AmericanPapist Comments
There's a point where voting
a: does nothing to improve the situation
b: allows politicians to continue the charade
We may not have gotten there yet, but I suspect we are close. And when we reach this point, then Catholics shouldn't vote at all because to do so would merely serve to prop up evil.
In a democracy, the only voices that are heard are the ones that vote. Which is why, barring extreme situations, I agree with the bishop that Catholics ought vote, even when one candidate is only barely more palatable than the other. To not vote at all is to say nothing...and is only acceptable if you've made the effort to have your voice heard by a) supporting an alternate candidate's campaign or b) offered yourself as a candidate. But being completely uninvolved in the political process is to stand by and say nothing while evil is normalized.
I also abhor 'strategic voting' where one only votes for a candidate that is supposedly 'electable', or avoids voting for an alternate candidate because of fears of 'splitting the vote'. What major parties and politicians learn from third party and rogue candidates is which positions and policies they ought to consider incorporating into the mainstream. I don't frankly think Ron Paul is 'electable' - but the more votes he gets in the primaries, the more impact his platform will have on the national discussion and on future candidates.
On the other hand, when prolife Christians vote for Guiliani's nomination because they think he can beat Hilary - and only because they think he can beat Hilary - then they send the message that neither party needs to consider the pro-life vote in the future. Better 4 years of Hilary and a re-invigorated conservative core in the next election, than selling out for the foreseeable future.
Wow...I didn't realize I had so much to say!
I see nothing wrong with abstaining, so long as one has a serious reason for it. If you were forced to choose between two gravely flawed candidates, one would be justified for taking a step back and not voting at all. That said, I think it has to be a grave moral; one cannot opt to abstain from voting because the choice is between two unsatisfactory tax plans.
I guess the above was all assertion with no argument. My reasoning is this: to support a candidate who is gravely flawed (e.g., pro-abortion or torture) would be to implicitly endorse and advance that flaw. If the choice is between two gravely flawed candidates, it seems that to fall back upon some consequentialist calculus of who would do the least harm is to invite the question of why we would not permit that in figuring between a gravely flawed and not gravely flawed candidate.
As someone who lives in the Diocese of Manchester, I see this from a slightly different angle - I'm just glad the Diocese is finally speaking directly to us about these things. The state has taken a decided turn "leftward" in the past few years and for a variety of reasons (the role of our Bishop in the sex abuse crisis being only one of them) the voice of the Head Shepherd has not been heard.
Yes, the document could have made a stronger point about the hierarchy of values, but this is far better than anything we've seen here thus far and, given that it's based largely on Forming Consciences the terminology should sound fairly familiar to most here. I blogged more about it here. I, for one, am very glad to see the document which clearly had much hard work done on it before it was finished.
As a Catholic NH voter, and one of Bishop McCormack's seminarians, I was very impressed with this document. This is the kind of guidance that should come from Bishops. I am very proud to be part of the Diocese of Manchester, and am encouraged to hear the voice of our Bishop. I hope that other bishops follow suit. Abstaining from voting is irresponsible citizenship and is simply NOT a Catholic thing to do. One is obligated as a citizen to vote as a matter of conscience. If none of the candidates are suitable, and that certainly can be the case, then simply don't vote for either, write in someone or vote third party. There are very few serious reasons for not voting, and I would argue that anyone commenting on a blog does not have a serious reason not to vote. People have died for the right to vote, and so many Americans don't simply because they don't care. Of course one should be an informed voter, and is obligated to be.
I'm pleased to see Bishop McCormack becoming visible. It's a very pleasant change.
The State has taken a turn for the worst over the years. From supporting childrens abortions without parental consent; to the Catholic Governor NH giving his blessings to homosexual unions. Hopefully the Bishop can guide us back away from a roadmap to Gehenna.
I have to agree with Adam and Pavegs - I've been waiting for a word from Ash Street (aka the Diocesean offices) for years now. I think it would only be right and proper for us to write to the Bishop and express our gratitude - he's likely to take some bullets for this and without being supported by his people this kind of work may not happen again. I'm not normally much of a letters-and-cards kind of person, but this is certainly reason to get out the quill and scribe.
Anybody remember (well, remember reading about) the "non expedit" decrees of the late 19th century in Italy?
Did Thomas More "vote"?
It seems some of you don't realize that not voting is an action. It is noticeable. It can be a moral choice.
To make an extremely simple analogy- if there were a game in which we must vote, but at the end someone dies, then we wouldn't merely be charged with playing the game in a way to minize death; rather our moral choice would be to stop playing the game.
We cannot support evil – no matter how small – so that good may come of it (cf. Rom. 3: 8). Voting for a candidate that supports unacceptable policies, even if they are less unacceptable than those of his opponent, is an evil. My conscience keeps me from voting until I find a candidate that represents Christ:
Theocracy
Thank goodness the current Republican front-runner is neither a lapsed Catholic nor a bought-and-paid-for phony.
Mike Huckabee: "I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. As President, I will fight for passage of this amendment. My convictions regarding the sanctity of life have always been clear and consistent, without equivocation or wavering."
Source: http://www.catholic.org/national...ry.php?
id=26206
I would like to encourage all Catholic and conservative bloggers to learn more about Mike Huckabee and install his support buttons and widgets available at www.mikehuckabee.com in an effort to increase the number of enthusiastic endorsements this great man so richly deserves.
I am StubbleSpark, and I approve of Mike Huckabee.
If you have any questions, comments, or complaints feel free to email me.
I think Ron Paul is a better candidate than Mike Huckabee, although I respect Huckabee very much and agree with much of his platform because much of it seems to be in agreement with Catholic and moral values.
Personally, I have a beef with anyone whose Middle East policy includes throwing Israel to the blood-thirsty dogs and hope that appeases them.
Appeasement will not work with terrorism nor will hoping they will just go away.
Not to mention the fact that, because of the upturn in the war and the subsequent effects being touted by even the liberal media, the type of anti-war opposition Paul touts is becoming a less tenable political position. Hence the popularity of Hilary Clinton vice Obama among change-oriented Democrats.
But of course pointing out the unpopularity of a given candidate's views can also be a very polite way of saying those views are wrong wrong wrong.
Which is what Ron Paul is, frankly. And I cannot stand the idea of a self-hating American taking the highest office in the land.
Finally, I would hope that despite his views, Ron Paul would have the moral fortitude to denounce the White Supramacists who openly campaign for him and return their money.
To this date, he has done neither and I think that speaks volumes for his political opportunism.
http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10...007/10/25/rpb1/
http://www.davidduke.com/general...-
paul_2126.html
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/....html#more-
1041
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn...te-supremacist/
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/7...21-
8f606d586ad0
Last I checked, the ideologies of the KKK include hatred of "Katholics."
So does the moral obligation to vote only apply to presidential elections? Or do we have a moral obligation to vote for every single election that comes our way, from president to dog catcher? If the presidential election only, just the general election or the primary, too? Must I also vote for every race or issue on the ballot? If I go to the polling place intending to vote on candidate X for president, but realize there are also some candidates for railroad commissioner, must I also vote in that race? Is it a moral shortcoming of mine that I failed to research those candidates?
Cody,
No.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
