decided to run for office and his incontrovertibly documented history of lying), but openly promotes torture, which due to public opposition previously had to be practiced in secret, has at least been reduced if not nearly eliminated since then, and faces general opposition in both the legislature and the judiciary.

    Thus, the second candidate is arguably not nearly as capable of propagating his evil as the first candidate is theirs, and even if they were, could hardly hope to effect it on such massive scale as the first already does.

    That said, due to my above hinted reason, among others (including that his position on summary execution is even worse than our current president, having stated family members of suspects should be executed, too), I personally loathe the thought of supporting the second candidate.

    All this ignores that there is a third candidate who is more or less neutral on the matter of abortion, openly against torture, and has generally acceptable view on other issues.

    People tell me I would be throwing my vote away by voting for him. That appears backwards to me: They’re throwing their votes away by voting for indefensible candidates – regardless of which one wins, the country still ends up worse. The only reason they think the third candidate can’t win is because they won’t vote for him because they think he can’t win. We’re reinforcing a political situation rife with evil because both sides have effectively adopted a position of mixed denial and “I refuse to stop voting for evil unless you do first.”

  33. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear quamquam,

    As I’ve mentioned here, before, the Doctrine of Double Effect does not apply in a straightforward fasbion in this election because there is not, actually, only a binary choice between two evils. The bishops did not explain this nuance carefully enough. Even if Trump supported abortion and infanticide, one would not be free under Double Effect to vote for Clinton, since one may either not vote or vote for a third-party candidate. Double Effect only applies when there is a binary attribute set (a choice between two situations coming about by the same action, one good, the other evil or more evil), not a multi-attribute set, where there may be multiple outcomes, some evil, some good. In that case, The Arrow Impossibility Theorem says that there might, in fact, not be any way to vote and avoid evil or there might be multiple evils and multiple goods. I suspect that none of the Bishops study the mathematics of voting, but their quoting Double Effect in their voting guide does not apply in the case of the U. S. election and it needlessly confuses voters into thinking they might be able to vote for someone they can’t vote for. The Doctrine of Double Effect is irrelevant in this election, as I mention and they should have known better. Aquinas, in formulating the Doctrine did not consider multi-component cases.

    As for torture – Trump has not provided a definition of what he means, so torture, having no fixed definition in this case, one cannot say if he means real intrinsically evil torture or not. Different people use the term differently, unlike abortion, which has a pretty clear definition.

    At most because of the lack of clarity, one might have a doubtful conscience about voting for Trump, but that in no way matches the clarity of conscience one should have in not voting for Clinton. One has a moral obligation to remove the doubt about what Trump means by torture, if one can, so as to rightly form ones conscience about voting for him.

    The Chicken

  34. quamquam says:

    Facta Non Verba,

    I agree, voting for a third candidate would be throwing one’s vote away, and I believe would be a sin of omission in failing to do what one easily and legitimately could to prevent the greater evil of Clinton’s election.

    In making a moral decision, we first rule out any intrinsically evil choices. But for the voter, none of the choices facing him or her is intrinsically evil (whether voting for Clinton, Trump, another candidate, or no one at all). It is intentionally promoting legalised abortion or promoting torture which are intrinsically evil, not you submitting a ballot (which has all sorts of possible effects, good and bad, but is not wrong in itself).

    In present circumstances, I would certainly not vote for Clinton. But I can imagine circumstances in some dystopia of the future in which voting for Clinton would be the right and obligatory thing – for example, if the only alternative were a candidate who supported all the bad things she supports, plus they were going to legalize the killing of any child up till the age of ten, and make Christian faith punishable by death. This future vote for Clinton to avoid the greater evil would not be hypocrisy, and likewise a vote now for Trump to avoid the greater evil would not be hypocrisy, but rather, fully consistent and coherent.

