Caca
Nice try but no cigar.
The willardites have an infinite ability to rationalize. The facts are plain. Willard embraces abortion. He has done so as recently as two weeks ago. I would love to compromise for a marginal candidate. But willard doesn’t even rise to that standard. And innocent lives aren’t mine to bargain with in the first place.
What sort of LEGITIMATE government forces citizens to go against their conscience?
It is odd to come to a site where the site founder and many other stripes of conservative have posted at one time or another that it would be a cold day in hell before they pull the lever for Romney, and then post some blarney to single Catholics out. Called Goebbels for work?
In this election, it is impossible to sit it out. If you do, you vote for Obama. I’m not Romney’s greatest fan, but Obama is an Anti-Christ. This should be a no brainier for a person of faith, Christian or Jew. And I think everyone knows this. One ‘holdout’ makes the news... Typical lib hype.
... matter of basic Christian obedience to clear apostolic teaching re giving aid and comfort to antichrist missionaries and has nothing to do with weighing relative political evils. While I agree that abstention is not good practice in general, for some of us, in this cycle, there appears to be no alternative compatible with the exercise of Christian faith.
So Catholics are contemplating "sitting it out"? They'd rather have a muslim in the oval office? I suppose a burka is similar to a nun's habit, so they won't mind when 0bama demands that Sharia law be enforced.
I believe many Catholics "sat it out" once before and our friend Adolph became Fuhrer for life.
You would THINK that, by now, people would understand that there is a GREAT difference between “Catholics in-name-only” and PRACTICING Catholics!!!
Catholics who practice their Faith will be overwhelmingly voting for Romney against the most PRO-ABORT, ANTI-RELIGIOUS LIBERTY inhabitant of the White House in our history.
Speaking as a Catholic, I have nothing but contempt for any Catholic who quibbles that Romney/Ryan is inadequately conservative, but fails to denounce Democrat-voting Catholics in the strongest possible terms.
___
Sadly, God disagrees.
"Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.
For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it."
- Isaiah 28:14-20
The lesser of two evils is still evil. God's word is crystal clear.
I think a deeper analysis is in order.
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.”
And thus many kingdoms prefaced their laws by stating that the king was anointed by God, so everyone else has to do what he says. (In her youth, even Queen Elizabeth was approached to use the magical “healing power of kings” on sick people. She declined.)
However, by the 17th Century, the idea of the heavenly investiture had fallen out of fashion, so there arose a need for a new kind of legitimacy for government. This was found in republican-democracy, and it solved the problem.
In American terms, the idea that the legitimacy of government is derived by the people, not heaven, so that the laws of man are not sacred, and can be changed.
Importantly, this does not disrespect heaven, in fact it does the opposite, by permitting that while people might be inspired by heaven, our laws are not written in heaven, so may be changed without *offending* heaven, as long as they conform to important religious doctrines.
For this reason, while this is not the dictionary definition, Americans distinguish between “ethics”, which they see as obeying the laws of men, and “morality”, which they see as obeying the laws of heaven. In the latter case, morality based on a person’s religion.
This matters a lot, because religions and sects vary tremendously in what they consider “moral” acts to be; so voters tend to be dubious of politicians who embrace “morality”, because someone like Nancy Pelosi can claim to be “moral”, in agreement with her beliefs in the church of Baal-Moloch.
“Ethics”, on the other hand, is easier for voters to figure out, because it is up to a grand jury to decide if a politician is ethical or not. And if they are not, it is not left up to heaven to punish them, either.
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.
This clearly works more to the advantage of the church, as far as its important doctrines are concerned, as these good Catholics will be strongly opposed to things like abortion and euthanasia.
However, it also moderates what the church wants when some in the church decide to embrace foolish ideas, like “liberation theology” or socialism.
So 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.
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