The usually sensible Mark Shea here considers whether the Obama administration’s naked hostility to freedom of conscience and the Catholic Church in particular has made it prudent to vote for the Republican nominee this fall: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/02/a-reader-asks-about-whether-obamas-war-on-the-church-is-a-reason-to-vote-gop-this-fall.html
I’m sorry; both parties are promoting grave evils. Every Republican candidate except the unelectable Ron Paul proposes attacking Iran, which is no threat to the US, or arguably to Israel, and every one except Ron Paul favors torture, the assassination of suspected enemies, and empire. Both parties also, of course, support 
some things that are good: the Democrats are generally much better on matters of economic justice and labor, and the Republicans talk a good game when it comes to matters of family and fetal life. But both remain morally problematic for conscientious Catholics, and voting remains a matter of prudentially considering which is relatively worse, the Evil Stupid Party or the Stupid Evil Party.
And I remind everyone that there is no moral imperative for voting at all. Personally, I will not choose a grave evil just because there are other grave evils on the other side. And I refuse to quantify moral evils, to play the numbers game when it comes to dead humans.
Obama clearly showed his true colors when he attempted to strip church institutions of their exemption regarding contraception and abortifacients, and this after previously showing – or feigning – great sensitivity to Catholics for three years. One can only imagine that he was the recipient of very bad advice, that he was told that the only people who would object were marginal Catholics of the Right. He was blindsided by the reaction of the usually complacent liberal Catholic world, and who can blame him? I was surprised, pleasantly, when the Church presented a united resistance. He may be backpedaling as fast as he can, but the damage is done. Given the sorry state of the Republican primary candidates he was looking like a shoe-in for reelection. By alienating the Catholic vote that is no longer certain at all.
But Catholics are fools if they make the Republicans’ attempt to co-opt their vote so easy, and they are fools to vote for a candidate who promises another – and I use the term literally- God damned war.
Great post.
Lets also not forget the one issue all Republicans (including Mr. Maverick Ron Paul) all agree on- the deification of corporate capitalism. Ron Paul will come out and blast Santorum for having “issues” with gays, but then at the same time Paul will slither back to defend Romney at Bain Capital. What a fraud Ron Paul is.
I fear that war has become the major GNP of this country. And that was settled long ago. I cannot vote for any party’s candidate. Bush made me wonder if the president was a soul-less puppet. Obama removes all doubt.
I believe there is a moral imperative to exercise the right to vote:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2240.htm
This may not imply that one is required to vote in a specific election for a specific slate, but someone who persistently doesn’t exercise the right to vote is shirking an important responsibility.
I didn’t say I did not intend to vote, only that I will not vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate (barring an unlikely unforseen new candidate). I always vote, but for the last two presidential elections I wrote in Wendell Berry…
I thought it was implied that you weren’t going to vote when you said:
“And I remind everyone that there is no moral imperative for voting at all. ”
I suppose that can be taken other ways.
In just what way are “Democrats [] generally much better on matters of economic justice and labor”? Are you referring to the Democrat’s long standing political strategy of buying votes with government benefits paid for by the conscripted “charity” of taxes? Are you referring to the “help” they give to the poor by encouraging them to kill their children before they see the light of day?
In what way? Well, for starters they generally support labor unions and the right to organize and bargain collectively. They in general oppose the Republican economic policies, which always favor the very rich.
This is not to say that the party is not full of corrupt lawmakers who, like their Republican rivals, are in the pocket of Wall Street.
Thursday, I think he means that when it comes to helping the poor, the Dems “talk a good game”, just as with the Republicans and abortion. As far as actually helping the poor, I haven’t been able to notice it over the sounds of the however-many-trillion-we’re-up-to-now bank bailouts.
You’re a left wing kook, and nothing more.
This attack on the Catholic faith for me was the game changer. It is Obama or a Republican. I know that some hate this choice, but tying ObamaCare and its now clear evils for our society going forward with abortion makes it for me a very clear choice.
The Democrats if presented with Iran will end up doing something just as much as the Republicans. Obama expanded Afghanistan and went into Lybia and is using drones to attack in far greater numbers into Pakistan than W.
