Continuation of My Reply Under "Some Reactions" from Jan 20th

As I said, I believe an abstention from the MA vote would have been objectively wrong.  Of course I cannot presume to know interior motivations that might have impelled some to choose not to vote, so there's no way I can accuse anyone of sin; be assured, such was not my purpose.

Evangelium Vitae doesn't say much (as far as I could find) about how citizens should vote for candidates.  Rather, what it does discuss are the moral guidelines that the legislators themselves must follow.  Some common sense would say that our responsibilities are similar.  One of the articles to which I alluded in my comment is a Voter Guide put out by EWTN.  Questions 8 and 10 seem most relevant to the MA situation, as they discuss recommended actions when all candidates are pro-abortion.  Note the obvious point made - that either one or the other will win the election.  Thus, no matter what happened Tuesday evening, a pro-abort was going to take Kennedy's seat.  Then Father says, "you should do your best to judge which candidate would do the least moral harm."  Ladies and gentlemen, while Brown is pro-abortion, he has also stated that he will oppose the Hell Bill.  We all know that this bill, if passed, will immensely increase abortion in our culture.  Moreover, our elderly and infirm would be placed in jeopardy.  Coakley was going to support this.  In light of this, is there really any question as to which candidate would do the least moral harm?  In light of this consideration, would it have been morally licit to abstain from voting for the candidate who stated that he would oppose the Hell Bill?  No.  Had Coakley won, would your abstention have contributed towards increased evil?  Yes. 

The EWTN "voters guide" was echoed by Bishop Robert Finn last year, when he stated "specifically we offered the example of two candidates who were permissive on abortion. We taught that, in such an instance, we should choose the candidate whose position will likely do the least grave evil, or whose position will do the most to limit the specific grave evil of abortion."

To sum up, does it not only make sense that when we have candidates whose life-stances are equally poor, that we have a positive moral obligation to exercise our powers as United States citizens to mitigate any damages and dangers to our brothers and sisters that would be posed by the more dangerous candidate?  How, in the face of what we knew about the MA elections, could it possibly have been morally legitimate to abstain from that vote?  When we cast our votes, intellect and reason must trump our otherwise-understandable emotional reactions to the candidates.  I cannot see how it wouldn't be a sin against the virtues of prudence, justice and charity to do otherwise.  If I am missing something, please advise.  I think it's good to have this conversation, as there might be similar situations next November.

To those Massachusetts readers who might have abstained from that vote, I have a question.  What tangible, measurable moral good did you achieve by your abstention?  What motivated your abstention?  I truly am interested, if you care to elaborate.  Thank you.

Some Reactions to Scott Brown's Upset Victory

Ladies and gentlemen, thanks to secret agents and their concealed recording equipment, we have caught some very candid shots of the reactions of the Puppet-String Pullers of the Democrats.  Observe...



Yep!  They're in a tizzy!

Seriously, though, there are things to be considered.  Firstly, it is no secret that Scott Brown's "pro-life credentials" are non-existent.  While I rejoice at the election turnout, I'm more happy that Coakley lost than I'm happy that Brown won.  However, in order for the first to have happened, the second had to happen; let's not lose sight of that.

Folks, if this sort of thing can happen in liberal Massachusetts, it can certainly happen in more conservative areas of the country - and the leftists know this!  We need to keep up the momentum in all facets of pro-life activisim.  Too often pro-lifers have won a battle, then wrongly assumed that the war was won, returning to their isolated and oblivious existences.  No one can any longer allow themselves that luxury.  As a matter of fact, such apathy was never a morally valid attitude to take, as "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance".

What I say now is my opinion and may be controversial, but I believe it to be true.  We as Christians must understand that we have nothing in common with socialists and humanists.  Their whole mental and spiritual paradigm is atheistic (just go to their own websites if there's any doubt).  That means that the Catholic Church must stop trying to seek this mythical "common ground" with these folks (USCCB, are you reading this?).

We must also cease considering ourselves inextribly wed to the Republican Party.  There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the notion of a "third party" (by the way - I believe the Republican Party itself started as a "third party").  Evangelium Vitae teaches that we must vote for the candidate that is in the closest alignment with the Church.  Now when both candidates are pro-abortion (as in yesterday's MA race) we look to other factors; clearly sitting this race out would not have been a morally acceptable option.  Again, we must look at the facts and circumstances of each situation.

We've got our work cut out for us.  However, we now have a little more leverage, thanks be to God.

Scott Brown Wins Kennedy's Seat!

The Senate seat that was held by Ted Kennedy for over 40 years (and before that, by JFK himself), is now in Republican hands!  Brown, for all his acknowledged defects in terms of pro-life philosophy, has promised to oppose the Obamascare Hell Bill.  Moreover, the Republican count in the Senate is now 41.  The Democrats no longer have a filibuster-proof majority!

I'm sure this will send a loud, screeching signal to the rest of them on the Hill, that they may be put out to pasture should they continue to support the Hell Bill that most of them haven't even bothered to read.  (Gee whiz - I even provided a nice summary for them below).

Now let's push ahead to 2010.  More importantly, let's keep praying, interceding and proclaiming the truth to this sick world!

Important Massachusetts Vote On January 19th

All the country is watching the Massachusetts election this coming Tuesday.  Martha Coakley was expected to be a shoe-in to fill Ted Kennedy's seat.  Thanks to the abominable antics of the Three Stooges (Obama, Reid, Pelosi) et al, Scott Brown is surging ahead in polls.



I realize Brown has made pro-abortion noises.  However, he and Coakley are the only two candidates on this ballot.  Evangelium Vitae would allow a vote to contain or minimize evil, if that's the only thing that can be done given specific circumstances.  Of overriding concern is that if Brown wins, Reid's fillibuster-proof majority is a thing of the past.  Do we see the Hell Bill implications of that?  In my humble opinion then, fellow Catholics, sitting out this particular election is NOT AN OPTION!

Legal/political disclaimer: Faithful Catholics of MD/DC Inc. is NOT a "501c" anything.  Therefore, politically speaking, we can say whatever we want.  Any lawyer-types looking to rake us over the coals, here's some advice - phhhft!!!