    In the absence of intrinsically evil choices on the voter’s part, it comes down, at its heart, to weighing up consequences – including the consequences of not voting, or of casting a useless vote for a third candidate. Compared to voting for Trump, a non-vote or a useless vote effectively makes it slightly more likely that Clinton will win. This (albeit unintended) bad consequence means that the non-vote could only be justified in the circumstances if voting for Trump was intrinsically evil (since we may not do intrinsic evil even to avoid a bad consequence). But voting for Trump is not intrinsically evil (just as voting for Clinton is not intrinsically evil). So failing to vote for Trump would be a sin of omission that makes the implementation of Clinton’s even worse policies more likely.

    There is no hypocrisy in justifiable material cooperation in evil (such as voting for Trump) – it is making the best of a very bad situation, and doing your best to minimize overall evil consequences, and avoiding intrinsically evil acts yourself. It seems to me that the real hypocrisy (objectively speaking and not assessing subjective guilt) would be someone wringing their hands over Clinton’s policies, but then for no morally necessitating cause (such as the avoidance of intrinsically evil actions), taking a course of action (such as not voting, or a useless vote) by which those policies would be left more likely to be implemented. One’s soul would be stained by this sin of omission, but one’s soul is not stained or compromised by justifiable material cooperation, which would actually be an act of virtue (just as God is not ‘compromised’ by his material cooperation in evil, and Jesus was not ‘stained’ by paying taxes to Caesar, despite Caesar’s unacceptable policies).

    Naturally one should affirm one’s opposition to Trump’s unacceptable policies, and take due care to avoid scandal and to make sure one did not drift into support of those policies. Really, voting for Trump does not in itself give bad example, since rightly understood, it is the virtuous and obligatory act in the circumstances, which others should be encouraged to emulate. (And actually, there is theoretical risk of scandal no matter what one does, since one can always be misinterpreted. For example, voting for a third candidate might lead someone else who found out about your vote, to think that taking positive action to prevent Clinton’s election doesn’t matter that much. And likewise, whichever choice you make here and now, there is non-zero risk that your choice will lead you to later drift into unacceptable attitudes of mind and heart yourself. I don’t believe these easily avoidable moral risks (that are always present) should be decisive factors in the voting choice.)

    If every pro-life person followed your friend’s reasoning, it would lead to the collapse of the pro-life vote in this election and in numerous elections around the world, since it is quite often the case that every viable candidate supports something intrinsically evil. So, there would be disastrous overall consequences if that way of thinking took off – consequences which we should energetically take legitimate action to avoid.

  35. Elizium23 says:

    Please follow Father Lankeit on Facebook and Twitter.

    You already have the link to the Diocese of Phoenix YouTube channel, which features live streams of 9am Mass from the Cathedral every Sunday, and usually, eventually, the homilies are edited into separate videos like the above.

    For the record, my pastor of the same diocese gave a powerful pro-life homily on the same day. Parishioners responded with rounds of applause. Say what you will about clapping in Mass, but these priests are giving us unvarnished Truth in Charity.

  36. Lindy says:

    This is amazing! We live just south of this diocese and hear the great reports of this wonderful Bishop! His leadership shines through his priest!

  37. quamquam says:


    If we had a public profile and persuasive powers such that between now and the election we had a reasonable chance of convincing a substantial proportion of the voting public to vote for a more acceptable third candidate, there might be something in the ‘third candidate’ strategy.

    But since this isn’t the case, we should take it as a fixed point and certain knowledge that a third candidate will not win. The infinitesimal possibility of a third candidate winning shouldn’t influence our actions any more than should the infinitesimal possibility of us accidentally running over one of the candidates as we drive out to cast our vote.

    Voting (and our promotion to others of various voting strategies) have moral relevance, basically insofar as they have a causal influence on the outcome – whether by adding to the votes of the eventual winner, or taking votes away by some other means from the eventual runner-up. Of course, the single vote of any individual is exceedingly unlikely to change the outcome all by itself, but it can be a part-cause to the outcome. In the non-preferential voting system, the only votes that make a direct causal contribution to the outcome are votes for winning candidates, but other actions that take votes away from the runner-up (whether deciding not to vote rather than vote for the eventual runner-up, or voting for a third candidate instead of voting for the eventual runner-up, or promoting either of these) also make an indirect causal contribution to the same outcome.

