The Duties Of The Church And Of Catholic Citizens

A few months ago, Father Ripperger gave a talk regarding the duties of the Church and how the Church's (those in the hierarchy) failed, beginning in the early part of the 20th century.  He pointed out that what happens in the Church in terms of sin or virtue is reflected in the world at large 40 or so years later.  I think common sense should tell us that.  So many think that things went haywire only in the 1960s.  However, the rot started long before then; it just became impossible to ignore anymore starting in the 1960s. 

In this follow-up session, Father outlines what he believes should be our strategy.

Notice how he believes that it's too late to avert the chastisement - the full brunt of it.  However, because this was most likely released before the Dobbs ruling overturned Roe v Wade, I think the information at Father's disposal at the time this talk was given may now be obsolete.  I don't think the overturn of Roe and the subsequent outlawing of abortion in several states can possibly have no impact on the chastisements to come.  Evil was dealt a setback; that's why so many pro-aborts and progressives are marauding against churches and pregnancy centers.

As far as his proposed strategy, I did find some things upon which I look askance.  Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall hearing anything about Our Lady of Fatima's urgent request for the daily Rosary from each and every Catholic.  Also apparently missing is our duty to bring the truth of Christ into the public sphere.  Among other things, that necessitates political involvement; as United States citizens, it is our solemn responsibility to utilize our rights to at least retard the flow of evil in society.

Maryland Catholics of voting age thus have a duty to get to the polls tomorrow for primary elections and select candidates who will stand for God's truth regarding the sanctity of life and sanctity of marriage and human sexuality, not to mention the rights of parents to influence their children's education, not to have sinful vaccines thrust upon them, the right to defend themselves against unjust aggression, etc.

How The Seamless Garment Nonsense Poisons The Mind And Soul

This is the eve of the presidential election.  It's worth a reminder that faithful Catholics simply cannot vote for Joe Biden, for to do so is to formally and materially cooperate with the mortal sin of abortion that he openly supports.  Many good people, including faithful priests, are stating that we, as faithful Catholics, simply cannot vote for any Democrat because they all embrace their God-hating, anti-life platform.  I for one heartily concur.

However, too many Catholics have swallowed the seamless-garment codswallop and are letting lesser issues blind them to the heinous evils of abortion, euthanasia, homosexual perversions, etc.  The Lepanto Institute has uncovered evidence that the CCHD is funding organizations that are supporting Biden and all the other anti-God bile.  This information is crucial, not only for the election, but for two other reasons:

1. Most dioceses in the US will be conducting their in-pew collections for the CCHD this month.  They must be completely boycotted.  I'll have more pointers on that in a future post.
2. There are some former pro-life leaders who have become embroiled in leftwing "social justice warrior" distractions.  These distractions have so robbed them of mental and spiritual clarity that they are publicly supporting pro-abortion Joe Biden.  

Click on that second link and go down about 1/3 of the page, where Hichborn discusses what Dolores Huerta says.  She points out the cross-sectionality between the immigrant rights movement, the workers' movement, the LGBT movement and the pro-abortion movement.  As the saying goes, the broken clock is correct at least twice a day.  All those progressive causes intersect, and the pro-life person who dilly-dallies in one will find him/herself seduced by all the others.  Two years ago I wrote of Rob Schenck, a former leader who did an about-face and now supports Roe v Wade.  Regrettably he is voting for Joe Biden.  Now I am saddened to learn that Father Paul Schenck (Rob's identical twin), a Catholic priest, has also announced his support for Biden.  His statement appears on his brother's blog.  Note his reasons all stem from seamless-garment nonsense.  So much error, so little time.  This article does a nice job of picking apart Father Schenck's flawed thinking. 

If by any chance some are reading this on Nov 3rd and haven't voted yet, please make sure to cast your vote for Trump.  

I also urge us all to place our efforts to eradicating the intrinsic evils of abortion, euthanasia, perversions of sexuality and marriage.  To embrace the seamless-garment thinking is to endanger your soul.

A Real Priest From Towson MD Speaking The Truth About The Presidential Elections

Father Edward Meeks was an Anglican priest prior to his reversion to the One True Church (raised a Catholic).  Upon his return he became founding pastor of Christ the King Church in Towson MD.  From what I gather, not only he and his wife converted, but the entire Anglican parish converted - hence he is a founding pastor of the new Catholic parish.

On October 11, he preached a homily about voting that was not ambiguous in the slightest degree.  He proclaimed the truth about the Democrats, the party of death.  It speaks for itself. 

I will add only one note to trolls of the Archdiocese of Baltimore and elsewhere.  Should his video come down for any reason whatsoever, I've downloaded it and will put it right back up very quickly.  No doubt other astute souls have taken that precaution.  So don't even bother, dear "katholyk" progressives!

