Difficult topic and difficult to resolve the many dimensions and directions one can be pulled.

My suggestion is that, for good or ill, we must have a longer-term view of our vote.  It has taken us many election cycles to get to this horrid situation and it will take many to extricate ourselves.  As many Catholics now recognize, their vote in 2008 for the guy who said he would provide so much for the poor (healthcare, jobs, food, trinkets, etc.) at taxpayer expense suddenly has turned into a vote that is bankrupting those taxpayers of their very ability to pay and provide for the poor via the (inefficient and corrupt) goverrnment, much less that he is the most pro-abort president in history.  My objection to the “so I just won’t vote” solution is that the segment of the electorate that is lusting for power, prestige, and other sinful things WILL vote—making things incrementally worse (and perhaps by a large increment).

The USCCB was not immune to this.  The Catholic Healthcare Association was not immune to the narrow, single-item seduction that was to bring “helathcare insurance” to every poor person, but resulted in increasing subjugation and persecution in other moral areas.  We see it in immigration law and policy.  We see it in environmental stewardship issues.  We see it in global fiscal policy.  We must always take the long view and turn the huges steamship of these evils around degree by degree using the rudder, because it simply isn’t possible to do if we just say “I’ll let the winds and the seas do it.”

The longer view is important—“Rome wasn’t built in a day.”  We will not turn the tide on evil in our society in a day or a single election.  But by not adding our individual efforts to turning the steering wheel in the direction away from evil, those turning it toward evil will win.  And that’s just not acceptable.

Thanks for your always thought-provoking discussion.

WOW!!!  Mark this is awesome:

“The world was not changed by the early Church jockeying for political power and disobeying their consciences in order to play ball with corrupt powers and “win”.  It was changed and healed by people who sought first the kingdom and refused to play ball by doing such “minor” compromises as offering a pinch of incense to Caesar—even at the cost of their lives.  When Caesar stops asking me to do things that are directly repugnant to the teaching of the Church, I will happily play ball.”

This is it in a nutshell.  We are not supposed to be concerned with the politics of the world!

Mark,
I hope you have come to the realization that it rarely pays to argue politics or religion…!!! LOL
Stick with your ‘day job’...you do it well…!!! You have a ‘DUTY’ to vote…So, even if the candidates listed on the ballot cause you grief and conscientious difficulty, then I suggest you find a suitable public servant with whom you are familiar and whose political and moral philosophy agrees with yours, and write him/her in on your ballot…!!! Personally, I don’t think any of the leading Republicans should cause a moral dilemma for a Christian…The problem seems to be how to embody all of the good ideas to fix our Country espoused by the various candidates into one person…!!!
Thanks,  Fran

@Rich—I disagree with your optimism with regard to voting.  Have things really gotten any better due to Christian political activism?  Has it stopped abortion, war, torture, or moral and cultural decay?  The Right Wing continues to beat the drum and raises lots and lots of money for political operations.  To what end?  Maybe Mark has a point here.  How faithless can we be to think that voting and political action is the key to anything when ALL is in God’s hands anyway? At that point, prayer sounds infinitely more effective. Besides, I think your long view is coming to a head now (and not after the next set of political cycles —probably much sooner)...if these are the end days it is going to be far more important where your faith is (in God and not in Politics) then in who you voted for or voted against.

I’m a little confused by your reasoning, perhaps because I am not a regular reader.  You strongly imply that both political parties support “grave evil” but I am not convinced that this is the case.  The Democratic party supports the grave evils of abortion, gay marriage, and many others as part of their platform.  I am not aware of any plank in the Republican party platform that supports a grave evil.  Capital punishment is not a grave evil in and of itself (although it can be in particular applications).  The same is true of war, detention policies, privacy, interrogation, and eavesdropping.  The vast majority of economic policies are areas where faithful Catholics can disagree.  In my view, you have a choice between a party that is committed to grave evil as part of its very core versus one that sometimes sees its members and leaders choose grave evils in individual cases.  Seeing as how there are no pure angels in politics, I do not see how there is a valid choice for Catholics between these two alternatives.  Voting for some 100% pure third party may make people feel warm and fuzzy inside, but since that party has never held power you can’t be sure that they wouldn’t choose grave evils in individual circumstances as well.

@Isaac S.

This piece by Mark is the conclusion (hopefully!) to a much longer discussion that has included his reasons to say that the Republican candidates (with the exceptions of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman) committed to the intrinsic grave evil of torture in their support for ‘enhanced interrogations’ which are defined by the rest of the world (and effectively by the Church) as torture.  You’ll have to read back a ways to find the argument (and there is an actual logical and historical argument, not just provactive assertions) that waterboarding = torture but to my mind at least, it’s convincing - leaving us with the (likely) choice between our current president and administration (anti-life, warmongering, anti-catholic, etc.) and a (likely) Republican candidate that thinks the intrinsic dignity of the human person as created in the image of God is contingent on the actions of that person (i.e. if we think they’re a bad guy who knows some more stuff about other bad guys, rack ‘em) and not on God.