    Keeping it simple, let’s say Clinton and Trump each has a 49.9% chance of actually winning, and a third candidate has a 0.2% chance of actually winning. So a vote for Trump has a 49.9% chance of making a causal contribution to the defeat of Clinton, and to the (overall) benefit for the protection of human life (once again, simplifying all the variables here).

    However, a vote for a third candidate has only a 0.2% chance of making any causal contribution to that candidate being elected (and for all practical purposes we should consider this as zero). (If voting for Trump were intrinsically evil, we would have to look at these other options – but it isn’t, so we shouldn’t.)

    Conversely, promotion to potential Trump voters of a third candidate really amounts to helping to elect Clinton. If Clinton wins (a 49.9% chance), this third-candidate promotion will have contributed to that outcome by being a part-cause of reducing the votes of the runner-up (compared to a 0.2% chance of having contributed to the victory of the third candidate). In its ultimate effect, convincing two potential Trump voters to do this, is the same as convincing one potential Trump voter to voting directly for Clinton herself (the latter being twice as powerful, since it both adds to Clinton’s vote and reduces Trump’s vote).

    Nothing would please Clinton more than if a substantial number of potential Trump voters (who would never vote for her) were instead persuaded to vote for a third candidate or not to vote at all. Let’s suppose your opinion and reasoning went viral (as I suppose we always hope our opinions might!), and got 10% of Trump voters to switch to the third candidate – that could be the key thing that got Clinton over the line!

  38. quamquam says:

    Masked Chicken,

    We call it ‘Double’ Effect, but I think the underlying principle is the same no matter the number of options. (Obviously its application gets more complex, the more numerous the options).

    That is: we must avoid intrinsically evil actions, and we must avoid intending evil, whether as an end or as a means; once we’ve excluded these intrinsically evil options from further consideration, then our choice (between whatever number of possible choices that remain, two or a hundred) comes down to prudentially weighing up the various consequences and their proportion of benefit and harm.

    Far from not applying to the voting situation, I think in the end this generalised principle applies to countless situations in life, voting included.

  39. Fr.JP says:

    Wonderful sermon! So good.

    He looks like John Malkovich’s brother!

  40. MichaeltDoyle says:

    This video is worth linking on other sites that will still allow discussion. Father speaks more eloquently than I and I think most of us.

  41. Iamlucky13 said:

    Separation of church and state is a US constitutional policy…

    While you made many good points, this is actually not correct. Contrary to what many think, the words, “separation of church and state” appear nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. What it says, rather, is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” in the First Amendment. The Constitution aims to prohibit action by the government, never does it limit or constrain what churches may do.

    On the other hand, there are indeed laws that seek to constrain the freedom of churches, and they may well be unconstitutional (I think so). The principal issue here is the so-called Johnson Amendment, which limits what tax-exempt organizations may do. But that isn’t part of the Constitution.

    Additionally, the Johnson Amendment does not say that churches can’t talk about politics, and it certainly doesn’t say that ministers can’t. Rather, the Johnson Amendment applies only to express advocacy of someone’s election or defeat. So as far as the U.S. government is concerned, churches can talk all they want about candidates, about issues, about laws, about what laws ought to be passed, and so forth. All they want. But what causes problems with the government is when a church says “vote for” or “vote against.”

    But there’s more! This applies to churches, not individuals. As a priest, I can say anything I want; no law prevents me from endorsing a candidate if I want to. The Church, on the other hand, doesn’t want me to do that.

    And there is yet another issue here. The law, and the adjudication of it by the courts, has in the past made a distinction between communication within an organization, and communication from an organization to the public; and a very strong case can be made that the prohibition on advocacy, which I just described above, applies only to what our genial host would call ad extra communications, but not ad intra. While I don’t speak for the bishops on this, my own view is that a minister can say absolutely anything to the members of his flock, without violating the Johnson Amendment — because these are communications among members. If the Johnson Amendment isn’t unconstitutional altogether, it can only apply to communications from the church as an organization, to the public.