With no further ado, Father Meeks.

USCCB Political Videos Downplaying Abortion To Promote Seamless Garment And Undermine Trump

I post their series of videos below.  While the videos mention innocent unborn as needing protection, they don't say from what they need protection.  That is, of course, abortion, and the progressive politicians shilling for abortion.  Why?  Two reasons.

1. Many of these politicians have been funnelling money towards the USCCB coffers.
2. They know that many faithful Catholics will vote for Trump on account of his recent actions to stem abortion.  The USCCB is set on undermining him.  If they can downplay abortion in the minds of Catholics, they'll lessen the impetus to vote for Trump.

Along the lines of that second point, notice how the unborn is just one of a whole laundry list of issues, most of lesser importance and tending to justify a socialist government, ultimately leading to a one-world government.  LifeSiteNews and Church Militant have commentary, too.

As an aside, notice at the 5-minute mark the shameless plug for the many-times-disgraced Catholic Relief Services.  This video series, and the larger effort of the USCCB's is just another reason why we should cease all contributions.

Maryland Catholic Conference's 2018 Voters' Guide

In the June 14th issue of the Catholic Standard appears Maryland Catholic Conference's 2018 Voters's Guide for the Maryland primaries that will occur on June 26th.  It isn't on the Standard's site (yet) but it is on the MCC site.  When you get to that site, click on the "2018 Elections" menu.  If you need a reminder of your legislative district, click on the "general assembly" link to the left to be taken to a tool to learn your district number.

The usefulness of this site is, at best, limited.  Take, for example, the governor race.  You'll notice that most of the candidates did not respond.  Either they disdain the Catholic vote; Hogan is running unopposed in the Republican primary so this questionnaire is moot for him.  I hope and pray that he does answer the questionnaire that pertains to the general election this coming November.

If you look at the responses from Madaleno and Vignarajah, they appear to be identical.  So if one just uses this MCC guide for voter information, they won't understand that Madaleno is morally unqualified to be Maryland's chief executive and in fact most of the Democrats are, owing to their pro-abortion support and shilling for sodomy.  But you wouldn't know that if you just relied solely on the MCC guide.

I did some research on some candidates two weeks ago.  By no stretch of the imagination is this a comprehensive treatment of the various candidates.  I urge you to do your own homework before the elections.  You might start by googling their names and looking at their own websites.

As you do your research, please pray that God's will be done.  Encourage others to do the same.  Get out and vote on June 26.

2018 Maryland Primaries

Reminder - Faithful Catholics of MD/DC Inc is not a non-profit as defined by IRS sec 501(c).  That means this blog is free to make any endorsement that it deems fit.  Readers will notice that I drew heavily from the work of redmaryland.com.  Should you not see candidates from your district in the post below, please check that site out, along with others.

Maryland's primary elections will happen June 26 (with opportunities for early voting) so I'm taking a look at the candidates.  I won't bother with the Democrat primary since they are either pro-aborts or people whom the Democrat party in Maryland will submarine.

Hogan is running for governor again and he is unopposed.  Let's look the the candidates for US Senator.  Chris Chaffee supports the defunding of Planned Parenthood but is wishy-washy regarding gay #mowwidge.  Evan Cronhardt on the other hand sings the praises of Planned Parenthood and in addition to being pro-abort and pro-euthanasia, shows himself to be quite the progressive.  He is absolutely unacceptable.  Albert Binyahmin Howard appears to oppose euthanasia.  Quite honestly I'm not charmed with the photoshopped picture of Mount Rushmore on his website and the "issues" page on the site appears to be a smorgasbord of tweets.  Tony Campbell appears to be quite acceptable, as does Brian Vaeth.  Not so Bill Krehnbrink.  He might be if he didn't play the loose cannon.  When he bloviates that he wants "to replace every Maryland congressman", does that include Andy Harris?  As far as Nnabu Eze goes, why isn't he running as a Democrat, given his leftist leanings?  Blaine Taylor, if I understand the Red Maryland site properly indicates that he is pro-life but also for assisted suicide - as well as being for gun-grabbing.  He'd be a no-go for me.

As far as US Congress goes in District 6 (mine) I cannot recommend Amie Hoeber; she is so-called "pro-choice" and smells of progressivism on other issues.  So is Kurt Elsasser.  Lisa Lloyd and Bradley St Rohrs are much more preferable.  So now we have a dilemma here.  We can only vote for one of these two and we don't want to split the pro-life vote in District 6; there's so little of it as it is.  My read of the redmaryland sketches indicates that Lloyd might be the better of the two.

