More On How/If A Catholic Should Vote

This past Sunday I wrote a post entitled Voting and the Principle of Double Effect.  It was also published on Spero Forum.  It was occasioned by an interview between Rebecca Desirio and Michael Voris on Blogtalk Radio.  I detailed all that in my previous post.

Rebecca got wind of my post and contacted me.  We exchanged some emails.  Then on August 21st she had Michael back on her show; they revisited the question of a Catholic vote for Romney (understanding of course that a Catholic vote for Obama would be hideous beyond description and God have mercy on those Catholics who do vote for Obama).  The podcast is here.  At 2:33 she starts to describe our exchange.  He noticed that I cited Msgr William Smith (and I believe I described him fully in the email) - more on him in a few minutes.


At 5:12, when the Principle of Double Effect is mentioned, Michael opined that most listeners wouldn't know what we were discussing in regards to that Principle.  Regrettably he's correct, thanks to the dismal state of Catholic education today.  I wouldn't have known of it myself had I not seen that tape series of Msgr Smith's advertised somewhere.  Being painfully aware of the inferiority of my own post-Vatican-II education, I've made it a point to gather my own materials and so I ordered the series immediately.  That was a bit before internet marketing and mp3 files made the distribution of information so convenient.  So now for a commercial - go get that series immediately.  It's right here - the Fundamentals of Moral Theology, a 10-part download (the Principle of Double Effect is treated in part 4).  In this day and age when many priests are too wimpy or liberal to preach objective truth themselves, we must be proactive and educate ourselves - but I digress.

Below is today's Vortex, where Michael continues his thoughts regarding the election.  Click here if you can't see embedded video.  Here are some comments before the post.  I caution you to listen all the way through, lest you get the erroneous impression that he advocates abstention from the presidential vote.  At 1:31 he utilizes the "lesser of two evils" language; that is both unfortunate and inaccurate, for reasons I discussed in my post on Sunday.  That overly-simplistic paradigm does not do justice to the various aspects and ramifications of this election that must be considered if one is to make an informed - and thus moral - decision.  We hear him emphasize, at 1:36, the phrase "short-term strategy" as though "short-term" renders the strategy inferior.  Well, it's often the case that if we don't concentrate on "short-term", there will be no "long-term" whatsoever.  This is one of those scenarios.  I believe if Obama wins a second term, we may well not see another free election again, rendering moot any "long-term considerations".

Michael states that 5 of the 8 previous elections saw Republicans in the White House and abortion is still the law of the land.  True - but what of Congress?  Legislation originates from Congress, not the White House (although the Messiah Most Miserable will quite likely change that if he wins).  What that means is that we need good solid conservatives in Congress - points with which Michael agrees.

As far as "good ole boy" networks in the GOP (I call them RINOs), I am in absolute agreement.  The Tea Party is a great start.  However, this movement has been in existence less than 4 years - not enough time to have a thorough impact on the GOP (although much promise is evident).  They need to be given their pink slips.  However, the November 2012 elections is not the venue in which to execute this coup.  We must all vote for Romney if we want any chance of turning this culture around.

One last comment.  This vote is not a "hold your nose" moment.  This is a "get control of your emotions, mortify them and beat them into submission if necessary" moment.  With God's help we just might slow the train wreck down a bit, to buy some time to pray and work for the Christian renaissance we desperately need.