So the question for Mark (and myself and many others) isn’t which party is committed to grave intrinsic evil but what to do about only having a choice between candidates committed to grave intrinsic evils (which, Mark has pointed out -in a previous column, maybe over at patheos, according to Church doctrine cannot be compared in their evil-ness - i.e. they are both absolute evil and since you can’t get more evil than that equally evil in the eyes of God and the Church).

Right now i’m struggling with this question because I can see the potential upside for a Republican candidate that actually nominates originalist judges to the Supreme Court as well as Appeals courts.  However, that’s a ‘hope’ (and not a guarantee) while the likely-hood of continued use of torture seems to be a key draw for some of these candidates and I would judge it more likely that ‘enhanced interrogation’ will come back than that ‘liberal’ supreme court justices will retire.

So, I’m leaning towards writing in the name of someone else when it comes to the Presidential ballot.  Particularly since here in CT (very deep blue) it’s not likely to sway the results one way or another.

@Isaac - Republican Party not support policies that are intrinsically evil?  You MUST be kidding.  How about the military/industrial complex which exists for one reason, to kill people, and has an extraordinary influence on our politicians, most ESPECIALLY Republican politicans.  How about torture.  How about the death penalty (and if you read the catechism you will discover that the instances requiring the death penalty are so few that it clearly states it basically has no place left in society.  This is clearly a case of not recognizing the wolf at your door because it is YOUR wolf.

I am so grateful to Mark for having the courage to write about this stuff (and I especially appreciate the comment about the molecule and the train).  Whether hell exists or not (and I believe it does), I refuse to support a politician whose policies I know will involve intrinsic evil because of the disastrous consequences the election of such politicians will have upon the people alive on the earth.

As far as I can see, there is only one candidate who does not support policies that are intrinsically evil, and I will vote for him in the primary.  The probability of him making it to the general election though is practically nil, for the power that be, the ones who THRIVE on evil, would support Obama before they would ever let him get elected.

I second the comments of Isaac S. There’s no comparison between the grave evils (abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, etc.)embraced by the Democratic Party and the imperfections of the Republicans.

The contrast is humongous and would seem to be a no brainer. Mark says he is not expecting the likes of a St. Francis to run, but it sure sounds like that impossible goal is exactly what he does expect if you examine his arguments.

Will Mark be truly peaceful if Obama gets another four years to finish destroying the country? I guess if he wants Catholics to get holier via a persecution, then maybe that’s the way to go, but I will vote for the candidates I believe are the best available and keep working for better ones.

Here’s a trustworthy guide written by EWTN’s Colin Donovan, S.T.L., a moral theologian himself.  The total tract can be read at http://www.ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp?source=/vexperts/conference.htm.  One CAN vote for a gravely unworthy candidate if the other candidates are equally or more unworthy than himself.  Here’s some of that tract:

Who We Must Vote For

As noted by Fathers Jone and Davis, a Catholic can have an obligation to vote so as to prevent an unworthy candidate, an enemy of religion, liberty and morals, from coming into office.

  205. Voting is a civic duty which would seem to bind at least under venial sin whenever a good candidate has an unworthy opponent. It might even be a mortal sin if one’s refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate. [Jone, Moral Theology (Dublin: Mercier Press, 1929, 1955)]

Davis states it differently, but with the same implications, one may even vote for an enemy of religion or liberty in order to exclude an even greater enemy of religion, liberty and morals. Indeed, one can be obliged to in certain circumstances.

  It is sinful to vote for the enemies of religion or liberty, except to exclude a worse candidate, or unless compelled by fear of great personal harm, relatively greater than the public harm at stake. [Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 2, p. 90 ]

Thus, both authors are suggesting the strong obligation (even until the pain of mortal sin) to vote so as to exclude the electing of the candidate who would injure religion, liberty and morals the most. For such a purpose one may vote even for someone who is an enemy of religion and liberty, as long as he is less of any enemy than the candidate one is voting to preclude being elected.

The Holy Father enunciated this principle of the lesser evil with respect to legislation,  which while not obtaining the goals which Catholic principles would demand, nonetheless, excludes even worse legislation, or corrects, in part, legislation already in force that is even more opposed to Catholic principles.

  A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. ... In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. [Gospel of Life 73]

This same principle has immediate bearing on choosing among candidates, some or even all of whom may be anti-life and anti-family. Voters should try to minimize the damage done to society by the outcome of an election, even if that outcome is not wholly satisfactory by Catholic principles.

