Political Question For Catholics.

[Aloysius]

the propaganda is strong with these ones...

Romney has no intention of doing anything pro-life, unless perhaps congress forces him to but most of congress has no intention of doing that; even after his pro-life "conversion" he has snubbed the pro-life community as much as he can get away with without losing their vote. the rule of thumb on abortion for both parties when it comes to the supreme court and everything else is to maintain the status quo. it helps get each side elected, Republicans can use supposed opposition to abortion it to rally the right, Democrats can use Republican's opposition to "choice" to rally the left, and nothing major will ever happen.

the doom and gloom propaganda about Obama is just that--propaganda. it's designed to get you to turn your brain off and not have a real say in the political process. a vote for Romney is a wasted vote. his policies will not be different. he has already done a 180 on Obamacare... well, not quite, he turned about 150 or 160 degrees so far, but give him time. ('he likes many aspects of the healthcare law and would keep those in place', meaning 'repeal and replace' is really just 'tweak'). maybe we'd get some better directions on conscience laws in the next four years under Romney (MAYBE), but I'll predict right now that those conscience laws will be a type of compromise whereby the women still get birth control paid for in some mysterious way that only makes the Church not look like it pays for it on the surface. I base this off of knowing Romney's record as a politician, that's exactly the way he'd make sure to do it (he freaking instituted Romney Care which had no conscience provisions, he's completely fine with making sure healthcare pays for contraception and abortion, but he'll say whatever he can to get elected and then make some empty gesture to make it seem like he did something about it. this is not just general distrust of a politician, this is an evaluation of all his actions in his political life, there is every reason to believe he will act this way and he has already distanced himself from the pro-life aspects we got into the party platform as well as other conservative things we got into the party platform... because 'no one even reads the platform anyway'). Btw Mitt Romney believes states should be able to decide for themselves, which is good enough as a position but guess what: despite Obama coming out saying he's personally in favor of same sex marriage, his POLICY position is the same: the states themselves should decide. He thinks the states should decide in favor of same sex marriage; woop-dee-doo I guess on that issue I'd consider voting for Romney as governor of my state if he was running against Obama as governor of my state; but so long as their positions on Federal policy are the same I don't see a difference between which of them wins.

if this sounds insane to you, you have bought into the propaganda being spewed hook, line, and sinker, and you're just another one of the easy little pawns political strategist love to manipulate. I've seen behind the scenes of campaigns, I know how all this garbage works, and please trust me when I say: you're all being hoodwinked.

[quote]I am unsure how any catholic in good faith could not vote for the Romney - Ryan ticket as its the only viable choice to end the atrocities promoted by the Obama regime. A vote for a third party candidate could almost be considered a sin of ommision as it will do no more than promote the candidacy of Obama - Biden. There are no other political choices or candidates with any chance to win that could keep this President from four more years of failed policies and moral outrages such as the pro-death and homosexual agendas which this President he adamantly promotes.[/quote]
Nihil, in case you were wondering, [b]THIS [/b]is a consequentialist argument. Please do not act like this is Catholic morality, Ed, Catholic morality in no way morally obligates one to vote for a "lesser of two evils"; it permits voting for a lesser of two evils [i]under certain conditions[/i], but never ever obligates it. The ends are not what justify the means, it is the means that justify themselves, so as long as you are voting for a pro-life candidate you are doing something morally good. That candidate's chances of winning are only determined by the amount of people who are willing to vote for him, which we can see will likely not be enough this time around but maybe one day it will be.

[Aloysius]

btw for those who want to keep score of my rant on why Romney and Obama are the same:
[list]
[*]Both support Obamacare (Romney would basically tweak it by keeping most major parts of it in place)
[*]Both have demonstrated in their records a willingness to force Catholic institutions to pay for contraceptives/abortions
[*]Both believe that the states should decide the gay marriage issue themselves, though Romney is "personally against" and Obama is "personally for" same-sex marriage.
[*]Both will maintain the status quo on abortion
[*]Then there's all the basic economic issues where their differences come down to "which way do you want to destroy our country? in the way that makes all Romney's elitist friends more money or in a way that makes Obama's elitist friends more money?"
[/list]

[Papist]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1349402466' post='2490167']
wow... you ARE well trained. Bravo for holding the party line.
[/quote]
I have no idea what you are talking about. What party line is that? I have NEVER advocated for any party.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1349430730' post='2490280']
the propaganda is strong with these ones...