I think it is a major priority for our country and our faith to remove Obama and the Democrats and the only way that happens is to have Republican win. Then we can work on the Republicans in office with as much pressure as we can apply. Lets face it, Obama has said to the Catholic Church, go to hell. I note that they have even put restrictions on supporting student loan forgiveness program from religious institutions just a week ago in the midst of all the other attacks.
I will support the Republican nominee and am pulling for Santorum, but will support the nominee to oust Obama. Nothing is more important that ousting Obama and his party at this point.
Jasper always has such intelligent and powerful arguments for his position.
Daniel
I will agree with you that the democrats as a matter of party platform (i.e party principle) and practice do promote grave evils.
The democrats as a matter of party platform are terrible on just about everything and contrary to what you say they are absolutely terrible on “matters of economic justice and labor”
Its an easy choice. Support the party that pushes abortion, homosexuality, the destruction of marriage or choose the party that defends marriage, defends the family and defends economic freedom as well as the right of workers to organize. The republican party does all of these things. The democrats are devoted in principal to ideals that destroy civilization not to mention individuals.
Even in what you write it is obvious that you are stretching to impute some sort of moral equivalence between the two parties. You bring up the nebulous subject of torture. Really? Does the republican party want to codify torture? Does it promote torture?
Regarding the subject of unions and organized labor are you really going to argue that the most recent laws in Wisconsin and Ohio rise to the level of inherent evils?
Give us a break Daniel! You only have one clear current choice and that is to vote for Santorum, Romney, Gingrich or Paul over Barak Obama.
I would go so far as to say that, knowing what we know today, that to not vote for Santorum, Romney, Gingrich or Paul over Obama would itself be a moral fault on your part.
Sometimes there is a moral imperative to vote. This appears to be one of those times
Wow, your manicheanism leaves me breathless. But it is hard to argue with a Republican, to whom these things are so simple.
But in fact every Republican candidate except Paul is on record supporting torture, and every one wants preemptive war. And Santorum praised the assassination of an Iranian scientist…As for abortion, they talk a good game when they want your vote, but when they held both houses of Congress and the executive branch what did they do? Oh, that’s right; they made partial birth abortion illegal, a heinous procedure that even many prochoice politicians disapprove of. NOT mind you, outlawing late term abortion, just one procedure, which while gross to observers, is not arguably the most painful to the baby. In other words, a symbolic step only.
And yes, attacks on the power of workers to bargain collectively is certainly evil.
And no way is refusing to vote for someone who promises more war, more torture, and more attacks on workers a “moral fault”…
According to the voting guide put out by the bishops, while all the moral issues need to be given consideration, not all have the same moral weight. Also, a good end does not justify an evil means (obviously). I think that the Democrats’ idea of social justice, unfortunately, clearly uses abortion and contraception to advance their ends. And I don’t believe that Catholics can countenance that. Sadly, Obama didn’t turn out to differ much from the previous administration on the war agenda. And given what he has tried to foist on us in an election year (in the name of health care) I fear for what would lie ahead should he be reelected.
“Every Republican candidate except the unelectable Ron Paul proposes attacking Iran, which is no threat to the US, or arguably to Israel,”
My goodness, you ARE delusional! I don’t advocate for preemptive wars, but to assert that Iran is no threat to us or to Israel is a far-left delusion, plain and simple. I guess when Ahmadinejad stated that Israel needed to be “wiped off the map,” he was just pandering to his base?
No,he was responding to the question “What will you do if Israel attacks Iran?” Taken out of context, which is clearly bluster, it looks devastating. We are seeing a coordinated propaganda case being made for yet another preemptive war, which the Church teaches is not justifiable.
And if you really think Iran, which has no nukes, is a threat to Israel it is you who are delusional. Even if, contrary to the fatwa of the Ayotollah, they develop one, Israel has them outgunned 200+ to 1, not to mention the vast arsenal of the US, which is an ally of Israel.
I am willing to bet that in 2003 you bought the case for going to war with Iraq. Am I wrong?
If definitely seems that as a country, more than ever, we are between a rock and a hard place, to state the obvious. In the whole time I’ve been voting (almost 20 years) it’s always been a matter of choosing “the lesser of two evils.” The lesser of two evils is still an evil, but the Church continues to urge us to exercise our right to vote. I think one year my husband voted for me in the primary (not that he wants to be the First Husband) but the choices were that grim.