Ping!
It’s a no brainier when you realize that the Democrat party is the party pf envy, jealousy, covetousness and theft. All sin all the time.
Or vote third party - that is often an option (e.g., Constitution Party).
Voting for any politician who does not actively fight against abortion is supporting abortion.
Bishop Tobin said he was a Democrat until AFTER the 2012 convention, at which the delegates booed God.
That the Democrat platform was pro-abortion for the previous forty years didn’t bother him as much as a little booing of God?
I have read that Tobin said he voted for Obama in 2008. But I am not certain that is true.
What a pathetic spectacle Catholic candidates present when, having to choose between Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Church, they choose Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in our nation. Do these candidates have no respect for the religious heritage of their parents and grandparents? Have they no appreciation for the sacraments, the solid education, the communal support, and the moments of comfort and guidance the Church has provided for their family over many generations? And I wonder – when in the future these candidates are in need of prayers and blessings, the Last Rites of the Church, and then finally funeral services – will they turn to Planned Parenthood or the Catholic Church to stand by their side?
Giving Communion to pro-abortion politicians is a MORTAL SIN.
It is NOT a political act. It is merely refusing to participate in giving grave scandal, and the sin of sacrilege.
It is INFINITELY more important for bishops to stop committing the mortal sin of giving Communion to notorious sinners than it is for them to write articles about voting. If the bishops would simply stop committing the mortal sins of scandal and sacrilege, more Catholics would be able to discern that voting for pro-abortionists is sinful.
” there’s certainly no obligation to vote in each and every election, particularly when the options are repugnant to the well-informed conscientious Christian voter.”
What sort of garbage are they putting out?
I didn’t get a memo from any Bishop telling me which elections we are or are not participating in.
The Body of Christ participates in all of these elections. If there is something “repugnant”, it happened during the primary season process ... while the complainer was likely oblivious. So who is the Repubnant one?
“vote according to her conscience. “
ERROR.
A well informed conscience is necessary to develop one’s political beliefs. But once you are in the voting booth, it is an intellectual task, not a task of the conscience. Your conscience has nothing to do with it.
I’ve heard that argument in the 5th grade. “My conscience won’t allow me to complete the quiz, Miss Teacher.” Response: “Fill out the quiz to the best of your ability, hand it in, or see me in detention.”
What a bunch of delinquents.
There is no such thing as a lesser of two evils. If you defeat the candidate that is worse for the Church and the prolife movement, that is a good, not an evil.
“I know, it’s a tough time to be a moral, pro-life voter. “
Only because there is a special curse for church goers who refuse to go down to their polling place and fill out their ballot. And then use the Gospel as an excuse.
Fill your ballot out. There is no moral obligation to publicly endorse candidates. At least in CT, our ballots are anonymous. It is not an indication of support to cast a ballot for one of the candidates to win. That is an oxymoron.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/vote/votingwithclearconscience.htm#choosing
Distinguish “choosing evil” from “limiting evil.”
What happens if two opposing candidates both support abortion?
Father Pavone:
“First of all, refrain from putting any labels or endorsements on anyone. Don’t call them anything. Or, if you prefer, call them both pro-abortion. Then just ask a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?
For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban late-term abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea? Nobody is saying that’s the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other.
One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.
In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not “choosing the lesser of two evils.” We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good.
You oppose the evil of abortion, in every circumstance, no matter what. You know that no law can legitimize even a single abortion, ever. If the candidate thinks some abortion is OK, you don’t agree.
But by your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it’s not the best strategy. But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer — in the case described above — is yes.
Cardinal John O’Connor, in a special booklet on abortion, once wrote about this problem, “Suppose all candidates support ‘abortion rights’? … One could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position. If all candidates support “abortion rights” equally, one might vote for the candidate who seems best in regard to other issues” (1990, “Abortion: Questions and Answers”).
In this context, the question also arises as to whether one is required to vote for a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position. The answer is, no, you are not required to vote for this candidate. The reason is that your vote is not a canonization of a candidate. It is a transfer of power. You have to look concretely at where the power is really going to be transferred, and use your vote not to make a statement but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.
Of course, our conscience may be telling us, “Don’t say it’s impossible to elect the candidate who doesn’t have a strong base of support.” Of course, it is possible to elect almost anyone if the necessary work is done within the necessary time. God doesn’t ask us to base our choices on “the possibility of miracles,” but rather on solid human reason. The point is that if there’s a relatively unknown but excellent candidate, the time to begin building up support for that person’s candidacy is several years before the election, not several months. What you have to ask as Election Day draws near is whether your vote is needed to keep the worse candidate (of the two, less acceptable but more realistic choices) out of office.”
The ballot is a civil election. Legally, this is what is being asked on your ballot:
which outcome do you prefer?
Victory by Candidate A or Candidate B?
secret ballot. Anonymous ballot.
1. a. Candidate A is good
b. Candidate B is even better
2. a. Candidate A is bad
b. Candidate B is even worse
none of the above is not allowed, since None of the above cannot be the victor.
If the RINO is 2.b., vote for 2.a.
Logic dictates one would choose 1.b. and 2.a.
In practical affairs, prudence and logic demand it. To be Illogical is to engage in a falsehood.
is the election in doubt? IF the election result is not in doubt, Different quiz. If it doesn’t matter, different quiz.
Blank voting is killing the pro-life movement. You are teaching your constituency to stop voting! FOLLY. No fool shall enter the kingdom of God. Prudence is not an optional virtue. Except for Pietists.
Apparently this Catholic voter was torn between which Catholic Democrat to vote for in the Democratic primary...To bad he didn't steer the person to the Republican party...