Please do not act like this is Catholic morality, Ed, Catholic morality in no way morally obligates one to vote for a "lesser of two evils"; it permits voting for a lesser of two evils [i]under certain conditions[/i], but never ever obligates it. The ends are not what justify the means, it is the means that justify themselves, so as long as you are voting for a pro-life candidate you are doing something morally good. That candidate's chances of winning are only determined by the amount of people who are willing to vote for him, which we can see will likely not be enough this time around but maybe one day it will be.
[/quote]Catholics are not morally obliged to vote in a manner that would most likely mitigate the evil of abortion. They are free to vote for unelectable candidates. See #[b]9[/b] below. As if I make this stuff up...

[font="Arial"][size="3"][b]8. What if none of the candidates are completely pro-life?
[/b][/size][/font]
[font="Arial"][size="3"]As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, [i]Evangelium Vitae[/i] (The Gospel of Life), “…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.[/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="3"][b]9. What if one leading candidate is anti-abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, another leading candidate is completely pro-abortion, and a trailing candidate, not likely to win, is completely anti-abortion. Would I be obliged to vote for the candidate not likely to win?
[/b][/size][/font]
[font="Arial"][size="3"]In such a case, the Catholic voter may clearly choose to vote for the candidate not likely to win. In addition, the Catholic voter may assess that voting for that candidate might only benefit the completely pro-abortion candidate, and, precisely for the purpose of curtailing the evil of abortion, decide to vote for the leading candidate that is anti-abortion but not perfectly so. This decision would be in keeping with the words of the Pope quoted in question 8 above.[/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="3"][b]10. What if all the candidates from whom I have to choose are pro-abortion? Do I have to abstain from voting at all? What do I do?
[/b][/size][/font]
[font="Arial"][size="3"]Obviously, one of these candidates is going to win the election. Thus, in this dilemma, you should do your best to judge which candidate would do the least moral harm. However, as explained in question 5 above, you should not place a candidate who is pro-capital punishment (and anti-abortion) in the same moral category as a candidate who is pro-abortion. Faced with such a set of candidates, there would be no moral dilemma, and the clear moral obligation would be to vote for the candidate who is pro-capital punishment, not necessarily because he is pro-capital punishment, but because he is anti-abortion.[/size][/font]

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1349431257' post='2490281']
btw for those who want to keep score of my rant on why Romney and Obama are the same:
[list]
[*]Both support Obamacare (Romney would basically tweak it by keeping most major parts of it in place)
[*]Both have demonstrated in their records a willingness to force Catholic institutions to pay for contraceptives/abortions
[*]Both believe that the states should decide the gay marriage issue themselves, though Romney is "personally against" and Obama is "personally for" same-sex marriage.
[*]Both will maintain the status quo on abortion
[*]Then there's all the basic economic issues where their differences come down to "which way do you want to destroy our country? in the way that makes all Romney's elitist friends more money or in a way that makes Obama's elitist friends more money?"
[/list]
[/quote]

You forgot that they both think torture is dandy and should be used. (but only on swarthy foreigners, not on us citizens) and you can trust them both on that one....

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1349430730' post='2490280']
the propaganda is strong with these ones...

[...]

Nihil, in case you were wondering, [b]THIS [/b]is a consequentialist argument. Please do not act like this is Catholic morality, Ed, Catholic morality in no way morally obligates one to vote for a "lesser of two evils"; it permits voting for a lesser of two evils [i]under certain conditions[/i], but never ever obligates it. The ends are not what justify the means, it is the means that justify themselves, so as long as you are voting for a pro-life candidate you are doing something morally good. That candidate's chances of winning are only determined by the amount of people who are willing to vote for him, which we can see will likely not be enough this time around but maybe one day it will be.
[/quote]
But there is nothing more Catholic than mindlessly voting for an immoral party line that has done nothing but betray us and seize more power at every turn!