  42. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear quamquam,

    I agree that Double Effect is a universal principle, but it cannot be used in this election as an excuse to vote for Clinton by the thinking of not intending her stance on abortion, only her other policies. That is a misapplication of Double Effect, but a quick reading of the bishop’s voting guide, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, contains these two paragraphs:

    “35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

    36. When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.”

    Paragraph 35 is a skimmed version of Double Effect. Paragraph 36 is a skimmed version of the exceptions to Double Effect. A Catholic who has little moral training beyond CCD classes may, mistakenly, think that they may vote for Clinton under Double Effect, although they may not be familiar with the concept.

    There are, as you point out, four generally requirements for Double Effect to hold:
    1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent. (Neutrality)
    2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary. (Exclusivity)
    3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed. (Simultaneity)
    4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect“ (Proportionality)

    I know you know this, but for the sake of others who might be unfamiliar with Double Effect, let’s take the classic case of an ectopic pregnancy, where the embryo is lodged inside the Fallopian tube. Double Effect allows a surgeon to remove the tube, thereby aborting the baby, while trying to save the mother’s life, because all four conditions are met:
    Neutrality – the operation is not, in itself, morally evil
    Exclusivity – the doctor only positively will to save the mother, not lose the baby – that, is an unintended consequence (Double Effect is, sometimes, also known as the Law of a unintended Consequences)
    Simultaneity – the mother lives and the baby dies at the same time
    Proportionality – saving one life is proportional to losing another

    This is straightforward Double Effect, but there are a couple of other cases, which need to be considered and relate to the current election.

    First, there is the case of the Antisymmetric Double Effect. Consider St. Gianna Molla. She had a slightly more complicated situation. In ectopic pregnancy, the baby will, assuredly, die, so letting the mother die is, essentially, futile care for the baby. In St. Gianna’s case, it was either her or her baby, but not likely both. In this case, Double Effect applies for either the mother or the child, but doing good for one is doing evil for the other. Instead of one possible action, as in the surgical case for ectopic pregnancy, there are two possible actions acceptable under Double Effect, each being the opposite of the other. Let A[C1, C2] be read: the bracket is an act, A, the C1 and C2 are the consequences. In this case, there are two possible acts: A [Mother lives, Baby dies] and B [Mother dies, Baby lives], so A = -B, the double effect is antisymmetric.

    Secondly, there is the case where Double Effect would hold, but Exclusivity is violated: the mother has an ectopic pregnancy, which could be alleviated by surgery, but a drug exists (per hypothesi) which, in 80% of the cases, can open the Fallopian tube and release the embryo. Even though Double Effect exists for the surgery, it is no longer able to be used, if 80% is deemed a rational risk of success. In this case, because of non-exclusivity, there is no symmetry between good and evil.

    That is the situation in the current U. S. Election. If there is a third option that avoids a symmetric conflict between good and evil, then it is the only rational, moral choice. This is where Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem comes in: In social choice theory, Arrow’s impossibility theorem, the General Possibility Theorem or Arrow’s paradox is an impossibility theorem stating that when voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked order voting system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide (complete and transitive) ranking while also meeting a pre-specified set of criteria. In this case, the criteria of unrestricted domain cannot be satisfied due to pre-existing moral imperatives.

    Consider three candidates, A, B, and C. Candidate A holds positions (1, 2, 3), where 3 is intrinsically evil. Candidate B holds positions (1, 2, 4), where 4 is intrinsically evil. Candidate C holds positions (5, 6, 7), where none are intrinsically evil. Experts say that positions 1 and 2 are the best options for governing the country, while options 5 and 6 are not very good. In this case, by Arrows theorem, there is no way to satisfy voting for a candidate who both will govern well and be moral. The rational choice is either to not vote or vote for C, even though he may not govern very well.