Formal versus Material Cooperation in Evil

Voters are rightly concerned about the degree to which their vote represents cooperation in the evil which a candidate embraces. Obviously, voting for a candidate whose principles exactly coincide with Catholic teaching would eliminate that worry. However, that is a rare, if not non-existent, situation. Even those who embrace Catholic principles may not always apply them correctly. The fact is that most candidates will imperfectly embrace Catholic principles and voting for ANY candidate contains many unknowns about what that candidate believes and will do.

The moral distinction between formal and material cooperation allows Catholics to choose imperfect candidates as the means of limiting evil or preventing the election of a worse candidate. The justification of doing that is described above. Formal cooperation is that degree of cooperation in which my will embraces the evil object of another ‘s will. Thus, to vote for a candidate because he favors abortion is formal cooperation in his evil political acts. However, to vote for someone in order to limit a greater evil, that is, to restrict in so far as possible the evil that another candidate might do if elected, is to have a good purpose in voting. The voter’s will has as its object this limitation of evil and not the evil which the imperfect politician might do in his less than perfect adherence to Catholic moral principles. Such cooperation is called material, and is permitted for a serious reason, such as preventing the election of a worse candidate. [cf. Gospel of Life 74]

We are not supposed to be concerned with the politics of the world!

Yes.  We are.  We are just not supposed to be more concerned with it than with our duty of obedience to God.

There’s no comparison between the grave evils (abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, etc.)embraced by the Democratic Party and the imperfections of the Republicans.

Both McCain (last time) and Gingrich have signaled their willingness to support the slaughter of innocents in ESCR (that’s what Gingrich’s feint about “implantation” was about).  Likewise, Romney has no problem with abortion as his record demonstrates.  That he makes noises pleasing to the base at present only demonstrates that will say anything to get elected.  If you trust these people you will have only yourself to blame when they betray you.  In addition, they are at one with Obama on launching unjust wars.  And they long to reinstate torture, as well as to implement (just like Obama) the stripping of American citizens of habeas corpus and the transformation of America into a police state in which all citizens enjoy the same rights as the unborn currently enjoy.

It is folly to think the dynamic in our country is left/right or liberal/conservative anymore.  It is now Ruling Elite vs the rest of us.  The GOP leadership has no interest or intention of every doing anything about protecting the unborn.  They will make a couple token gestures but that’s it.  Their interests lie elsewhere.  They regard prolifers as useful, not as people they particularly want to stand close to.  That’s why they phone it in every Roe v. Wade day.  All support for them got prolifers was the election of Obama as we zealously supported GOP policies that were directly counter to the gospel and bankrupted the country.

@Joanne S.

grave intrinsic evil is grave intrinsic evil, whether it is abortion or torture and thinking that one is worse than the other when both are absolute evil is the same way that catholic Obama supporters will justify their votes.  It’s the exact same argument, just changing out the evils depending on what your tribal loyalty dictates.

I’m way more sympathetic to the Republican platform but my sympathies must give way to my conscience.  I’m more concerned with eternal consequences than I am with the results of this election.

If Catholics would hold true to their professed belief in the inherent dignity and right to life of the human person from conception through natural death and withhold their support from any candidate who won’t agree to that basic premise for government we wouldn’t be in this mess.  The Democratic party thinks it can do as it likes about abortion as long as it says ‘safe and rare’ and ‘let’s take care of the poor’.  The Republican party thinks it can do as it like about torture as long as it says ‘enhanced interrogation’, ‘terrorists’, ‘9/11! 9/11! 9/11!’, ‘they’re trying to kill us, this is self defense’ and ‘let’s try to defund Planned Parenthood!’

Both of those things are anathema to our Faith and “having” to choose between them is a false choice caused by our lack of faith.

Also, I concur with Mark’s follow up comment.

@Mark—You argue:  “Yes.  We are (supposed to be concerned with the politics of the world!).  We are just not supposed to be more concerned with it than with our duty of obedience to God.”

IF you are truly being obedient to God—truly and totally obedient then there is neither time nor reason to concern ourselves with the affairs of the world. And why would we concern ourselves? Money, false sense of security, the tax rate, the price of gasoline, a job, a house, the interest rate, the Supreme Court, a foreign war, black helicopters, blue helmeted UN thugs, China, blah blah blah, etc. etc. How can we claim to be faithful if we are forever worried and fearful of the future?  I think we either have faith or we don’t.  If this is all in God’s hands, we should all get on our knees and be thankful we are on the right side.  God is big enough to handle whatever Obama’s peevish little mind (or any politician) can think up. If our God is so weak that he requires a single vote one way or the other from one of us, then he is not God and all is lost anyways.  Too many Christians concern themselves with voting and looking the other way when their side is guilty of sin, instead of living and acting in accordance with the law of God.

