2016 Presidential Election Thread

Oh Padraid, you come up with the funniest videos. Made me giggle

 

Catholics are not required to vote for the lesser of two evils. I personally would rather have a smaller minority party that stands for God than a larger one that gradually (or not so gradually) drifts to evil. Do I really want Trump to be in charge of the party so he can put his liberal cronies in leadership? I think to get rid of the cancer we must first cut deep to the root of the problem.

Pope Benedict once spoke of the problems that the Church faces foresaw something very similar. I see it as a sign of the times.

“The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes . . . she will lose many of her social privileges. . . As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members. ”

“And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already with Gobel, but the Church of faith. She may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently; but she will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man’s home, where he will find life and hope beyond death.”

 

I understand where you are coming from but I just can't let her win, this is exactly what she wants the decent people to do - not vote. I keep reminding myself over and over again that this next president will appoint Supreme Court justices.

(She has everyone lying on her behalf, do you really believe most of what Trump said at the debate was false?)

 

I don't think one can excuse a non-vote in this election by comparing it to past elections involving typical politicians. This one definitely can't be based on voting for any so called traditional "pro-life" political party type nominee....over and over again, with no good outcome for the trouble....esp. since those party traditional types hate their nominee this time around who is recognized and gained his popularity based on being an outsider and doesn't care what the heck those usuals of that party think of him. That's already been demonstrated. And those who seemed to have been most likely to carry forth some kind of preventative measures within our gov. for life or family or marriage have had that missing ingredient in their persons ..... and that is to place themselves and their little fiefdoms to the side and grow some @$%^#! In other words what have they sacrificed in like ways.....like personal power, connections, and more material rewards..... So again, no comparison to the past or even the "usual suspects" this time around!

 

I can only go by what the fact checkers state. According to them, both candidates had many false statements. Again disinformation from both sides. That is why either way I am going to be at peace. The year of mercy ends 11/20/16 and I am working on making sure I am right with God, so my family and I will be able to move on. No matter who wins, it will probably be a rough ride. As a side note, I was able to go to Rome in Sept 2016. I went through the holy door. I saw hundreds go through the door, many with no idea what it was. All were blessed by God. This is one area the Pope was definitely led by God. I am not going to despair, because God has some great surprises in store for us, especially if we are faithful to his will wherever we live.

 

Thank you for your post. You said it better than I could ever had. God bless you.

 

P.S. And btw, also not in line with former candidates, Mr. Trump has already shown his selections, by name, for important life and family issues....military, etc., but esp. for SCOTUS. Others in the past gave the talk to get elected and totally whimped out when the going got tough....even AFTER Obama humiliated them before the world for being the only ones showing the willingness to cooperate with him. You can't make deals with the devil or show any weakness that can be taken advantage of....just because you want to feel like a "good person". They can't and haven't shown any desire to deal with the real world....just the opposite....they want to remain in their own protected little world no matter the cost to their souls.

And this Year of Mercy isn't declared in order to keep the Church small, but instead wishes to cooperate with Christ's "unfathomable" Mercy offered to all and follow His request to get out and convince all that one meets of that Mercy....before it's too late. After that, and the Warning, it's up to God to separate the stubborn goats from the sheep....not us!

 

So let's get ready for the warning.

 

Sometimes it may even be God's Mercy that places a loved child in a situation where it can finally overwhelm him with its personal "horror" into a realization of past failures towards Him and finally cause a real chance for truth and repentance to win out! A mirror upheld to see one's true self?

 

Should the Allies in World War II have refused the Soviet Union as an ally at the risk of losing the war? Was this choice of a lesser of two evils immoral and, if so, can anyone provide a reference to its condemnation by The Church.

If Hitler and Mussolini were running against one another in a fantasy two-horse race, I'd vote for Mussolini.

These are prudential matters, and it is not always appropriate to apply amateur moral theology to them. The moral theologians of The Church are rightly cautious about being overly zealous in these matters. We all know in our gut that one cannot vote for a candidate enthusiastic for abortion. Abortion is not only an absolute evil, it is the greatest breach of human rights involving the mass-slaughter of helpless innocents. Some evils are not so clear-cut. Would Catholics be obliged not to vote for a candidate who, while personally not in favour of contraceptives, would not object to their use by others?

If we get too particular, we'll only succeed in disenfrachising ourselves. In other words, disempowering ourselves. It's pointless bemoaning how bad a Trump government would be if instead people let in a certainly worse Clinton one. Bad is preferable to worse, if that is the only choice available. In this case, Purgatory beats Hell!

 

I don't trust the fact checkers.

And I am truly beginning to believe that both parties are worried about what dirt Trump will uncover if he is elected.