Gail Bates is running for State Senate in District 9.  She is solidly pro-life.  I can say the same for Michael Peroutka who is running for Anne Arundel County Council.  Other decent candidates include:

• Richmond Davis, running for US Congress from District 7
• Patricia Fenati, Montgomery County GOP Central Committee - at large
• Ms Fenati is also running for Delegate from District 14
• Andy Harris, running for re-election to Congress from District 1
• Dwight Patel, Montgomery County GOP Central Committee - District 20
• Josephine Wang - The Red Maryland site is unclear as to whether she's running for Montgomery County GOP Central Committee or State Senator from District 17.  Either way I recommend her.
• Thomas Sheahen - Garrett County GOP Central Committee 1A
• Kathy Szeliga - Delegate for District 7
• Gus Alzona - Montgomery County GOP Central Committee at-large 

If anyone has been paying attention to the kooky things coming from Maryland public schools (little boys punished for saying "pow" while high school kids play hooky while "marching for lives"), you'll understand that the various boards of education play a pivotal role in educating future citizens.  I for one would prefer that my tax dollars be used for truly useful and honest education and not progressive brain-washing; the latter is the order of business today in our schools. 

I will only focus on the Montgomery County Board of Education.  In the general elections I would recommend getting a hold of the "Apple ballot" from the workers at the door to see who the NEA endorsed and then vote against those endorsements.  Right now we don't have that luxury.  Of the at-large candidates:

• I'd avoid Julie Reiley.  She admires as "role models" Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
• Similarly, John Robertson admires Obama.  Need we say more?
• I couldn't find anything on Brandon Orman Rippeon as a candidate for the Board of Education, but he ran for Congress in 2011 on a fairly conservative platform.  He might be the safest bet.  I couldn't find anything on the other candidates.

Here are the BOE candidates for school district 3:

• Lynn Amano is endorsed by LGBTQ Democrats of Montgomery County and Progressive Neighbors - REJECT!
• Patricia O'Neill has been on the board for many years.  Where was she when the teachers went bonkers over the little boy in Silver Spring who was suspended for saying "pow" to a classmate?   Moreover, she is endorsed by some progressive "usual suspects" like Montgomery County Education Association, SEIU, CASA, and some Democrat clubs.  REJECT!
• That leaves Laura Simon.  Her redmaryland profile is rather non-descript.  However, compared to what we know of her two opponents, that is a plus.  I'm recommending voting for her if only to oppose meaningfully the two flaming progressives.

That is all I have - for now.  Remember to pray for wisdom and vote.  Both are serious morally-binding duties.

Catholic Standard Shills For False Unity At Truth's Expense

On page 3 of the Nov 12 issue of the Catholic Standard and here on the online version appears an article entitled "Catholics' Post-Election To-Do List Includes Work For Unity, Healing".  Right there in the title you can foresee the problems in the article.  Instead of focusing on "unity and healing", the focus needs to be on proper catechesis so that Catholics understand Our Lord's teachings on life, sexuality, marriage, family, and the prominence that faith should have in our personal and civic lives.  Without that understanding, any pretense at unity will be that - a mere sham.

However, as we peruse this article, we see no emphasis on truth.  That lack of emphasis is seen in the selection of people quoted in this article.

• Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Indianapolis (not to be confused with Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island) turned a deaf ear to us when we pleaded with him to intervene in the plans of a local KofC council to rent their hall to lesbians to hold their "wedding reception".  Is that what he means by "building bridges" as he said in an interview?  In that same interview he approved of the ambiguity of Amoralis Lamentia and poo-pooed the efforts of the four cardinals who published the dubia.
• The National Catholic Reporter is so faithless to true Catholicism that its two bishops have directed the pubication to remove the word "Catholic" from their title.  Of course those directives are disobeyed.
• Sister Simone Campbell along with her Network bunch, are pro-abortion.  She and NETWORK sided with the Obama administration against the USCCB to support Obamacare's HHS mandate.  When asked whether or not she thought abortion should be illegal, she took a line out of Obama's script and replied "that's beyond my pay grade.  I don't know".  So we're supposed to believe that a leader in "Catholic social justice" doesn't know if baby-murder should be illegal?  In another interview after the DNC convention (during which she publicly praised the NARAL president) she stated "I don't think it's a good policy to outlaw abortion" then went on to slander pro-life people.
• Father James Martin makes no secret of his sympathy for "gay rights".  He was honored by the dissident group New Ways Ministry for his advoacy of the sodomite lifestyle.

Why does Carol Zimmerman (author of the Catholic Standard piece) call these people "Catholic leaders"?