In fact, your original argument answers this as well.  Did the early Christians worry about such things?  OR were they preparing themselves daily for the return of the Lord?

Tom:

We are obliged to be concerned with the things of this world because God commands it and because God the Son became man.  We are not to worry and we are emphatically not to elevate the lust for power over the obedience due to God.  But Paul tells us to obey Caesar.  In this country, that means we are to obey the civic duties enjoined on us by Caesar.

Just as government is the least efficient way to take care of the needy, it is the least effective way to change the culture. And, my friends, changing the culture is what we need to do. Our faith provides the blueprint. Then, as Mark says, we can all “play ball.”
There will never be a nirvana. This life is just a prelude to the next one, the eternal one.

@Mark—I think there is a fine line here between civic duty and concern.  As a member of the community at large, I am willing to do my fair share and I do not balk at whatever taxes Caesar steals from me.  As a former member of the military, if I was re-called (highly unlikely) I would serve in whatever capacity asked. If asked to give blood or participate in disaster recovery, I would do so.  In general, I attempt to follow and submit to Caesar’s laws.  That is civic duty. Fine.  However, this dog and pony election is another matter.  Caesar may hold an election, but that doesn’t mean that I need to worry about it, send money to candidate A or B, put placards in my yard, cajole people on the internet, or promote one party or the other. It is not life and death.  AND Caesar does not require that I vote.  But, it would please him if I did. That way, he can claim my assent to his governance and policies.  From the Church’s standpoint, I don’t see a problem with non-voting.  Am I missing something in the Catechism that requires voting?

@Tom: A lot of dogs and ponies are taking serious offense at your comparison to this year’s election to their “respective constituencies” especially if you’re comparing them to Republicans.
  There’s a lot of serious neighing and howling on this matter. You’ve got some “damage control” ahead.

Tom:

Actually it is life and death.  Governments (particularly corrupt ones) can kill millions.  And they can contribute mightily to the death of souls too.  We are not gnostics.  We believe the physical world and the affairs of men and women have everything to do with salvation since the Word became flesh.  It’s not a question of whether we are “required” to vote.  The Church does not operate according to the principle “That which is not forbidden is compulsory.”  CCC 2240 speaks of a duty to vote, but mitagates that by noting that we must not do anything contrary to the law of God.  There’s a lot of leeway between those two principles.  My own take is to vote whenever possible, but to refuse to support any candidate who supports grave evil.  This still leaves a lot to vote about.

IF the vote is life and death, then your argument falls, Mark.  You can’t choose to vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning, but must pick from either of the two main parties without regard to whether they are evil or not (the position of the Anti-abortion crowd willing to accept any lesser evil Republican).  If, as you argued previously, the game is rigged and both sides are evil, your vote only matters with respect to your conscience/soul and how that impacts you.  I agree with that. There is no choice here that I can accept.  Governments have killed millions and will continue to kill millions.  This election will not change that.  My vote or failure to vote will not change that.  At least I will not be morally complicit.

The point under discussion is not whether one must always follow one’s conscience. Of course we must! And Mr. Shea is quite right not to vote if he is convinced that voting would be even venially sinful. But surely the point of his columns is to persuade us that his moral judgments about voting are correct?

Mr. Shea wishes to persuade us that there is no proportionate reason to vote for a candidate who supports grave evil. The phrase “proportionate reason” is perilous and Shea does not define it. Instead he repeatedly begs the question by pointing to the immense evil of losing one’s soul and concluding that no earthly good is proportionate to that. This begs the question because we are discussing what the judgment of one’s conscience should be, not whether we should follow that judgment once it is reached.

Mr. Shea says he does not seek perfection, but it should be noted that by his criteria Catholics ought not to have voted for any president in recent memory, including Reagan and Kennedy (who both affirmed their readiness to destroy cities with nuclear weapons).

I believe the actions of the Lord Jesus with regard to Caesar’s denarius contradict Mr. Shea’s reasoning. Tiberius Caesar operated on a much higher level of evil than Obama or any his Republican challengers. Here was a man that not only tortured and murdered, but also explicitly demanded to be worshiped as a god! Yet the Lord supported him because as a human subject it was His civic duty.

We likewise have a civic duty to get the best possible leaders into office that we can. I fully support efforts to improve the field of candidates or to craft a better party platform. But these types of activities are best done by talking and writing, or by donating—not by voting. We are given the responsibility of voting for the purpose of choosing leaders for our country right now. Choosing not to vote because one’s options were all “mixed bags” would be like choosing not to work because one’s potential employers were all giant companies with a mix of good and evil activities.

A vote is not (necessarily) life and death.  Our involvement (in some fashion) in the politics of this world is, since politicians decide matters of life and death.  It is why I think we have a duty to not support pols who choose death and why we need to support those who choose life.  Much of our politics is an argument about which kinds of unjust death we will compromise and support.  I’m arguing we stop compromising, not that we stop participating in the politics of this world.

