The President

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 27 2004, 08:53 AM'] Iceprincess, you state"
"For the first part of your post Fr. Anthony WOULD agree, for the latter, if the state were close running then he would disagree. He is a college chaplain and he strongly encouraged all his students, especially those in states where the running was close, to vote for Bush--he had very detailed arguments on the moral obligation to do so, I wish I could remember all his reasons."

I know Fr. Anthony if, as I suspect, we are talking about the same one. 
I suspect he did not present it as absolutely morally obligatory.  Encouraged, yes.  Moral obligation?  No way.  But since I was not there I'll take your word for it.  Even if he did, I can give you opinions from other
very highly respected theologians who say just the opposite, or at least defend the moral licitity of voting Buchanan (in that election). 

I am not bound to tailor my vote to the whims of the mindless masses.  Just because someone is more popular does not make them better.  I have no obligation to supoort one candidate based on his poularity, on the notion that the better candidate has no chance.  I would say that everyone has the obligation to vote for the best and if the vast majority of people fail to do this, well sorry about their luck.  But their failure in no way obliges me to do anything.  And don't say "Thats the way the democratic system works".  I would simply say in response that that is one of the problems with the democratic system.  That is why from Plato to Aquinas (and numerous others) democracy was frowned upon as the least bad of the bad forms of government. It's called the Tyranny of the Majority.  I am not bound to participate or lower my standards because the majority favors a lesser candidate.  I do not think that Fr. Anthony would disagree with that.  I could be wrong. [/quote]
Fr. Anthony was very specific, he even gave homilies on the subject. He said Moral Obligation. He said it was a mortal sin NOT to vote, and that (in the last election) it was a sin to vote for Gore. He was very insistent about it. Particluarly for those in Florida, he said that it was sinful to vote for a third party candidate because that would be handing votes to Gore. Like I said, I wish I could remember all of his reasons. I recall what he said, just not all the "why."

[popestpiusx]

That is an absurd opinion. There is no way to justify such an opinion without falling into some sort of Americanism. I suspect he was misunderstood. I do belive the part about Gore, but the rest is nonsense. It is absolutely indefensible.

I will ask him about it the next time I see him.

[Iacobus]

From what I gather from my parish priest it is a sin not to vote (I don't know if it is mortal or not) and we all must use our best judgements to make informed choices about the canadaites.

[FX2]

[quote]
Be Catholic - Vote Bush,
ironmonk
[/quote]


Hey that is like the coolest campaign slogan i have heard!

[Iacobus]

Just read the voter guide from the USCCB. It is a little more complex than the five issues but can help people make better choices. [url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html"]http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/b...pStatement.html[/url] It calls for us to explore the people more fully. Saddly, no body meets all the points but Bush fairs no better than Kerry so

Be Catholic, Obey the Pope and the Bishops
Vote SMART

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Mar 27 2004, 04:02 AM'] This might sound retarded, but how do you vote?

Can I just show up at the voting place and sign up, or do I have to register before hand? Thanks. [/quote]
It actually varies by state... in some states you can registar at the polls with only a friend or neighbor with you to vouch for your identity and address. When my dh and I moved last year, we *could have* gone to the polls and vouched *for each other*... and then gone to vote in our old precint... not that we'd do that or anything.

vote early, vote often!

[amarkich]

There are a few things I feel needed to be addressed, and they were addressed fairly well other than one. The simple fact is that one cannot attempt to split the concept of being pro-life into two categories, abortion and the death penalty. This is an erroneous belief for a few reasons. First, the death penalty, as says the Council of Trent, is in paramount obedience to the Commandments and also naturally tends toward the advancement of life. Other than this fact, it is also necessary to consider the other aspects of protecting life which have been mentioned (e.g., stem cell research, cloning, etc.). As far as being pro-life, it seems that the only candidate, at least on the national scale, is Bush. He is very much pro-life and pro-family, while I still believe that he is a liberal and panders to the Democrats, and seems to be the better candidate of the two. I am still interested in gaining information about truly Catholic politicians.