    This is why paragraph 35 in the USCCB guide fails – non-exclusivity. They write: “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.” This does not hold if there are other options, even weaker options, available. This is why this document is so dangerous, as it seems to allow one to vote for a candidate holding morally intrinsic evil positions just because they hold other really good positions. Arrow’s theorem (which, I would love to use as a basis to extend the Doctrine of Double Effect to the general case – maybe, I could write such a paper if I could find a theologian to co-author it) shows that their thinking is limited to binary cases. No morally grave reason trumps an intrinsic evil, but, sometimes, for a very restricted set of circumstances, one may vote for a candidate holding an evil position (in the case where every option is evil and one must make a choice – this does not exist in the U. S. election, however).

    In other words, if both Clinton and Trump held intrinsically morally evil positions and a third morally neutral candidate existed, the only rational choice would be the third candidate and, if everyone voted rationally, he should win. God can work with what little He is given.

    Unfortunately, many voters do not vote rationally. Many people do not recognize abortion as an intrinsic evil, so they, in essence, are irrational voters. Catholics are called to be rational voters. For those who say that voting third party is throwing away their vote, that is not true in a rational voting system. It may, in fact, be the only rational choice, if the other candidates hold intrinsically immoral positions. Double Effect does not hold for them, just because they are likely to win, because Exclusivity is not satisfied. That is why paragraph 36 in the USCCB guide about voting for the lesser of two candidates, both holding intrinsically immoral positions in different degrees (one is less likely to do damage) does not apply, if there are more than two candidates, as there are, in the U. S. election.

    Now, I am not saying that one must vote third party (the third party might hold intrinsically evil positions, as well – then, not voting is the only rational choice and nobody would be elected, in a perfect world, otherwise minimizing the evil is an appropriate choice, otherwise). I am saying that one cannot vote for Clinton. Trump’s positions are too mercurial to say that they are fixed. In that case, it might be rational to vote for him. Then, I think it really does become a matter of conscience in considering what positions he really holds as opposed to what he hold for the sake of political expediency.

    People do not vote rationally. Does that fact allow one to vote for one of two candidates holding intrinsically evil positions to different degrees in order to minimize the damage of the irrational voters, presuming that the third party candidate has no hope of winning? In a rational world, no. One may never do evil that good may come from it if there is another way. In our current insane world, that is an interesting question, since a rational voting system should not allow a situation to exist where one candidate has no hope of winning. Why, in that case, include them, at all?

    I can only conclude that the current U. S. election situation was created by a madman. In essence, much of the U. S. Voting population is morally irrational. This election is being held in an insane asylum. Sometimes, it is hard to distinguish if one is an inmate or an orderly.

    The Chicken

  43. Sam Schmitt says:

    So he make it clear that voting for one of the candidates is unacceptable.

    It doesn’t follow that the other one is acceptable.

  44. iamlucky13 says:

    @ quamquam
    “If we had a public profile and persuasive powers such that between now and the election we had a reasonable chance of convincing a substantial proportion of the voting public to vote for a more acceptable third candidate, there might be something in the ‘third candidate’ strategy.

    But since this isn’t the case….”

    But this is precisely the problem. Very few actually like Trump, except as an alternative to Clinton, yet almost universally are not considering a further alternative because nobody else is supporting that alternative. We’re trapping ourselves in circular logic.

    Who is this nobody else? It’s you and me, and everybody else who is dissatisfied with Trump as a presidential candidate, as well as with Clinton.

    That includes many democrats, too, as despite his libertarian affiliation, Johnson is in reality a moderate with fairly broad swing-vote appeal, previously elected twice as the Republican governor of a generally Democrat-leaning state. President Obama personally warned democrats not to vote for Johnson, because the democrats are genuinely worried about losing votes to him, too.

    A solid majority of my friends lean left to varying degrees, and when I discuss third parties with them, they make exactly the same arguments as those who lean right. A tiny minority ever even tries to argue why they think Clinton would be a better president than Johnson. In general, it all comes down to a concern that if they vote for Johnson, the result will be a Trump presidency rounding up Muslims into internment camps and tossing immigrants back over the border to die.

    The democrats actually should have it easier. As I argued in a previous post, their worst nightmare depends on the executive branch being left unchecked by a Congress and Court that disagree with such policies. I admit on our side we face the unsettling prospect that our worst nightmare is supported by both Congress and the Courts. If I were not very keenly aware of that fact, I would be far, far more zealous in my arguments.

