Fr. James Schall explains…

…why no Catholic in his or her right mind should vote for Obama. Yes. He really does intend to persecute and smash Catholic conscience and do as much damage as possible to the Church. That is, for him, not a bug but a feature. Do not support his war on Catholic conscience.

"Why is the notion of moral trajectory unCatholic? Do you equate civilization with history?BTW the ..."

The Umpteenth Iteration of “You Made ..."
"To clarify the above: The U.S. Bishops recommended "a community-based case management program", as well ..."

Lying Mob Boss pauses to change ..."
"Then I would question any reference to the president of the US as president of ..."

All that Happened at the Border ..."
"I don’t know that they gave to preserve criminal prosecution as that option already exists.Right. ..."

Lying Mob Boss pauses to change ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I agree no Catholic (or Christian of any stripe) should vote for Obama. The problem comes in when you consider the alternatives (as you Mark always relentlessly point out). Do we then vote for the Republican reptile; the literal Obama Mini-Me? Maybe yes, as at least as a Mini-O, the Reptile will issue a slower death sentence than Big-O. It may buy us some time to reverse the trend. Or it just may make the death slower (not always a good alternative) and more subject to the illusion that health is returning.

    I dont’ know at this point. I do suspect that those who vote third party this time around are more from the potential Reptile camp than from the God-King camp, though I may be wrong. However, if I am right, than a vote for third party instead of the lessor of two weevils (to quote another Catholic Blogger) is in essence a vote for Big-O in terms of result. I was convinced I was going not vote for evil at any level this time around. Maybe that was MY illusion, as evil if intrinsic in all decisions that involve people and politics (or anything else for that matter).

    So I am still undecided, though leaning back toward the Reptile. Maybe I have to realize, as flawed and basically useless as the two party system is, this is the situation in which God has place us. We must make the best of it, and remain–after whoever we vote for–the opposition; keeping our loyalties toward Christ and not who we tripped the level for.

    • ivan_the_mad

      I must disagree. A vote for a third-party candidate is just that. If I check Tom Bombadil, his vote count is incremented, not Obama’s. The problem with talking about a voter “more from the potential Reptile camp” and the net result being “a vote for Big-O” is that it’s premised on the hypothetical “If you had to choose between the two …”, and that somehow you can finagle someone’s answer from that hypothetical into practical action. You don’t have to choose between the two.

      • Andy, Bad Person

        This. People need to get over the idea that you can “vote against” anyone. You have a vote, and a vote is a positive count, not a negative one. A vote for Bombadil (we should really get him on the ballot) cannot subtract from Obamney’s count.

  • Oops. “lever” not “level”

  • Jmac

    Hoo boy, this is going to be a fun combox. *Grabs popcorn*

  • ds

    Sorry Jmac. Proving dissapointing so far.

    I would consider voting FOR Obama BECAUSE of the HHS mandate.

    • ivan_the_mad

      I am outraged beyond reason at your statement! Be brow-beaten into my way of thinking with this irresistible counter-argument: Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberry!!!!

    • Hezekiah Garrett

      It’s funny, we might vote the same way. You hate the Church. I hate your nation.

      History says that if we both encourage the present path, my ancestors’ enemies will be vanquished like the Hohenstaufen.

      I can’t figure for the life of me why you’d vote this way though, except that petulant children make petulant choices.

      • ds

        I love the church, I love this country. I just think the church is wrong on this one. Or a portion of the church.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          There is absolutely nothing in your entire history of comments that leads me to believe you in the least.

          And I hate terribly to burst your bubble, but that portion is the overwhelming majority throughout time. You’re in an incredibly small minority. But by all means, PLEASE attempt force the Church into aquiescing to your little ideology.

          I’ll roast corn in the pyres that will be America!

          • ds

            U mad, bro?.jpg

            (cant post pics in comments here)

            • Hezekiah Garrett

              Of course not. I am deadly serious, but why be mad? I struggle mightily with the desire to see America actually try this. She’ll boil herself to rags and we’ll contend with what comes next. I probably won’t be able to bring myself to do it, in good conscience.

              But I am not about to discourage you and your cohort from doing so. In fact, I dare you.

  • Mark R

    We Catholics may just have to face the fact that we are in the minority and be happy with our small portion. It is a little late for the small number of Catholic leadership to care about our rights of conscience after letting things slide for so long…but it is not as though we elected them anyway.

  • Kirt Higdon

    Has anyone noticed that political elections are the only area of human endeavor where we are constantly told that we must choose evil, albeit the lesser one? What does this tell us about politics as a profession being a proximate occasion of sin for the overwhelming majority of people? And what does it tell us about this supposedly ideal form of government called democracy?

  • Ted Seeber

    Fr. James Schall teaches at Georgetown. Is he willing to start with his own college administration?

    I hate to say it- but I think primacy of conscience has turned out to be as big of a theological misinterpretation as sola scriptura- with the same result.

  • Well, actually we always choose between the lessor of two evils. Everything has consequences. That is the kingly task, in essence. For example: in warfare, how many lives do we sacrifice in order to achieve an objective; maybe to the point of purposely sending troops on a suicide mission in order to distract them from the forces that are flanking them on the other three sides.

    Another example, how do we set speed limits; how many highway deaths are acceptable in order to facilitate better and quicker transportation? Do we restrict freedom in order to mandate seatbelts; smoke-free restaurants; etc. Do I spend time reading Mark’s blog to the exclusion of other blogs (well, maybe that is a choice between best and better…). You get the idea. For everything there is a cost; not just in politics.

    And I am not convinced about the third party option, as much as I would like to believe it relieves me of responsibility. The fact is votes for the third party do draw votes away from one of the two candidates who really stand a chance of winning.. This is a two party system, like it or not. The rest is illusion (though one could argue the same for the two party system). Again, I am wrestling with this issue, not convinced myself of either direction.

    • Hezekiah Garrett

      Evil is not an entity. It does not exist. It is only a deprivation and/or warping of Good. We do not always choose between evils. Sometimes we must, but even in warfare, not all options are lacking in goodness. See St. Francis on Crusade.

      We could forego harnessing hellfire in order to propel ourselves and our consumable goods (far more important than our selves to some!) at unGodly speeds. We don’t have to choose an acceptable number of deaths. We can recognise these steel and plastic beasts we’ve created are infernally dangerous, and cease producing them.

      No, we choose the lesser evil often because we’re too cowardly or lazy to choose Good. Lord knows I do anyway.

    • ivan_the_mad

      ” The fact is votes for the third party do draw votes away from one of the two candidates who really stand a chance of winning.”

      Again, this is bad reasoning. As I wrote above: It’s premised on the hypothetical “If you had to choose between the two …”, and that somehow you can finagle someone’s answer from that hypothetical into practical action. You don’t have to choose between the two.

  • Frank Weathers
  • dave_d_ca

    The problem is in our very pews. It starts with seemingly “small” disagreements. Pew sitters thinking contraception is a “right” or homosexual behavior is about love. The constant secular drum-beat (rooted in Protestantism) that “the Church is wrong” wears down some that should be strong and clear, our priests and bishops. Lord, have mercy on us.