Let's talk about some of these "divisions".  The only way that there could be "divisions", at least in the general election, is if Catholics voted for Hillary Clinton.  A goodly number of faithful priests have outlined why voting for Hillary, who made no secret of her devotion to baby-murder and institutionalized sodomy, would have been a sinful act.  Those who voted for her, knowing of her stances, sinned.  I've posted many times on this blog why it was sinful to withhold votes for Trump.  On those posts are links to homilies/writings of others making the same case.  Still, some have not only withheld their votes from Trump; they magnified their sin in casting votes for Clinton.

Now the Catholic Standard is issuing a "kiss-and-make-up" call, all the while quoting from dissidents who most likely sinned with their votes.  No true reconciliation can happen unless those who voted for Clinton (particularly those who were arrogantly blatant about it) announce public repentance for that sin.  We must face the fact that those who cast such votes betrayed the unborn children as well as faithful Catholics.  If there is not that public repentance, we've no assurance that they won't repeat that sin, should they deem it suitable for them to do so.

I for one refuse to play that silly, deceptive make-believe game of false reconciliation.  It will be asked if I hope to work with those Clinton voters in the future.  I will reply, "unless they repent, NO!"  Now the question is, "do those who sinned with their votes wish to work with us in the future?"  If so, the must repent.  Either way, it's up to them.

Will #Nevertrumpers Finally Listen To Reason?

Some good Christians have the erroneous idea that if one votes for a given candidate, then they support and approve of everything about that candidate.  That is so overly simplistic as to be intellectually and morally dishonest.  I've even heard it said that some won't vote for Trump because he doesn't meet their "standards".  So does that mean our personal "standards" should be held above the good of millions of people?  What kind of "standards" allow for that?  Upon what are these "standards" based?

I post now two articles, excellent in their moral treatment of this question: the first is from Town Hall, and the second addresses Catholic questions.  Below now is a Stoplight video on the matter.  Please get out and vote for Trump.

Father Imbarrato On The Necessity Of Voting For Trump

Below I'm posting a recent homily given by Father Imbarrato of Priests for Life.  He is indeed a "protest priest" spending many hours outside the new Two Rivers Planned Parenthood abortion mill in NE Washington.  Please listen closely to this homily.  Thanks to the Johnson Amendment (the amendment that he praises Trump for promising to eliminate), he cannot name Trump nor Clinton explicitly, but one would have to be incredibly dense not to understand his meanings.

Some might think he's addressing those Catholics who would be so stupid and callous as to vote for Hillary, but I think his words could just as well apply to the #nevertrump crowd: those who plan to vote "third party" or not vote at all.

A few days ago one of my facebook friends stated his opinion that his conscience was bothered by Trump and he was considering voting for Johnson (libertarian) although the latter is pro-abortion.  I objected, of course.  In the interest of not repeating myself, I posted links to several of the blog posts that I've written in recent weeks regaarding this particular election.  For my trouble, one of my friend's other friends engaged in ad hominems, calling me a "nutcase".  My friend rebuked him and some time later the attacks disappeared from his page.

I mention this because I suspect at the heart of the #nevertrump movement, emotion reigns at the expense of logic and reason.  When I broach principles of Catholic moral theology to these people, I'm largely ignored, signifying to me that #nevertrumpers are threatened when asked to see if their stances actually square with Church teaching.  Others simply carry on as that man cited in the preceding paragraph albeit not nearly so rudely.

As I mentioned previously, a couple of mental anomalies in the #nevertrump mindset are really quite bizarre:

• Acknowledging the fact that Hillary will win should they get their way, and welcoming that outcome, opining that "our nation needs to be punished".  I suppose they haven't a care about the babies who will be murdered should she attain the White House.
• Somehow dreaming that Trump and Clinton are morally equivalent.  Leaving aside the obvious differences of policy statements that they've both made, let's look at Hillary's track history.  She allowed the four men to die at Benghazi.  She probably caused many more deaths with her sloppy handling of classified emails.  There have been a number of former associates and others connected with her that have "mysteriously" died over the past several months.  Can anything remotely similar be uttered about Trump?
• Many of these #nevertrumpers are quite blithe in assuming that our country would survive four years under Hillary, not considering that during these past eight years the fabric of our republic has been weakened and mutated almost beyond recognition.  While I might hope they'd be correct I'm not making that brash assumption.  They fail to consider that they are gambling with their children's futures.

In the video below, Father refers to an interview given by Cardinal Burke; I wrote a piece on it that gives a few more details of the Cardinal's words.  Father also cites paragraphs 2239-2240 of the Catechism.  On the right side bar of this blog is a link to the Catechism.  Please refer to this also.  Please also pass word of this video along to your other contacts.  Thank you.