  45. iamlucky13 says:

    @ Fr. Martin Fox,

    Thank you very much for adding the discussion of the Johnson Amendment, as I could not recall when I posted before the particular law that dealt with this matter.

    You are, of course, correct that separation of church and state is not plainly addressed in the Constitution. Normally I’m careful not to ascribe to the Constitution policies that actually lie further down our hierarchy of laws (people referencing the “Constitutional right to X, Y, Z” are a perennial frustration of mine). However, the basic principle of separation of church and state does underlie the 1st amendment, as discussed by the founding fathers, in particular Jefferson.

    Regardless, we both argue to the same conclusion: the Constitution is not intended to inhibit the activities of churches but of the government. This is a very common misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights in general: it’s overarching purpose was to limit the power of the government, not the people.

    Back to the Johnson amendment, my opinion is you lay out what it does and does not limit accurately, but I’m certain many in the Church tip toe due to uncertainty about what it actually does limit. Likewise, I’m certain many public officials do not understand precedence relating to the matter of ad intra versus ad extra communications that you reference. I have no doubt that comments like Father Lankeit’s are taken by such people as violations of the Johnson Amendment, and some of those people are in positions where can cause significant trouble for the Church as a result.

  46. The Masked Chicken said:

    In other words, if both Clinton and Trump held intrinsically morally evil positions and a third morally neutral candidate existed, the only rational choice would be the third candidate and, if everyone voted rationally, he should win. God can work with what little He is given.

    This is my position, thank you for stating it so succinctly.

    That said, I would offer this commentary:

    Regardless of what we, with our limited human understanding and power can anticipate will happen, a perspective grounded in faith sees no real limitations. That is to say, just because it seems awfully improbable that Candidates X, Y, and Z (i.e., third party candidates who might be morally acceptable) will win, doesn’t factor in what God can do, particularly if we place trust in him, and pray intensely for his deliverance. When the Assyrian hordes were bearing down on Jerusalem, all the smart money said the holy city was toast. But that’s not what God told Isaiah to tell both the King of Assyria (through his troops) and the King of Judah.

    You and I are not asked by God to do more than we actually can do; and we are definitely called to be faithful, entrusting things larger than us to God.

    This is how I see the matter as I plan to vote for a third-party candidate. I am not saying others must do as I intend to do; I am simply defending myself against the accusation of not caring, being complicit in evil (by purportedly helping Clinton), etc. I can vote for Mr. Castle (Constitution Party) and — based on what I’ve learned so far, Mr. Evan McMullin. I am not at peace voting for Mr. Trump.

  47. comedyeye says:

    Thank you for giving us that. I will forward it to every priest and Catholic I know.

  48. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear quamquam,

    I hope you were not offended by my going on about Double Effect. I was trying to argue against the reasoning that some Catholics might be tempted to use to vote for a pro-abort candidate. While the Arrow Impossibility Theorem is a general theorem about elections, my use in the discussion was not necessary as the theorem applies to a specific set of criteria set by Arrow and I was trying to shoehorn it to this situation. I hope the discussion about possible Double Effect scenarios, while not complete, helped to argue against the idea that one may, ordinarily, vote for a candidate who holds positions that are intrinsically evil if they hold other good moral positions.

    I hope you did not take what I said personally.

    The Chicken

  49. AnnTherese says:

    Neither candidate is pro-life. Period.

    At the very least, it is OUR responsibility to be pro-life and impact people, structures, and laws by our words and actions. It is pointless to trust our politicians for this.

    Have you personally spent time with a pregnant woman who is afraid to have her baby? Written a letter to a prisoner on death row to offer comfort? Given an afternoon to visit and pray with the forgotten elderly in a nursing home, or severely disabled children living in institutions because their parents can no longer give them the care they need? What have you done to help a poor or homeless person lately?–offered them a meal or the extra bedroom in your home?

    We are called to LIVE pro-life, not just vote for it.