Just FYI, I use the term “proportionate reason” because I am quoting Cdl. Ratzinger’s letter.

Mark,
I emailed this to you the other day in response to a previous posting. I post it here because you did not respond and, moreso, because you again make the same claim I address.

Mark,

I have to admit that I was quite shaken when I heard your assessment of Senate Bill 1867 (the NDAA). I was so shaken, in fact, that I started following the links in the post. I’m a little disappointed as a result.

The first link in the NC Register post took me to your Blogspot post, which links to a post on the Economic Policy Journal. I am not at all familiar with that particular publication, but I was stunned to see that the EPJ post sourced an article on PrisonPlanet.com—one of the most reprehensible conspiracy mongers I’ve ever seen. It is the mouthpiece of Alex Jones, a talk radio shock jock whose specialty is whipping up his audience’s fear of a police state (think Glenn Beck on speed).

So I ran a Google search and found the actual Senate bill here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf

And here is a quote from one of the “worst” parts cited in the Prison Planet article, with some sections highlighted and featuring my comments:

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition
under the law of war.
That’s the key issue: the authority to detain “covered persons”. Let’s see what that term means. -R

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

You will notice that the language is not sufficiently vague as to be applicable to whomever the President wishes to be rid of. According to the words above, a person who can be detained indefinitely must be involved with 9/11, have helped those who were involved, or be a part of or supporter of those who are actually engaged against our military forces. -R

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

Here we see how such a covered person is to be handled: in exactly the way President Bush prescribed and President Obama decried. -R

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

This is important: the President’s authority is not being expanded; rather, those powers which were already interpreted (to detain terrorists and try them outside of the Justice System) are being affirmed. If anything, this is a whopping act of hypocrisy by Senate Dems. -R

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

This is absolutely crucial: the law does NOT apply to citizens. In fact, it doesn’t even apply to illegal aliens who run guns or drugs across the border. On top of that, it doesn’t even seem to apply to terrorists apprehended in the United States. - R

(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

And here’s the accountability you wanted. - R

The next section goes on to spell out that the power of military detention does NOT apply to citizens, and only on a very limited basis to legal residents.

I think it’s worth amending your blog post, Mark. A lot of people look to you for wisdom, and for good reason. It appears that you were mistaken here. Some liberal scare-mongers tried the same thing with a law that passed during Bush’s administration, and it didn’t pass the sniff test once I examined the actual law.

Thanks, and blessings,
R

Vote pro-life.

@Mark

“The GOP leadership has no interest or intention of ever(y) doing anything about protecting the unborn.”

The same can be said of the United States Catholic bishops. There is nothing stopping the bishops, except Satan, from going all out to fight for the right to life of the unborn which the Magisterium says is given by God, and makes us profess to believe that every Sunday in Mass in our Profession of Faith.  The GOP leadership has to fight the Democrat Party as well as Satan, Catholic Democrats and the pro-abortion, Democrat bias media to bring about what Republicans believe in their Party Platform.  The odds are stacked against us, especially by people thinking like you.

@Mark

You also wrote, “All support for them got prolifers was the election of Obama as we zealously supported GOP policies that were directly counter to the gospel and bankrupted the country.”

Sorry, Mark, don’t blame prolife voters for Obama’s election, blame the 55% of Catholics who voted for him, the largest, single voting block for the pro-abortion party.

And as far as who is responsible for policies “directly counter to the gospel and bankrupted the country,” I say you’d have to look at the USCCB again and its predecessor, and Catholic Democrats for they are the ones who supported and lobbied for the Community Redevelopment Act of Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Congress that enacted it, and the Clinton Administration that used that Act to threaten the banking and mortgage lending institutions with federal prosecution for “red lining” if they didn’t relax the lending requirements to low income and the poor who sought to buy houses.  That’s what produced the subprime loans that are responsible for the financial collapse because the Democrats in Congress wouldn’t strength the regulations on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae requiring them to only purchase better secured mortgages.  You must remember Congressman Barney Frank’s famous comment to the GOP calling for tighter regs on Freddie and Fannie: “I’m willing to roll the dice.”  He meant, he’s willing to let things continue on as they were.  The rest is history.  And the USCCB were right there with Barney Frank and the pro-abortion Democrat Party on continuing to “rolling the dice.”  In fact, the bishops gave millions of dollars to ACORN to “occupy” bank lobbies protesting bankers and intimidating their customers to give loans to the low income and poor. The Archdiocese of Chicago gave $7 million alone.

Now, I know those historical facts that not only affected our nation economically, and are responsible for the loss of tens of trillions of dollars especially by the elderly in the stock market collapse, but it also affected Europe as well.