Why It Is Most Likely Immoral To Deny Your Vote To Trump

We've all seen and participated in some discussions in which Christians have said they won't vote for Trump because he's merely the "lesser of two evils".  When the political landscape has been rehearsed before them, they invariably say that they must be guided by their "consciences".  While there's some truth to that, they omit a large part of that picture.  We Christians, if we are to utilize our consciences properly, must ensure that we are forming and informing our consciences in accordance with Church teaching, particularly in accordance with the principles of Catholic moral theology.

In my most recent post on this matter I linked to a video by Michael Matt regarding this very topic and also linked to other attempts (here and here) to examine this matter through the prism of Catholic moral theology.  I call to attention a comment on that post to which I replied on August 5th.  In that comment I noted that Hillary's body count is growing; indeed, since that time there have been 4-5 additional "mysterious" deaths.  The quotation from Mr. Gruden that I cited is now even more relevant: "Can I in good conscience act in a way that helps a liberal like Hillary Clinton win the presidency?"

In that first link, I quoted from Father Peter West who cites three aspects of a human act.  All three aspects must be good or at least morally neutral in order for the act to be good.  If one of those aspects is evil, then the act is evil.  Those aspects are: 1) the inherent nature of the act 2) intention of the one placing the act, 3) circumstances surrounding the act.  He does a decent job explaining these.  The only thing I might elaborate on is the intention.  One can have a number of valid intentions to placing a vote.  Namely, one can vote for Candidate A because they believe that Candidate B would be worse than A, understanding that either Candidate A or Candidate B and no others will have a chance at victory.

I've also dealt with the Principle of Double Effect, a principle recognized by the Church since some acts can have both positive and negative effects..  There are four criteria that must be met under this principle for an act to be morally good.

1. The act itself must be good or at least morally neutral
2. The evil effect and the good effect must proceed equally from the act.  The good effect cannot be a result of the evil effect
3. The intention must be good; we may not directly will the evil effect.
4. There must be a proportional reason for tolerating the evil effect.  

In previous posts I've brought all these factors to bear on the question of casting a vote for Donald Trump.  So have others.  Even some #nevertrump folks believe that a vote for Trump is at least morally permissible.

However, just as the decision to vote for Trump must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny under the lens of Catholic moral theology, so too must the decision not to vote for Trump be subjected to the same rigorous examination.  It fails.  Right off the bat, looking at the fourth factor of the Double Effect principle, we see no proportional reason for tolerating the election of Hillary Clinton.  Bear in mind that she has promised to expand abortion, promote the gay agenda, fund Planned Parenthood, stack the Supreme Court with pro-aborts, and we see her body count ever-growing.  What "proportional reason" can be offered for tolerating that?

When I've posed that question to some (mostly on facebook discussions) the great majority of them will reply, "but at least I vote my conscience" as though that's a supreme good in and of itself.  I link now to an article found on American Thinker.  Mr. Lopez states, "Of course who wins the election is more important than your precious conscience or how you feel about voting.  Your country matters more than you do.  Has America become so weak and self-absorbed that people no longer understand what it means to say, 'It's not all about you, honey'?"  He has a very valid point.

The role of our conscience is to assist us in selecting acts that are in obedience to God.  That is why we need to form and inform them in accordance with Christ's teachings as revealed through Holy Mother Church (that includes Catholic moral theology).  It is a means to an end, the end being to please God.  We do not seek to assuage or please our own consciences for their own sakes.  If consciences are not informed by and subordinate to objective Catholic morality, they are not much more than pride and sentimentality disguised in sanctimonious veneer. When I hear some of the #nevertrump crowd say "no one can deter me from my conscience" and "I won't sell my soul" I have to suspect that they may well be turning their consciences into de facto idols.

I think for some of the #nevertrump crowd, their animosity towards Trump is a very strange sort of pride.  Allen West (himself a one-time candidate for president) has some words to consider.  He's correct about the tantrums being pitched by these "nevertrump" folks.  Don't we find it odd that they spend more time and energy kvetching about Trump than they do about Hillary?  In their disregard for any consequence of their trash-talking against Trump, they seem quite willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

I've asked this before and will repeat myself.  If there are objective reasons (as opposed to subjective resonations with consciences) why one thinks they can just let Hillary waltz into the White House by not supporting Trump, please advise.

Why It Is Most Likely Immoral To Deny Your Vote To Trump (duplicate)

Somehow this post shows up twice.  I would have deleted this one but then I would have lost TLM's comments.  Please note that TLM's comments pertain to the post above this.  Apologies for the confusion.