  50. quamquam says:

    Dear Masked Chicken,

    No, not offended at all! (I’ve had a busy 24 hours so have been unable to respond until now.)

    Thanks for the detailed exposition, which I’ll have to reflect on some more.

    I’ll just throw in one final tangential thought – we’re all focusing very much on whether evils are ‘intrinsic’ or not. You write, ‘No morally grave reason trumps an intrinsic evil’…I wonder. True, if we’re talking about an intrinsic evil that I would be committing myself – I must suffer anything rather than do or support an intrinsic evil. But as I said at the very start, intrinsic evil is always such from the perspective of the acting subject. Another person’s intrinsic evil is not my own, and I don’t necessarily have to go to every length to prevent them doing it. I weigh things up, and decide how much effort I’ll make. (Bl Paul VI wrote, ‘Sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good’ (Humanae Vitae 14))

    True, knowing that something is intrinsically evil, means that we can and must rule it out as a legitimate choice on that ground alone (i.e. by the very nature of the act), even without further investigation of circumstances or consequences. But as I said in my first post, voting for this or that candidate isn’t itself intrinsically evil (absolutely never to be done, no matter the circumstances or consequences), even if they themselves support some intrinsic evil (which we do not support).

    And knowing that something is intrinsically evil doesn’t by itself tell us the gravity of the evil. Sometimes I feel we’re leaning towards the position that if something isn’t ‘intrinsically’ evil, it’s scarcely real evil at all.

    Consider these examples: telling a lie is intrinsically evil, yet if no grave harm is involved, it is simply a venial sin. Never to be chosen, true – but I don’t have to go to the hugest efforts to prevent another person choosing it.

    On the other hand, consider nuking an enemy military installation (in the course of a just war), with unintended but foreseen ‘collateral damage’ of the deaths of ten million civilians in the adjacent city. This isn’t ‘intrinsically’ evil since the deaths aren’t directly intended, and one could imagine fantasy circumstances in which this might even be ‘proportionate’ (e.g. the enemy installation was on the verge of killing a billion people). But in most realistic circumstances, and in the actual circumstances I’m hypothesizing, there is not sufficiently proportionate reason. So, a great evil, and mortally sinful disregard of human life, but not ‘intrinsic’ evil (since we had to inquire into circumstances to decisively rule that it was illegitimate).

    Wouldn’t we rightly choose a candidate with a professed policy of telling (intrinsically evil) white lies (OK, a pretty ridiculous policy) over the candidate who intends the non-intrinsic evil of nuking the military installation?

    The reason Clinton must not win, and cannot be supported, isn’t simply the ‘intrinsic’ nature of the evil she supports, but combined with the vastness and gravity of that evil. The ‘intrinsic’ part means that no one can rightly go looking for justifications for her policy.

  51. WYMiriam says:

    In regards to whether it’s “right” or “proper” for priests to discuss politics in church — I discovered many years ago that there’s a clever way for pro-abortionists to frame the argument so as to appear to win it in any case: if a priest/pastor/rabbi/other talks about abortion in church, he’s engaging in politics (and his church ought to have its tax-exempt status repealed); if a politician talks about abortion in his place of business (the senate or house, either federal or state), he’s talking religion (and violating the [so-called] separation of church and state). They think they have us coming and going! Which is why it is so critical to hear the reasons why — as Fr. Lankeit explains — priests should talk about the issue in church.

    I thank God that there are more choices on the presidential ballot in November than the two that the mass media harp on to the almost total exclusion of any other candidate, and that there is one clearly pro-life candidate for whom I can, in good conscience, vote: Darrell Castle, of the Constitution Party.

    Masked Chicken, you said that in regard to an ectopic pregnancy, “Double Effect allows a surgeon to remove the tube [where the tiny baby has lodged], thereby aborting the baby. . . ”

    May I suggest a clarification? I do so because there are two definitions of “abortion” — the medical one which deals with a separation of the baby from his mother’s womb, whether natural — e.g., miscarriage — or induced (not including live birth), and the other, the now-common sense, which is induced, or deliberate, abortion. When a surgeon removes the affected fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy, one of the effects is the death of the baby, but since that death is neither willed nor intended, it is not an “abortion” in the common sense of the term.

