Replies

The good bishop specifically told his correspondent that it was not his function as bishop to tell her whether to vote or for whom, that he recommended that she inform her conscience according to Catholic Church principles and act accordingly. He also told her that, if all candidates were pro-abortion to one degree or another, there were three approaches to choose from: voting for the less objectionable candidate, voting for a pro-lifer not a candidate, i.e. in the bishop's diocese "Baby Angela," or not vote for the specific office or at all. What Catholic can reasonably and comfortably disagree with the bishop?

It is true that we often have a wider choice of candidates in a primary than in a general election. We ought to vote in a primary for a well-qualified PRO-LIFE candidate in the primary but there is no moral excuse for voting for a candidate who is generally a pro-abort in the primary or the election. I am tempted to vote for Bruce Rauner for Illinois governor but only because Pat Quinn is such a public policy disgrace on so many levels including abortion, taxes, spending, personal and systemic political corruption and his support of "gay" everything including "gay""marriage" because "his Faith demands it to which Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield responded: "And what Faith is that? Certainly not the one I represent!" And yet, Bruce Rauner is a Lutheran and not a Catholic (presumably the very liberal ELCA), would be a lot better on taxes and spending and a lot more competent manager and, though a supporter of legal abortion and "gay""marriage," Rauner seems for now not inclined to support further degeneration. We have several third party pro-lifers on the final ballot. My "Republican" Congressman and State Senator are not worth voting for and the Congressman is unopposed at an early age, regrettably. I find myself asking conservative Democrat friends including a deacon who was a long-time pro-life and pro-family and anti-tax state rep before he gave up his seat to become a deacon, if it is not possible to arrange a pro-lifer's Democrat nomination against the GOP Establishment stooge and sock puppet but no luck so far. The GOP primary with a good candidate against the Stooge Adam Kinzinger came out with the good candidate drowned in Establishment $$$$$ and losing about 2-1.

The Body of Christ is not really involved in these contests just a bunch of sinners presented with bad choices and the bad choices.

I have very seldom consciously voted for a pro-abort in my life. Only Joe Lieberman comes to mind. I believed that he was SUCH an Orthodox Jew that he was good for a pro-life vote to be named later. Weicker was good for absolutely nothing. Rauner may be the second but I won't know until my pen is on the ballot in the voting booth. Realistically, my vote won't make the difference, If the election comes down to a one vote margin, Rahm Emmanuel will just find an extra thousand ballots in some campaign workers' trunk and they will be unanimously for Quinn. Then my morals are intact. I'll know next Tuesday night.

One final note. Even when he was still generally a liberal Democrat, Hartford's Archbishop John Whealon (then your bishop and mine) made no bones about delivering the message that Reagan was the candidate for Catholics to vote for. He also wrote columns in the archdiocesan newspaper about how the Democrats had been right on all the little issues in American history: taxes and spending, defense and war, labor, etc., but that there really were only two BIG issues in American history: slavery and abortion---and the Democrats had blown both. The Archbishop then wrote that he was giving scandal by being a registered Democrat in the age of abortion. He re-registered as a Republican and gave public favor to Reagan because of the pro-life issue.

God bless!