Applying Catholic Moral Theology To The Question Of Voting Or Not Voting

Ladies and gentlemen, the nominees of the two parties are now determined.  This will be a Trump vs Clinton contest.  I just now finished watching Cruz's speech at the GOP convention.  I voted for him and had hoped that he would be the nominee.  Enough other people voted differently so now it is Trump who will be opposing Hillary Clinton.

There is no gainsaying that Trump has his warts.  But now he is officially the GOP candidate and the only one who now stands between us and a Hillary presidency.  No one, with a straight face and who pays attention to the facts of history, can pretend that Trump is just as evil as Hillary.  I've written before regarding the intentions voiced by some good people to either 1) not vote at all in the presidential election or to 2) write in a "third-party" candidate.  Either option will have the obvious effect of reducing the hurdle that Clinton would have to overcome to seize the White House.  Please read from this anthology of posts.

In those posts I attempted to examine the question of voting versus not voting in the context of Catholic moral theology.  Below are quotes from both Father Peter West and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, both speaking in terms of Catholic teaching.  I found these on facebook, by the way.

From Father West:  "Voting for Donald‬ Trump is not doing evil in order to achieve a good end. Voting for him is not endorsement of everything he has said or done. Your vote is an exercise of power. If you exercise that power to limit evil you are doing something good. You are not doing something evil in order to achieve a good end. In Catholic moral theology a moral act must be evaluated according to the act itself, the intention and the circumstances. All three have to be either good or neutral. The act of voting is in itself good. If your intention is to limit evil, your intentions are good. The circumstances in this election is that a vote for Trump is the only way to stop the election of a corrupt, dishonest, pro-abortion, anti-family, extremely careless criminal. Voting for Donald Trump is therefore a good moral act because it limits evil insofar as it is possible at the moment."

From Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI): "According to the principles of Catholic morality, an action can be considered licit whose object and proximate effect consist in limiting an evil insofar as is possible. Thus, when one intervenes in a situation judged evil in order to correct it for the better, and when the action is not evil in itself, such an action should be considered not as a voluntary acceptance of the lesser evil but rather as the effective improvement of the existing situation, even though one remains aware that not all evil present is able to eliminated for the moment."

I believe these establish the case, from rigorous application of Catholic moral theology, that a vote for Trump will assist in limiting the evil of a Clinton presidency.  If some of my #nevertrump friends remain unconvinced, would you please establish your case with your own examination of the question that applies Catholic moral theology to the question?  Needless to say, "personal preference" and "gut feeling" is not going to cut the mustard.  The discharging of our civic responsibilities demand utilization of reason and intellect for they are very serious matters.

Today's Political Developments Demand Rational Response, Not Knee-Jerk Rancor (UPDATED)

First, a little legal-talk to stave off the salivating lawyers..  Faithful Catholics of MD/DC Inc is not - repeat, NOT - a "c3" corporation,  In fact, we're not a "501c" anything!  That means we can make all the political statements we want!  Now that this is out of the way, let's continue.

As most of you know, I was hoping that Ted Cruz would be the GOP nominee for US President.  I voted for him in the MD primary.  However, I just got the news that after the Indiana primary, Cruz has decided to drop out of the race.  That means that Donald Trump is the nominee, assuming that all RINO attempts to submarine his campaign come to naught.  On the Democrat side, we see that Hillary is beating Bernie quite handily.  So barring very unusual occurrences, we'll be seeing a Trump vs Clinton race this coming November.

Quite honestly, I find Trump to be an enigma.  Some of his policy statements have been rather contradictory.  Some of his conduct has, in my opinion, not been worthy of one aspiring to be the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has not been enigmatic in the least.  Her pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage stances are out there for everyone to see.  We know for a fact what kind of Supreme Court justices she'll nominate if she wins the White House.  We know what kind of mess her foreign policy will be, just by the debacle that was her performance as Secretary of State.  Need I remind one and all of the four Americans that she knowingly let die in Benghazi on her watch?  Need we reminders of the security breaches posed by her reckless handing of servers and emails?

I recite all this because I'm seeing signs of irrational rage and anger against Trump's nomination from good Christians and pro-life activists.  Their common mantra seems to be "anyone but Trump", as they threaten to stay home on election day or to write in some other person on their presidential ballot.  That is the kind of thinking and acting that garnered for this country eight years of the worst presidency to date; disdaining both McCain and Romney, good Christians (acting on emotion versus reason) simply abdicated their civic duties and let Obama waltz into the White House.