But you’d much rather focus on the falsity of water boarding as being an “intrinsic evil” that may have been used on maybe two or three known, high level, terrorist which provided information that has saved countless lives (including the terrorist) and lead to the apprehension and death of Osama Bin Laden.  And Capital Punishment as an “intrinsic evil” only in certain countries.  (Strange how CP can be an “intrinsic evil” in certain countries and not in others)  I understand your “purist” nature, Mark.  The problem I have with it, and other Catholics like you such as Cardinal Bernardin, is that it is going to get me and my wife, my kids and their spouses, and my grand children – killed.  Obviously, 52,000,000 murdered American babies created by God (which you profess to believe every Sunday) is not enough for you and the USCCB…you’re willing to continue to “roll the dice.”  I say, “No thank you, Mr. Shaw, you make as much sense as Ron Paul does on Iran.”  He, you, and Iran with nuclear weapons scare the hell out of us, and Israel.

@StillBelieve: What do you suppose the Magisterium and our bishops on this side of the pond have to say about the example shown by the likes of one American greenhorn Tea Party (“Republican”) Member of Congress, namely Allen West? Do you think THIS guy would fit their ideal criteria for suitable “prolife” candidates Catholics in his Gold Coast Fla. district in a primary or November? Tolle Legge, my friend. This one’s on me and it’s a real doozy, even by “West ‘standards’”. LOL (big time on ‘roids, no less!)
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/16/390789/rep-allen-west-if-joseph-goebbels-was-around-hed-be-very-proud-of-the-democrat-party/

Actually, one can vote for an unworthy candidate, so long as the other candidates are equally or more unworthy.  One does so with the mere intention of limiting the damage, so to speak.  This moral opinion is put forth by the great St. Alphonsus Liguori himself.  EWTN has a great website addressing this and the general principles to be followed in the voting process: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp?source=/vexperts/conference.htm

@Mark & Kevin ... Amen, brothers! Jasper, are you trying to insinuate that Joseph Ratzinger isn’t a bona fide pro-lifer? Hmmm, mmmmm. No Bavarian pastries for you this Christmas; just Prussian coal. All kidding aside, I’m sure you really didn’t intend to insinuate such, but wouldn’t you agree that we have to weigh just more than a candidate’s political stands and past voting records (if he or she is or was an incumbent at one time) as a whole, rather than the way certain special interest groups do when they cherry pick the candidate’s records without taking into context as to why Politician A did so on an issue?
  Sometimes a legislator will vote for something he or she would normally never vote for when it’s been fully “marked up” after all the vetting process through by the various committees having a particular interest in seeing it pass or fail on the final vote. Sometimes a politician will owe a favor and vote to get a bill out of committee. It’s not the end of the world nor does voting for a bill, however, odious, mean that Politician A has struck a deal with the devil. It’s the way things are supposed to work so legislation is brought before the full House or Senate for the ultimate up and/or down votes.
  It’s a sign of adult-like compromise viz the chickcrap tactics of filibustering by secret holds and finagling a certain chamber’s rules to jam up the works for purely ideological reasons. If anybody cares to really learn how the art of politics truly became the art of making things possible, please, I beg of you, to get a hold of Tip O’Neill’s autobiography, “Man of the House” and former Senate President/UMass President William Bulger’s book “James Michael Curley: A Short Biography with Personal Reminiscences.” Regardless of what people think about Bulger, his brother “Whitey,” or even Mayor Curley, this book is a treasure trove with information about legislation, the art of properly representing constituents and making sure their needs come first before any partisan or ideological or even patronnage concerns enter into consideration. It all begins with a telephone call or letter and how the staffers handle those vital first impressions. And remember, as Tip O’Neill proved during his long years of public service, “All politics is local.”
  My state senator is gay, I’m not and we don’t always agree. But I’ll never forget the way he’s treated any phone calls we’ve made, and least of all, the way he gave my wife a measure of respect in the same department they once worked together for decades ago. He’s always received our vote and always will.
  Ideology’s one thing, but when it’s used as a club, as we’ve seen it used this past year, especially on Capitol Hill to such a degree uinimaginable even just a few years ago, it’s time to toss the club into the Potomac once and for all. BTW, how many readers have lost their jobs, or won’t be able to get a job in a particular field because some senator secretly scotched a certain bill that could’ve resulted in a considerably large private-public program to build roads, improve (whatever) in your local community?  Was it really ideology, or pettiness masked as ideology? (Either way it’s low, very low.) Blame Obama all you want folks about Keystone and the payroll tax fight, but at least he’s up front about his opposition; far unlike some senators who’ve used “holds” and other filibustering tactics to get what they want and to hell with the nation’s needs.
  Watch out for the ideological wolves waving their self-designated infallible “voters’ guides” that rate a candidate’s worthiness to serve the public based on one single issue or oath taken, or “broken.” After all, aren’t our public servants, especially our elected ones, responsible for serving only the public and not a think tank, or worse, a national ward heeler on taxes such as Grover Norquist?
  It’s telling, but not in the least bit surprising that such contrasting influential men from Massachusetts such as the late Speaker O’Neill and the never elected to anything Norquist, hailed from working class North Cambridge, and a cushy suburban town located just alongside Rte. 128, respectively. Neither man forgot his roots, but the results are surely telling and for far more substantial reasons than Norquist, his signed/owned legislators and their enablers are capable of comprehending.
  Telling, indeed. We can only go to the polls and vote once during an election. But there’s nothing stopping us from getting involved in voter petition drives, protesting voter suppression drives geared directly at poor precincts and driving people to the polls and making signs, etc. And early and often, too.