As an aside, popestpiusx, as far as I understand, it seems that Buchanan, while he may be a fellow Traditionalist to us, holds opinions that are not traditionally Catholic in some areas of his political life (e.g., his foreign policy). While I know little of other true Catholic politicians, I have been informed that Allen Keys is a Catholic who holds traditional Catholic views on many issues at least in the realm of politics (as far as I understand, he is a 'conservative' Catholic). If you have any good information concerning these two men, or others, please share it. Thank you. God bless.

[popestpiusx]

Out of curiosity, what views pertaining to forgein policy are you referring too? He is something of an isolationist. This is not bad in itself but I can see it being taken to far. Is that what you are referring to?

In any case, he is not running this time around so it somewhat of a moot point.

As far as Keyes, he definately is a conservative Catholic. I am not sure his forgein policy is any more Catholic than Buchanan's though. He tends to more favorable toward Israel than what I would like (if I remember his debates from his television show last year).

I tend to like St. Pius X's response to a group of Zionists who approached him about supporting (and recognizing) a future Israeli state. He said "I'll recognize the state of Israel when Israel rcognizes Christ as Sovereign King." Of Course, the Israeli state took another 40 years to come about. This is all irrelevant to the topic of this thread though, and I don't want to send us off on another tangent.

[Iacobus]

Wasn't it Buchanan who asked who nobody had planted a nuke in Foggy Bottom (Dept of State)? After WWII the US learned that we CANNOT remain out of international affairs. We must not be uni literal or isolated. Us doing so, along with FDR's inaction, lead to EIGHT MILLION Russians killed (purged) under Joeph Statiln and SIX MILLION Jews, gays, Catholics, gyspys etc under Hitler. Staying out of international affairs leads to horrid things like this and what do we say? "Well, we are not going to get involed or take sides." For those 14 MILLION reasons I will never vote for an isolationist pres. Under their leadership 14,000,000 people died in 15 years. Granted that is only 2,750 people a day compered to 4,100 a day for abortion but one a day is still really bad. Pro life also means ending genacide which was something the 1st Bush did and Clintion did that both need to be commended for. This Bush I don't think has had a really big chance yet, but when and if it comes lets hope he asks.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Mar 26 2004, 12:14 AM'] at the very least you CANNOT vote for Kerry and feel good about it.
[/quote]
You know... the more I think on that. The more I think I could vote for Kerry and feel good about it.

Kerry is, unwittingly, pro life.

Yes, I said pro life and is.

So was Clinton.

Between 1980 and 1990 (The Reagan and 2 Bush years) abortions rose by 0.2 Million per year. And they were pro life.

Under Clinton the abotion rate went down by 0.6 milllion. Lets do a double take. The abortion rate went down by 0.6 million. Whoa! Down? 0.6 MILLION! Under Clinton??!?!

Poor Clinton. He tried so hard to make it easier to get abortions but made a life giving mistake, he addressed the social issues that lead to abortion.

Almost ONE MILLION lives difference between the pro life and the pro aborts impacts. Whoa. Thats big.

And whoa, could it mean that abortion is more than skin deep? A law banning abortion wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on.

BUT you could treat the factors that give rasie to abortions. And if the factors that lead to abortions are smaller, than the number of people seeking abortions is smaller, and than the number of abortions go down. And someday, without a skindeep ban it will be gone.

Notice, the US has a higher abortion rate than the liberal western Europe. Hmmm.... they have socialist welfare and health care... maybe that is key.

[Theoketos]

Vive el Presidente!

[curtins]

go bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


bush 04!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[curtins]

[quote]Between 1980 and 1990 (The Reagan and 2 Bush years) abortions rose by 0.2 Million per year. And they were pro life[/quote]

hey you just stop there because we're STILLL feeling the effects of the Reagan economic policy.

bush rules- period

[Phikoz]

if we can fix at least one of the life issues with one president, then that might give way to people looking at a culture of life, and then the other issues may fall into place.

with abortion, the babies are innocent, they didnt do anything to deserve death, they dont have a voice in politics.

however everyone else does, lets protect the ones who do not have a voice in this world!!

start with abortion, and everything will follow.


vote bush, nuff said

[curtins]

absolutly right