One meme captured the lack of logic perfectly.  I wished I saved it; if I see it again, I'll post it. (UPDATE - See below!)  Anyway, it said (paraphrased), "if Trump wins the nomination, Hillary wins the White House so I won't vote in November".  This statement is an example of a logical fallacy known as a self-fulfilling prophesy, for if good people do indeed not effectively vote against Hillary, she will indeed win the White House.  Note carefully.  In that case, she'd win not because Trump was the nominee but because otherwise-rational people used that as an excuse not to vote for the one candidate who could deny her the White House.

If we're serious about at least slowing down the oncoming train wreck of our cultural degradation, we will have to vote for Trump, for that is the only effective way to vote against Hillary.  And please - none of this write-in crap.  You might feel better while you're doing it, but elections are not about how we feel.  We need to turn our emotions off and force our intellect and reason to have dominance over our feelings and "gut reactions".

I've written before quite extensively on voting and the Catholic Principle of Double Effect; I need not rehash it here, but instead link to the anthology of posts.  Yes, the act of voting for Trump needs to be subject to this scrutiny, but so do the acts of: not voting at all, or, the act of voting "third-party" or "write-in" must be subject to the same scrutiny.

Let us ask Our Lord's blessing and direction for us.

UPDATE - I knew it would crop up like kudzu!

I'm sure the creator of that can't - or won't - see their own logical fallacy!  LOL, they can't even figure out the proper spelling for "principles"!

Immorality Of Boycotting Election Day

Today is called "Super Tuesday", when many key states are holding their presidential primaries.  I heard from one commentator that this evening's election might well determine the composition of 25% of convention delegates.  I believe he was speaking of Republican delegates.  My focus in this post is on the GOP side.  As far as I'm concerned, the Democratic primary is essentially a choice between Lucifer and Beelzebub.

Already I'm hearing from some good Catholics who say "if my favored candidate does not win the nomination, I'm not voting in the general election".  To be frank, much of the sterling veneer is falling off Donald Trump but he still continues to poll favorably.  The next closest two are Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and they too have their flaws.  In short, we don't have a perfect candidate.  That's the situation.

Both Sanders and Clinton pose clear threats to our nation.  What might help the Democratic nominee ascend to the White House are those faithful Catholics who will be inclined to stay away from the polls in November.  I believe that is a key factor as to why Obama won in 2012.  We knew Romney wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination.  However, four years after that election, can anyone really doubt that Romney would have been worlds better?  If nothing else, he most likely would not have proactively engaged in the disasters that occurred these past four years.

Shortly before the 2012 election, we heard the snortings from faithful but disgruntled Catholics who said they'd stay home (and many did).  I'll be frank again; in many if not most cases, these Catholics sounded like petulant two-year-olds who were mad because they didn't get their way during the primaries.  Their rancorous declarations of their intent to boycott the election really did resemble temper tantrums.  The same foot-stomping is beginning to happen, and the primaries aren't even over yet.

At that time, I made efforts to examine the "not going to vote" question by applying to it the Principle of Double Effect.  It is something that many mistake for the "lesser of two evils" mindset, but these two ideas are considerably different.  Here is one post.  This is a follow-up post.  Those were from August 2012.  These next two are from the following October - here and here.  Please read the comments in these posts; they can be quite telling.

This time I'm not hearing so much "third-party" talk as much as I'm hearing talk about not voting at all.  Let's look at that, shall we?  Again we're going to examine this question rigorously, attempting to apply traditional Catholic moral principles to it.  And yes, we really do have to take the time and effort to methodically work through these questions, as opposed to making these decisions on the basis of impulsive, "seat of the pants" emotions.

Again, applying the Principle of Double Effect, we have to first address the nature of the act of abstaining from voting.  We, as American citizens have a civic duty to make our voices heard via the electoral process.  How else will Catholic values be brought into the political arena if we don't vote?  Some might say, "the system is so corrupt that our votes most likely won't matter".  Be that as it may, if we don't vote, then we guarantee that our input won't even be registered, let alone matter.

Some erroneously hold that they abstain from voting then they won't commit sin by voting under less than ideal circumstances.  I believe, however, that given what I stated in the previous paragraph, that such abstention would constitute its own sin.  We can sin by omission as well as by commission.  I quote from Baltimore Catechism question 64: "What is actual sin?  Actual sin is any willful thought, desire, word, action, or omission forbidden by the law of God".

Obviously someone sitting out the November election is omitting to vote.  Is such omission sinful?  That's a key question; I think the answer is "yes" (barring illness or some other emergency).  How can deliberate refusal to mitigate probable harm to the moral character of our nation and indeed all civilization not be sinful?  For the sake of our nation and yes, your own souls, I beg disgruntled Catholics to man up (or woman up, as the case may be) and fulfill your duty this November.

I welcome comments from my readers and issue to them a challenge.  Please base your comments on faith and reason as opposed to emotion and "gut reaction".  Thank you.

