Comments on: I would consider voting for Obama if…

By: Sean Leslie

Sean Leslie — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 06:07:41 +0000

Ah but not voting for either of these two just might ignore the fact that there might be a strong degree of difference in the degree of unacceptability. I doubt very much that I could convince a determined young woman not to have an abortion. As for McCain, I’m doubt very much that I could convince him not to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. But perhaps there is an ethical difference here. It could be argued that McCain needs to prevent Iran from getting the bomb to avoid a greater evil of their being a non-deterable leadership that is willing to nuke Israel or us, and would also be willing to blackmail Israel or us because the crazy mullahs don’t CARE about the consequences! Therefore, I think its hard to try and reason what is our best course of action; we can reason up to a point, and we should, but I think even then only God knows what is best and we should be patient and ask Him in humble prayer to guide and convict us. We might not know what to do until November. And I think it is wise to see where certain others who have been admirable might go – Colin Powell, for instance. It is after all still very possible that the right thing is to vote to avoid the lesser evil. Maybe McCain is too old, hot-headed, and trigger happy. Maybe to avoid that, I have to vote for someone who is soft on life issues. God knows and is capable of guiding me to the best I can discern.

By: Zippy

Zippy — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 01:32:21 +0000

“Refusing to choose … is the opposite of capitulation.” Give any other contemporary example where this is the case.

That is a question-begging omission. Refusing to choose one of those specific two is the opposite of capitulation.

Another example is refusing to choose between supporting (1) a massive land invasion based on a requirement of unconditional surrender where millions of civilians are killed and (2) nuking Hiroshima. Choosing one of those is capitulation to evil; refusing both is the opposite of capitulation.

Refusing to choose between (1) invading Iraq and (2) surrendering to terrorism.

Refusing to choose between (1) Legalizing abortion and (2) leaving poor women and children on the street.

Contemporary life is filled with false choices presented by idealogues, often idealogues who hold power. Going along with false choices is the easy way, is capitulation, is inherently the path of despair.

By: M.Z. Forrest

M.Z. Forrest — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:56:05 +0000

Kevin hits much closer to what the objective of the Third Party Vote or refusing to vote is: “refusing to be complicit in [] the electoral farce.”

“Refusing to choose … is the opposite of capitulation.” Give any other contemporary example where this is the case.

By: Zippy

Zippy — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:46:04 +0000

Refusing to choose one of two unacceptable options is the opposite of capitulation. Choosing one of two unacceptable options is an act of despair.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:45:12 +0000

“The non-voter is merely indifferent to the slaugher of children and the waging of unjust war.”

Just the opposite. By voting for a 3rd party alternative or skipping the charade at the top of the ballot, one is refusing to be complicit in both the electoral farce and the continuation of all aspects of the Revolution against God.

Personal credibility is vital to laboring in the vineyards. I can’t imagine many in my parish taking my pro-life activities seriously after publicly extolling the virtues of Obama. As for McCain, those supporting him appear to so with a sense of shame missing from the abortion regime collaborators.

The assumption here is that one’s activities extend beyond pounding on the keyboard. If that’s not the case, folks don’t care much anyways, and the verdict on voting for a Merchant of Death is one that will be delayed until the Final Judgement.

By: M.Z. Forrest

M.Z. Forrest — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:36:24 +0000

And refusing to vote is somehow not capitulation because…

By: Zippy

Zippy — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:25:48 +0000

The non-voter is merely indifferent to the slaugher of children and the waging of unjust war.

Right. Capitulation is strength. Keep telling yourself that.

By: M.Z. Forrest

M.Z. Forrest — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:25:37 +0000

Why would one be required to be a fatalist to conclude that competing candidates support a given proposition and act under the consideration of other propositions? I believe that is called prudence. It is also unclear to me how the person who makes a choice between the two is engaging in an act of despair as opposed to the person who does nothing.

The non-voter is merely indifferent to the slaugher of children and the waging of unjust war.

By: Zippy

Zippy — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:00:50 +0000

I don’t see by what logical function you would see selecting between the two competing candidates as fatalist, but since you state is is profound, it must be.

It is really quite simple. One candidate supports – very firmly supports – dismembering live children at the whims of their mothers, and medical cannibalism of children. The other supports waging unjust ‘preventative’ war and, in a show of unity with the other candidate, the medical cannibalism of children. Only a fatalist could simultaneously fully grasp the truth of the matter and vote for either one. Doing so is inherently an act of despair — unless, I suppose, the voter doesn’t mind dismembering children, cannibalizing children, or waging unjust wars. I make the (perhaps rash) assumption that on a Catholic blog people mind those things a great deal.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:12:00 +0000

The Scandal, including Mahony’s personal role, is an epic story of Betrayal. The lives ruined, the loss of faith by so many, the stigma unfairly attached to priests, and the squandering of badly needed resources, is on a level that is yet to be fully absorbed by all who love the Church. I suppose we each contributed to it in some way. How could something so large occur without massive spiritual complicity?

Denial or lawyerly defenses are not an option. Some demons can only be expelled by fasting and prayer, and a life of fidelity in things both large and small is our only option. Still, in addition to lighting candles, one must to paraphrase Neuhaus, curse the darkness, if only to keep from getting used to it.

By: c matt

c matt — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:00:46 +0000

Well, there is a difference between Bush/Cheney and Obama/Whomever when it comes to influence – Bush picked Cheney because he needed someone to actually advise him, Obama is looking for window dressing to shore up support where he is weak (not unlike Edwards was chosen by Kerry to get some southern comfort and a great hairdo to boot!).

By: M.Z. Forrest

M.Z. Forrest — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:01:54 +0000

At one time I thought I saw many false shepherds, and I don’t say it as a point of pride. Reading Bishop Bruskewicz’s “A Shepherd Speaks” aided me in recognizing my own blind spots. That was a bit odd given that I was reading it to affirm myself in my own prejudices.

I guess I don’t see a conflict between going to the secular authorities with a report of a crime and being faithful to a bishop. In the grand scheme of things, my opinion of bishops in their personal faculties has probably lowered over the years. Tending toward idealism, I have desired to see authorities in work, business, and religion as good people or at least better people. I just don’t anymore or to put it differently I don’t find their failings incomprehsible compared to the pedesterian failings. In regards to cuts and what not, I can’t see how I would have chosen differently, so I can’t condemn them for imprudence. It is what it is.