[Winchester]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1349420008' post='2490266']
Apparently, Nihil believes the opposite of what candidates say. So, when Obama speaks, he must hear nothing but support for the Catholic Church, which totally explains why Nihil won't vote for Romney.
[/quote]
Words are cheap. Romney's history is one of support for abortion. Romneycare funds abortion. Romney also supports foreign wars of intervention.

He also apparently has not read the Constitution.

[Anomaly]

[size=4][color=#0000cd][font=Arial]Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.[/font][/color][/size]

Question. Why isn't a Catholic voter instructed they "should" vote for the candidate who they believe will "[size=4][font=Arial][color=#0000cd]most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.[/color][/font]" instead of "[color=#0000cd]may[/color]"?[/size]

Edited October 5, 2012 by Anomaly

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1349440792' post='2490295']
Catholics are not morally obliged to vote in a manner that would most likely mitigate the evil of abortion. They are free to vote for unelectable candidates. See #[b]9[/b] below. As if I make this stuff up...

[font=Arial][size=3][b]8. What if none of the candidates are completely pro-life?[/b][/size][/font]

[font=Arial][size=3]As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, [i]Evangelium Vitae[/i] (The Gospel of Life), “…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.[/size][/font]

[font=Arial][size=3][b]9. What if one leading candidate is anti-abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, another leading candidate is completely pro-abortion, and a trailing candidate, not likely to win, is completely anti-abortion. Would I be obliged to vote for the candidate not likely to win?[/b][/size][/font]

[font=Arial][size=3]In such a case, the Catholic voter may clearly choose to vote for the candidate not likely to win. In addition, the Catholic voter may assess that voting for that candidate might only benefit the completely pro-abortion candidate, and, precisely for the purpose of curtailing the evil of abortion, decide to vote for the leading candidate that is anti-abortion but not perfectly so. This decision would be in keeping with the words of the Pope quoted in question 8 above.[/size][/font]

[font=Arial][size=3][b]10. What if all the candidates from whom I have to choose are pro-abortion? Do I have to abstain from voting at all? What do I do?[/b][/size][/font]

[font=Arial][size=3]Obviously, one of these candidates is going to win the election. Thus, in this dilemma, you should do your best to judge which candidate would do the least moral harm. However, as explained in question 5 above, you should not place a candidate who is pro-capital punishment (and anti-abortion) in the same moral category as a candidate who is pro-abortion. Faced with such a set of candidates, there would be no moral dilemma, and the clear moral obligation would be to vote for the candidate who is pro-capital punishment, not necessarily because he is pro-capital punishment, but because he is anti-abortion.[/size][/font]
[/quote]
thou art agreeing with me, correct? (the way you replied at first I thought you were disagreeing but the content is totally in line with what I was saying; like I said, they MAY vote for the candidate who is more likely to win who they think will limit the evil, but they are certainly never obligated to do so (and it is NOT a sin of omission to fail to do so for God's sake, it is not a sin against God to refuse to vote for Romney, it's only a "sin" against the elitist members of the Republican Party and their lockstep pawns for which you are anathema to them))

Listen, I'm a Republican. I'm an elected member of my local county Republican Committee (currently absent as I'm off in Belgium lol), I love the party as I define it (and it is up to US to define what the party is) and I will continue to work to make it into the image that it ought to be (that it has traditionally striven to be from the bottom up even if the elites of the party have always stifled it from the top down). I believe quite clearly that the two main choices are this: Obama, who will destroy the Country; or Romney, who will destroy the country AND the Republican Party. Romney losing is a better case scenario for the pro-life movement, for the conservative republican movement, for the libertarian republican movement, for the civil liberties movement, for the peace movement (although I saw a funny line of consequentialist thinking that said it'd be better to put Romney in as the warmonger-in-chief as he wouldn't get a free pass for his warmongering from the media the way Obama does) and indeed for the religious freedom movement. four more years of Obama will only strengthen such movements in this country (including support for Catholic conscience) while Obama continues to be largely ineffective and here or there making jabs that actually send more people in an uproar and bring more people to rally to our defense (think of all the Protestants who have rallied around us to defend our right to have moral objections to contraception, that could have a long term benefit of causing people to look more into Catholic morality; at the very least it strengthens the political hand of a movement of people who want to [i]seriously[/i] defend the first amendment rather than give lip service to it as someone who's trampled over conscience rights himself (cough cough Governor Romney cough cough))

that in now way justifies a vote for Obama, such a justification would be a consequentialist argument. what it does justify is refusing to vote for Romney because you don't want Romney to be president; an Obama victory is the likely (barring a miracle) unintended consequence of that action, but you can withhold your vote from Romney with a clear conscience and anyone who tries to pin you as therefore morally culpable for what Obama subsequently does is just being a parrot for the elitist RNC line (which is an entirely consequentialist argument on the other side) and is in no way representing a Catholic moral perspective on your actions.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1349414220' post='2490233']
Except he really is not, and will not.
[/quote]