Thank Bishop Kagan!

This is today's Vortex.  Besides its main message, it will be something to bear in mind when I delve into the voting guide (?) contained in this week's Catholic Standard.  Click here if you can't see embedded video.

Catholic Voting Principles - Undermined In Catholic Parishes

This report from Lifenews.com is a repeat of the same sad song we hear from Catholic parishes.  Some of them, and even entire dioceses, are refusing permission to allow distribution of guides that follow the bishops' instructions on prioritizing issues.  They prefer instead things that hearken back to the "seamless garment" scam.  Are they being a tad too solicitous of their much-adored "501c3" status?  Some are, but some aren't!

Case in point - Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Washington, DC, right off the Georgetown University campus.  Like Georgetown, Holy Trinity is governed by Jesuits (doesn't that explain a lot?).  In last week's bulletin, a pro-life activist found an article praising Obamacare.  Moreover, it contained this line: "Although I take very seriously the role that we as Catholics should play in bringing our values to the discussion of specific aspects of national health care policy, I think it is more important to make sure that everyone who needs health coverage has it - period."

Got that?  Let me paraphrase:  "Forget about those icky, inconvenient pro-life and pro-family values!  We need Obamacare, even at the expense of having the blood of babies on our hands!"

Some might recall that this is the church that then-VP-elect Joe Biden attended.  Right after he sacrilegiously received Holy Communion, the priest and the congregation gave him a standing ovation - while Mass was still in progress!  If that tripe had to appear in a Catholic bulletin, it's just as well it happened at Holy Trinity, since they're so far gone anyway.

Pray for their immortal souls.

Still Planning To Deny Romney Your Vote?

It seems that the Messiah Most Miserable is receiving campaign assistance from a most unlikely quarter.  By and large, the denizens of this quarter are very good, sincere, pro-life and Christian people.  They simply don't think Mitt Romney is worthy of their vote.  Thus they plan to either:

• Vote for some third-party candidate who hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning, or
• Abstain from that ballot altogether

In previous posts (see here and here) I explained my opinion that not only is a vote for Mitt Romney morally acceptable, but also that the two options listed above, given the concrete circumstances that we currently face, would constitute objective sin.

This past week I've been engaging in three Facebook discussions on this very topic.  Two of the walls are owned by Catholics, the other by a Protestant.  In all these discussions (and others) I've noticed more than a tinge of anger at the current slate of candidates.  There were plenty of rational people joining the conversations.  One lady explained very succinctly what happens when either of the two bullet-options above are chosen; it reduces the number of votes that Obama needs to win the election.  One less vote for Romney will lower the bar for Obama.  Sounds simple, right?  But some were having none of it.  On a Catholic wall, I posted the following comment to one of the stubborn purists:

Consider the mathematics of how elections work. You need to open your own eyes. I think your own ego is somehow wrapped up in this. I too would have rather had another candidate, but other voters didn't agree with me - and I suspect they didn't agree with you. So what? Are you now going to indulge a little temper tantrum, hold your breath till you turn blue? What tangible, measurable good will abstention do you or the country?

I saw something similar to that on the Protestant wall when one commenter asked what we were doing to "stop Romney".  I felt like telling him that his question might have been more reasonable and relevant last year while the primaries were still in progress.  Rather, I posted the following reply:

Principles Of Catholic Voting From Another Good Bishop

Bishop Felipe Estevez of the Diocese of St Augustine (FL) issued a letter to Florida Catholics urging them to "take your Catholic beliefs, values and consciences into the voting booth with you".  He then reminded them that "some issues are simply never morally acceptable".  Thanks to LifeSiteNews for the heads-up on this, as well as the link to His Excellency's letter.

Solid Catholic Voices On Voting

In yesterday's post I linked to Bishop Paprocki's letter on voting.  If you haven't read it yet, please do so.  Today I learned that Archbishop John Myers (Archdiocese of Newark, NJ) released a pastoral letter to his archdiocese entitled "When Two Become One: A Pastoral Teaching on the Definition, Purpose and Sanctity of Marriage".  I also recommend that to your reading.

Dr. Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture released yesterday an article entitled "The Dangers of Voting Your Heart: An Intrinsically Moral Guide".  I also recommend that you read it.  A few weeks ago I posted on Voting and the Principle of Double Effect; therein I voiced (and, in my opinion, adequately substantiated) my belief that abstention from this presidential race is morally problematic.

Below is a video from Rosaryfilms that nicely sums up Catholic principles for voting in the United States.  Click here if you cannot see embedded video.

Obama's Counterfeit Catholics

Here it is - it's long but well worth it.  Click here if you can't see embedded video.