Hello, again, Mark. Let’s see if this time I can generate more light than heat in my comments and questions.

The difficulty I have with the thrust of your blog(s) is that I don’t see what you expect the projected outcome of your particular applications of the rules of prudential and moral voting is to likely be. Are we not supposed to try to discern who of the candidates is most likely to at least attempt to stop the millions, if not billions, of dollars flowing into the coffers of pro-abortion organizations nationally and internationally? Are most people even aware of the fact that the 50 million plus abortions in America since 1973 is, relatively speaking, a drop in the bucket compared to the international figure of 1.5 billion plus globally in the same 38 years?

Do you have any ideas about what to name the third party that would take up this most paramount of causes or who they might propose to run as president in 2012? What do think the chances of this party/candidate have of winning and then doing what they promised? If not, then who would be the best candidate to chose? A candidate who is more likely to finally get it right and to grasp and support the Catholic Church’s teaching and efforts in regard to fighting abortion, or one who is less likely to?

Prophetically responding to the Protestant thinkers of 11 or so centuries later who sought to eradicate the distinction between grave and venial sin and to deny the gradation of grave sins (more grave/less grave), St. Augustine asked, “Which is more grave? To strike someone or to to kill him? They are certainly not the same thing.”

The presidential choices we have are the ones we actually have, not the ones we would like to have, wish we had, or can reason out to what we utopianistically think we need? Are not the rules of prudence and laws of morality defined so we can make the best possible choice? Is it ever reasonable to pick a party or candidate so diametrically opposed to the culture of life that they make it their business to vehemently support, fund, and force others to support and fund abortion? Is it more prudent to pick apart the party, or candidate within that party, that is most likely to arrive at the reverse policies, or less prudent?

Hoping to have generated more light than heat—-TonyRI

Steve, Joseph Goebbels and Adolph would certainly have loved having you on their side. But obliviously you were destined to be for a later era. LOL.  Are you enjoying supporting not only the regime that is intentionally attacking the right to work of the free working men and women of America, and that includes the business men and women, but now the liberty of the U.S. Catholic Church herself?  Seems like you love your “job.”  52,000,000 murdered American babies created by God aren’t enough for you, is it?  There are always other made up reasons you create, or should I say repeat from party talking points, to genuflect before the alter of the propagandist pro-abortion Democrat Party – the party of my birthright as a Catholic from South Chicago before my eyes were opened up as a result of my secular college education that included a year of embryology to see the lies I had been fed for sooooo many years that you continue to spread.  They get old hearing them no matter how cleaver you are in disguising them.  My joy is knowing that God WILL win out in the end no matter how in effective and insignificant I may be in this fight for life.

Cthulhu / Dagon 2012.

Why bother with the lesser of two evils?