Nihil,this is below you. You do not know this for certain that is only your speculation, but you can be assured that President Obama is going to continue down the road he has blazed thus far ....

ed

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

The thing I would like to point out is that there are more than 2 political parties, and more than 2 candidates running for office. The Commission on Presidential Debates was started as a private corporation by Republicans and Democrats in order to control the debates. It's rigged in the 2 party system. This also means that the majority of news coverage is on the 2 debater making for example Gary Johnson the libertarian candidate less well known, and excluded from the debates even though he's on 47 of the ballots, with court challenges in 2 other states.

[Aloysius]

I think it can be pretty solidly known. To figure out what a candidate really believes you've got to look at their actions and not their words; and then when you're looking at their words you have to look at the context of them, how they react to attacks on them, et cetera, to really be sure if they're actually supporting what they say they're supporting. for the context, you have to see whether they go out of their way to discuss certain things, or if they only say those things when they're pressed and in situations where it will help them. If they're not going out of their way to defend something, and if they're not really pushing back hard when attacked on something, if they shy away from a topic when they're near an audience that's more hostile to the stance they supposedly have, then it's unlikely they hold that position very strongly [i]if they even hold it at all.[/i] Mitt Romney absolutely fails EVERY one of these tests when it comes to the pro-life issue, in my opinion.

For example: we (the delegates, I was a delegate in Tampa from PA) made sure that the Republican platform was pro-life. How did Romney react when pushed on that? His spokespeople and the RNC chairman (Reince Priebus, who's a little bit of a weasle, seriously makes me pine for Michael Steele to return) basically said they're not bound by the platform, no one even reads the platform, et cetera. Romney has no intention of being pro-life, and I have personally heard it from-the-horse's-mouth of Republican strategists that it is best to keep the status quo of abortion as an issue because it is a strong tool to get republicans into power.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1349452160' post='2490342']
thou art agreeing with me, correct?
[/quote]In a way, yes, I am agreeing with you. You happen to be more informed and knowledgeable than the average voter based on your research and experience, so effectively, you are voting in a manner that you understand to be the 'best' way to limit Abortion. However, I'm questioning the seemingly weak and unqualified direction that a voter 'may' vote for a third person who happens to be anti-abortoin regardless of their understood projection of how it may not make any effect to limit abortion and effectively empower those who are promoting abortion.

I would think a person would be morally directed to act in the manner that most likely to have a good effect as well as hindering a bad action.

As a side note, I tend to agree with you that Romney would probably do little to push against abortion, and would instead actually push to keep the status quo. On the other hand, I do believe Obama's re-election would empower Democrats and aid the push for MORE abortions and bolster the Democratic Party that desires to push against anti-abortion legislation and eliminate restrictions on forced Governmental payment for abortion.

My personal opinion is that on a State level, or even for US Congress or Representative, a vote for a third party person, even if unelectable, makes a large statement and has more effect then the Presidential race. The Presidential Election to me as a broader validation of the Party's platform as an opinion, because it is often touted as a 'mandate' from people's opinion.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Anomaly

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1349452261' post='2490344']

Nihil,this is below you. You do not know this for certain that is only your speculation, but you can be assured that President Obama is going to continue down the road he has blazed thus far ....

ed
[/quote]
No, [i]politics[/i] are below me. And they are below you too. We are dealing here with people who would sell your soul as soon as shake your hand, if it meant more power for them. It is a dangerous game, and the only winners are the ones who get to make the rules. That is not you, and it sure is not the Church.

[sixpence]

i have been looking for online resources summarizing the stances of the minor candidates.. anyone know anything good?