    I have greatly appreciated the review of the principle of double effect in these comments; thank you all for your input!

  52. WYMiriam says:

    Oops, I neglected to proofread my formatting for the italics!

  53. Moral_Hazard says:

    Outstanding homily; so powerfully spoken. My only quibble is that anyone who has urged an abortion, especially the baby’s father, should also go to confession ASAP. A father who urges or pressures a mother into getting an abortion is just as guilty as she.

  54. Mark Smith says:

    quamquam said
    voting for a third candidate would be throwing one’s vote away, and I believe would be a sin of omission in failing to do what one easily and legitimately could to prevent the greater evil of Clinton’s election.

    The Masked Chicken said-
    In other words, if both Clinton and Trump held intrinsically morally evil positions and a third morally neutral candidate existed, the only rational choice would be the third candidate and, if everyone voted rationally, he should win. God can work with what little He is given.

    Fr Martin Fox said
    You and I are not asked by God to do more than we actually can do; and we are definitely called to be faithful, entrusting things larger than us to God.
    This is how I see the matter as I plan to vote for a third-party candidate. I am not saying others must do as I intend to do; I am simply defending myself against the accusation of not caring, being complicit in evil (by purportedly helping Clinton), etc. I can vote for Mr. Castle (Constitution Party) and — based on what I’ve learned so far, Mr. Evan McMullin. I am not at peace voting for Mr. Trump.

    I am with Fr. Fox on this. I too intend to vote for a third party candidate. I believe I am being rational in doing so. In so doing I believe I am bringing a well formed conscience to the decision. I reject the notion that my decision constitutes throwing away my vote or a sin of omission.

    I sincerely thank and applaud quamquam and The Masked Chicken for the elevated discourse and erudite discussion on double effect and material cooperation. That said, I am sad to say that at my local parish I have been accused of mortal sin by some in the laity on this very topic. I assume and hope this has not been the case for Fr Fox at his parish God forbid! I also agree with Fr. Fox that Mr. Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party would be a morally licit choice.

  55. AnnTherese says:

    What a wonderful day to elect our next president– on Dorothy Day’s birthday! [And the anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch.] May the spirit of Matthew 25 that was at the heart of her work, and all the Catholic Workers in heaven, fill our minds and hearts today as we vote.

  56. Charlie says:

    This homily ought to be sent to every bishop and archbishop in Canada.

  57. LarryW2LJ says:

    Wow! All this discussion seems to be going way over the head of this “fanny in the pew”! Whew! Clearly I am NOT on the same intellectual plane as most of you. That said, this morning I voted for the candidate whom I believe supports the least amount of intrinsic evil. May God have mercy on my soul, should I have made the wrong choice.

  58. Gerard Plourde says:

    It should be noted that Mr. Trump and the majority of Republicans do not accept the Church’s teaching concerning abortion since they would allow for the procedure in the case of pregnancy as a result of rape or incest or to protect the life of the mother (a broader set of circumstances than just ectopic pregnancy). None of these exceptions are allowed by the Church since the end result (the death of the unborn child) is not licit.

  59. retiredtobedlam says:

    Our Right to Life Committee came upon this a couple of weeks ago. Asked for permission to put a notice in the bulletin telling folks we were going to show it AFTER Mass the next weekend. Permission was denied.

  60. Jacob says:

    I’m looking for, but not finding a transcript for the deaf and hard of hearing in English.

    I have found this at the Cathedral website, but it is the Spanish translation:

    Any help here would be appreciated. Thank you.

  61. SKAY says:

    Hillary wants to get rid of the Hyde Amendment and will try to use the Johnson Amendment to
    further her pro abortion, pro ssm agenda.

    “In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the mother, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.”

    Trump wants to get rid of the Johnson Amendment and he will not repeal the Hyde Amendment..

    “The Johnson Amendment refers to a change in the U.S. tax code made in 1954 which prohibited certain tax-exempt organizations from endorsing and opposing political candidates.”


Comments are closed.