 

Wrong.

The general rule is that Catholics have a duty to vote. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country [Rom 13:7]

Further clarification is given by Fathers Heribert Jone, OFM Cap. and Henry Davis, SJ. Speaking of the duty to vote and when it could be sinful not to, Fr. Jone writes:

"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. [Moral Theology (Dublin: Mercier Press, 1929, 1955)]

Similarly, Fr. Davis writes:

"It is the duty of all citizens who have the right to vote, to exercise that right when the common good of the State or the good of religion and morals require their votes, and when their voting is useful. It is sinful to vote for the enemies of religion or liberty... [Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 2, Chapter V, 4th Commandment, p. 90 (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1935, 1959)]


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] http://www.ewtn.com/vote/voting_faq.htm

 

While I would welcome a global "Warning," reading today's Gospel leads me to suspect that "the Warning" might be contrary to the way God operates. While it is true that God performs miracles throughout history, and even at large, public gatherings like at Fatima, these miracles never violate Free Will. A Global "Warning" seems forced and just doesn't seem to be the way God operates and in fact if you read today's first reading you will see that the only "sign" promised to us is the sign of Christ crucified:

While still more people gathered in the crowd, Jesus said to them,
“This generation is an evil generation;
it seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it,
except the sign of Jonah.
Just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites,
so will the Son of Man be to this generation.
At the judgment
the queen of the south will rise with the men of this generation
and she will condemn them,
because she came from the ends of the earth
to hear the wisdom of Solomon,
and there is something greater than Solomon here.
At the judgment the men of Nineveh will arise with this generation
and condemn it,
because at the preaching of Jonah they repented,
and there is something greater than Jonah here.”

LK 11:29-32


The fact is that humanity doesn't need a "Warning" to know Christ or to repent because the Catholic Church and her Sacraments provide all of that already. If anything is coming, it is not a "Warning" but rather chastisement and punishment to a world that has fully - and with full knowledge - drunk deeply of the cup of Sin.

 

This election has demonstrated once and for all that the majority of the Media is neither unbiased nor independent. Every one of the two Presidential and one VP debates thus far has been biased against Trump and Pence as evidenced by the disgusting and biased tactics of the moderators. I was glad to see Trump get into the moderators faces last night. I have never witnessed such a coordinated assault on one candidate as I have during this election. The Media is now confirming what most of us long knew: they are simply an extension of the State Department and serve the interests of the Establishment rather than the interests of Truth. This pattern of Media collusion is also on display with the demonization of Putin and Assad.

I am ever more convinced that war with Russia is on the table and this is one of the primary reasons why the Establishment, both Left and Right, has become so terrified of Trump. They know if he wins, their decades of unjust warmongering will have been for nothing.

 

It really isn't my desire to get into a back and forth over politics here...

It is curious however that you neglected to highlight the preceding sentence:

"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. [Moral Theology (Dublin: Mercier Press, 1929, 1955)]"

Please do not waste anybody's time trying to argue that Trump is a "good" candidate.

This is not a case of black & white like Fr. Davis was talking about.

I have voted in the primary. I intend to vote in the general election as well- I think it is important as congress makes the laws/confirms judicial appointments/etc. But in no way will I willingly put into place an atheist liberal politician as head of the only major party to stand up to life and morality.

Never. Going. To. Happen.

 

I believe that the Warning/Illumination of Conscience will happen and Jesus told Saint Faustina why, no other reasoning is required and it is up to you if you want to believe it or not. Maybe it will happen before the election as a message to all of us.

 

"Good" in this context means a candidate willing to limit intrinsic evil. Trump passes that test because he has vowed to limit the greatest intrinsic evil of our time while his opponent is a member of a Party that has support for the greatest intrinsic evil of our time built right in to the Party platform.

 

Please don't waste anybody's time twisting the meaning of "good" in Father Jone's statement.

 

Yeah, actually it is. The difference between a candidate that supports intrinsic evil and one who vows to limit intrinsic evil is in fact a case of black and white morality.

 

LOL! You call Trump "an atheist, liberal politician" and say you would never put him as head of the Republican Party. So, I have a question: did you vote for Mitt Romney, a Freemason and a member of the Mormon cult? Did you support Ted Cruz, a member of a heretical religion? See, according to your logic, there is no candidate who you could ever vote for because they all have flaws. But the difference between flawed people like Trump, Romney and Cruz is that even though they are flawed they still vowed to limit intrinsic evils and so Catholics were justified and are justified in voting for them.

Also, you say you are going to vote, but not for Trump. That is disingenuous. A vote for anyone but Trump at this point is a virtual vote for Hillary.