The prickly Catholic vote ["bargaining with evil" vs "sitting the election out"]

RenewAmerica ^ | September 14, 2012 | Louie Verrecchio

[Salvation]

Catholics need to hold their noses on Mitt Romney and just vote for PAUL RYAN!!!!!!

Does Paul Ryan Want to Take Medicare Away From Seniors?[It's OK, Grandma, he's not a meany]
Cardinal Dolan’s Paul Ryan Problem [Amy Sullivan rant]
Paul Ryan at Prayer
With Ryan on the Ticket, Spotlight Focuses on the Catholic Church
Does Ryan have a “Catholic problem”?
Paul Ryan Urges Catholics to Act Before Religious Freedoms Erode
Wisconsin bishop praises Paul Ryan, discusses intrinsic evils, prudential judgments

Paul Ryan urges Catholics to act before religious freedoms erode
Dolan: Ryan Is a ‘Great Public Servant’ (great insight into Ryan's views)
Paul Ryan’s Bishop Defends Him Amid Attacks on His Application of Church Teaching
Paul Ryan, Catholic Who Looks to Church's Social Teaching, Tapped as Romney Running Mate
The other Ryan: the candidate’s wife, Janna
Paul Ryan, Joe Biden, and Liberal False Equivalence
Ryan as VP Pick Continues Election Year Focus on Catholicism
Paul Ryan Faces Left-Wing Religious Attack
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Holiness (Paul Ryan)
Paul Ryan: Midwesterner, Catholic, intellectual

[Alex Murphy]

To start with, Catholics need to recognize that America still represents a new paradigm to Earthly government, and that the church will be most satisfied by embracing this paradigm instead of trying to hold onto a old, failed order. That is, in European history, the church adapted to the feudal concept, that there is an elite, hereditary nobility that rules over a much larger peasantry. Unfortunately, the nobility, to assure its power, adopted a philosophy:

“The hereditary nobility is the nobility because they are predetermined by heaven to be nobles; just as the peasants were predetermined to be peasants. And since the nobility is sanctioned by heaven, their laws are *also* sanctioned by heaven. So if you disagree with their laws, you are opposing heaven as well”....

....In any event, the Catholic church in many ways is still hung up with the idea of embracing the Catholic nobility, which in the US are absolute scum, like the Kennedy family. Those “real” Catholics in power, who are ethical, are careful not to create the impression that they are beholden to the church, or will grant the church special favors, but only that they will behave in a “moral” manner, to the teachings of the church....

....in the final analysis, in future the church should embrace good Catholics, who as men want to write the laws of other men; as opposed to “social Catholics”, who cling to wealth and power by virtue of heredity and assumed elitism, despising the important values of the church, yet parading their Catholicism like harlots on street corners.

Thanks for posting this!

[RKBA Democrat]

Your reply is predictable and a standard willardite talking point. Selecting the lesser evil is still selecting evil. All the moreso when there are other candidates running on second party tickets who aren’t pro abortion.

But since you seem to think that selecting the lesser pro-abortion candidate is a morally laudable act… let’s put some numbers to it. How many abortions are acceptable to you as a “compromise.” Let’s not talk in platitudes. Let’s pick a number. Is it 10,000? 100,000? A few million?

How much of the blood of the innocents is a “fair” price to pay so we can elect someone with an “R” after their name?

[JAKraig]

How many abortions are acceptable to you as a “compromise.” Let’s not talk in platitudes. Let’s pick a number. Is it 10,000? 100,000? A few million?
______________________________________________________________

I’m sorry your argument can too easily be turned around.

First, as of now there are millions of abortions, likely every year. The president on his own can do nothing about that, he can only sign a bill that then becomes law. If Obama care is killed at least we won’t be paying for abortions. In my opinion reducing by 1 abortion, that is saving even one human life, is an accomplishment. I am working to save at least one, not throw a tantrum and turn my head and watch millions die.

Second, Obama supports more than abortion, he supports infantcide. We have to remove him and install something better.

Third, how much blood of the innocents is a fair price to pay for your desire to only elect someone who is perfect. You have never voted for someone who is perfect. Possibly you have voted for someone who is perfect in one or a few areas but there are no perfect people, all of us are sinners. Any sin is a perversion to God. Any sin adds to the paiun of The Savior. So sit there in your ivory tower and not vote because there are no perfect candidates. I will hold my nose and happily vote for something better than Obama. Actually the more I learn about Romney the less I think I will have to hold my nose. He appears to be a good man, something rare in politics. I think that is why he chose Ryan, because he saw that he too was a good man.

[Eagle of Liberty]

But since you seem to think that selecting the lesser pro-abortion candidate is a morally laudable act… let’s put some numbers to it. How many abortions are acceptable to you as a “compromise.” Let’s not talk in platitudes. Let’s pick a number. Is it 10,000? 100,000? A few million?

My number of abortions would be zero, but what exactly can a President do to affect that? Did abortion numbers go up or down during the eight years of Clinton? Up or down during the eight years of Bush? Up or down during the past four years of Obama?

I do not take this topic lightly, but I am not going to place my decision in President based solely on this topic because history has shown that Congress and SCOTUS will not act and these are the two entities that need to act, not President.

This is NOT a "two evils" election. This is not to elect someone with an "R" after their name. This is an election to get OBAMA OUT! And if you do not see the potential evils of another four years of Obama, I'm sorry.

[Cronos]

so that the laws of man are not sacred, and can be changed.

Which is exactly why abortion, gay marriage etc. are being pushed to legality (or are already legal)

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The founding fathers were aware of the paradox.

They were well of the fact that the heavenly laws you obey can be extremely different from the heavenly laws your neighbor (a Muslim) obeys, as well as those of the guy down the block (a Hindu).

At the time religions weren’t so diverse in the US, but still, various Christian sects often bitterly fought and tried to suppress each other.

This was a great reason to create an inviolable Bill of Rights that everybody had to follow, but at the same time the law, *as long as it did not conflict with the Bill of Rights*, should generally conform to the desires of the majority.

They even included agnosticism and secularism into the mix, as well as busting up the creation of the law at several levels, both within the federal government, and between the federal and state governments.

The two examples you cite both “broke the rules” to evade the constitution. Roe v. Wade was purely legislating from the bench, putting the desire of the majority (at the time) above the rules.

And gay marriage is popular nowhere, being forced through by corrupt state legislature and judges.

But if you compare these aberrations to the vast amount of good law that has been created in over 200 years, it is clear that they had the right idea, which goes back to my point of ethics vs. morality.

Morality is created by heaven and interpreted by religious people, but it is not universal. You would find it loathsome to be ruled over by someone else’s morality (such as your examples, again, whose proponents insist are both morally demanded).

But ethics, the law promulgated by the people, that goes through the meat grinder of the legislative process, may result in a law you don’t particularly care for, but it will not terribly oppress you or deny you your rights.

And, unlike someone else’s morality, the written ethical law can be changed.