StillBelieve: Glad to know you still have my back, and I offer that in good jest. At least we can disagree and manage to do so in as much “good humor” as the topic of abortion allows in American politics today.  We sure need a lot more good humor, or at least a willingness to show more fortitude when it comes to dealing with other sides when it comes to our “hot button” issues.
  This Payroll Tax Holiday issue is a doozy. While I’ve held my breath for a while on the initial gamble it presented with relation to SS’s ability to maintain its never-broken-promise to deliver on its basic pension benefits (which people have to earn over a certain period of time, lest it become welfare and FDR vehemently opposed that!) ... the payroll tax holiday has helped somewhat in the revitalization of the economy by giving taxpayers more money to spend, and let’s face it, with a consumer-driven economy, especiallly around this time of the year, we can’t ignore what more spending power can mean to the private sector.
  BUT, the GOP only wants the holiday extended so long as it suited its needs to tack along a controversial pipeline and a payroll tax holiday for the so-called “job providers.” Yeah right. If the story ever gets out as to how much so many of our “Job Providers” have stiffed their employees down through the years by not paying the taxes they were supposed to collect, or didn’t bother to collect, yet marked them down as collected…well, y’know, what a mess that’ll add. All of a sudden, the number of “non-taxpaying” Americans Fox loves to rip into, (this mythical 49 percent or so) won’t as high when the facts are out insofar as indidividual employees are concerned.
  The GOP didn’t stop there. It even took as hostage, people on unemployment, and further insulted them by insisting on drug tests, etc. This is chickencrap, but insulting nonetheless. Then there’s the Medicare situation. That’s stealing,plain and simple because it’s paid into by its members who’ve had to qualify for it.
  Then, yesterday’s display of political cowardice by Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, R-PA, on behalf of Boehner (or most likely his Brutus, Eric Cantor)when Fitzpatrick was selected to be the Speaker Pro Temp symbolized so much of what is wrong with politics nowadays. Would it have really put so many people out of synch in the House if Min. Whip Hoyer and Rep. Van Holland were able to introduce a bill that would’ve died on a simple party-line vote? Well, maybe there weren’t enough GOP members there to justify even holding the rump “pro forma” session ruse used to keep the President from making any recess appointments when the Senate was out of session. (Which should beg the other obvious question…why would a Republican even be allowed to sit in the Speaker’s chair that day if a simple roll-call demonstrated a greater number of Democrats who demonstrated the sufficient committment to fulfill their Congressional duties.)
  Hoyer did what he was supposed to do, approaching the Chair (Fitzpatrick)and immediately, in mid-sentence, he was cut down in such a way only a banana-republic or communist party apparatchik could love in China, Vietnam, NoKorea and Cuba. Fitzpatrick then slunked, (watch the video!—he slunked!) off the Speaker’s podium and as Hoyer clearly reminded the American public as this was going on ... away from the public, the American tax-paying public. This is what happens when the oligarchs take over what they have the nerve to still call “The People’s House,” all the while declaring themselves to be such ardent constitutionalists. HA!
  Why do I care so much about this? I’m not one of Fitzpaptrick’s constituents. I’m neither a Democrat or Republican. And I do believe sensible minds will come to some solution to this vexing bill soon enough. However, my personal angle to this is one of sheer embarrassment and shame for what a fellow alum of Biscayne College (when it was still just Biscayne, then a small Catholic college, now a part of St. Thomas University) did to the nation, the institution he is PRIVILEGED to represent his constituents in, Congress, and all of his fellow alums for his display of gutless water-bucket-carrying, gavel-slamming, and silencing of the loyal opposition, then voiced in the persons of Hoyer and Van Holland.
  When people across the nation and world watch that stuff going on in Congress, what must they be thinking of what’s really going on in this country as a whole? And I’m wondering what’s going on in the head of a supposedly well-educated man (and despite all the jokes about colleges in the South, “basket-weaving” wasn’t taught at Biscayne; nor for that matter, were any gut-courses ... yet I could find dozens of ‘em listed in catalogues in supposedly “superior” and older and “more prestigious” northern schools) when he showed his willingness to so-to-speak, click his heels on behalf of party loyalty when doing so meant it in both short and long terms, a horrible display of arrogance. What price doth thou want to pay for demonstrating party loyalty, Mr. Fitzpatrick?
  Yes, Fitzpatrick is a well-educated man, who earned a law degree after graduating from Biscayne. That means little to persons like myself who also received solid and well-rounded liberal arts educations, yet never forgot where they learned their real political street smarts. Those lessons are always best taught by the people you have to humbly ask for their votes on a regular basis and never forget who they are and why they’re so crucial.
  The GOP pols pay too much attention to the pollster nonsense cranked out by the likes of Karl Rove, Frank Luntz and grovel too freely to media-hyped n’ packaged gauleiters like Grover Norquist. If they only read the first and last chapters of Tip O’Neill’s “Man of the House,” they might start to resemble humble public servants again. After all, all politics is local, as Tip said over and over and over. Yes, and he was a guy who died in his long-owned home in the same neighborhood he grew up in. He never forgot his roots, or in the case of even Fitzpatrick, the roots of political science as he would’ve learned from the Church’s Tradition and from the Augustinian priests who taught him at Biscayne.
  No wonder the public’s turned off, especially when Fitzpatrick’s own party is so heavily involved in efforts to also suppress voter turn out in the poorer precincts across the country.
  What the heck are they afraid of? They’ll find out if they learn more from us than the likes of Rove, Luntz and Norquist. And if they’re street-smarter and sufficiently humble enough, they might work towards finding solutions to benefit all classes of society, not just those with the deep pockets.

Any Catholics who intend to vote for Barack Obama or for the Republican who would least likely be the truest pro-lifer in the bunch, listen to three biting pieces of advice: 1. If you dance with the devil, you are bound to get tripped. 2. If you get into bed with the devil, don’t be surprised if you get raped. 3. If you marry the spirit of the age, you’ll always end up a widow.