Paul Ryan hit this point OUT OF THE PARK at the debate last week.
Listen to Joe Biden’s hypocracy: he openly admits that he accepts the Church’s teaching that life begins at conception, but still says he won’t force that view on others. If, as he says, he truly believes life begins at conception, that means he knows he is openly supporting the murder of unborn children. Chilling.
By the way, check out the stuck up face on Joe Biden there.
Ben is a catholic homeschooled senior in Highschool and loving it, loves his big family, but most of all, HE'S CATHOLIC!
From the Ordinary to the Extraordinary was started as a place to post my thoughts on things I enjoy and care about, anything from the ordinary and mundane things of everyday life to the extraordinary exciting things. Some of my passions include cross country running, sacred music, the liturgy, web design, video production and media production, particularly radio.
Seek not the face of the priest in the Mass, but the face of Almighty God.
Both of whom are going into religious life by the way, but they still where able to have fun, and they where definitely some of... – May 25, 11:11 AM
Awesome! – May 25, 8:23 AM
How handsome! And AML is beautiful... and modest! Thank you for sharing. The other couple is very sweet as well! – May 23, 12:49 AM x( Fail. – May 21, 6:31 PM
All the pics were taken by Mrs. Leone, except the one at Perkins. I was talking about the crazy picture, not the crazy photographer, but... – May 21, 10:45 AM THE CRAZY ONE!? A true assessment, but still... – May 20, 8:28 PM
And yet, Mr. Ryan also indicated that a Romney/Ryan administration will be open to continuing to allow abortions in certain circumstances, which also violates Divine and Ecclesiastical Law.
CCC 2273: “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation.”
Instruction “Donum vitae” (CDF, 1987): “However, the inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the State: they pertain to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his of her origin.”
Clearly Romney/Ryan represents a lesser evil, but supporting murder of infants is still supporting murder of infants. I will not be voting for either major party in this election.
I wholeheartedly agree about the problems with the Romney abortion exceptions.
But if you look more carefully, it’s really Romney. Ryan has said on multiple occasions in the past that he’s 100% pro-life, and has voted accordingly with a 100% pro-life record. Notice how he phrases it: “The policy of the Romney administration will be…” Clearly, it’s not necessarily possible for him to change Romney on the matter. Romney is the one running for president, and decides his platform. Ryan made a neutral statement about Romneys platform.
In addition, our own Bishop Morlino has said that Ryan’s views and records are fully within the realm of acceptable Catholic doctrine.
However, your statement that you are not voting for either major party seems very problematic. In situations such as this, we have a duty to vote for the lesser of two evils? Since one of the two major candidates is virtually guaranteed to win, if we do not vote, or if we vote for a candidate who has no viable chance of winning (ie, voting 3rd party in the current political situation), we are giving half a vote to each of the two major contenders, including Obama.
ONE of them WILL win. Which one of the two would you want? You should vote for them. Any other vote is a wasted vote, and gives half a vote to support the radical Obama agenda.
I realize that Mitt Romney is the problem, not Paul Ryan. I read Bishop Morlino’s column regarding Mr. Ryan, and I trust and respect His Excellency’s judgement and authority as our Ordinary. However, the ballot offers the opportunity to vote for Romney for president, not Paul Ryan. Were I in Mr. Ryan’s Congressional district, I would be voting for him in his congressional race.
Must we vote for the lesser of two evils? According to whom? The Catechism says:
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
Michael, here’s the one thing you’re missing: Either Obama or Romney will be elected. That’s inevitable. We need to accept that. It’s too late to change it.
Neither is perfect, but we clearly want Romney to be elected (since the choice is between Romney and Obama). For all intents and purposes, voting third party is a waste of a vote, getting Obama half a vote closer to another term. Therefore, we NEED to vote for Romney. Logically, I don’t see any other way around it. If you want Obama elected instead of Romney, vote for Obama. If you would rather see Romney elected than Obama, you should vote for Romney, even if he’s not ideal.
That is false logic.
“A” is intrinsically evil.
“B” is also intrinsically evil (though to a lesser extent).
“C” is NOT intrinsically evil.
A vote for “C” cannot be said to be a vote for “A” or “B” any more than a vote for “A” can be said to be a vote for “B”. Each option is entirely separate. In his congressional race, Paul Ryan fits into the “C” category, however, the Romney/Ryan presidential ticket fits into the “B” category.
CCC 2240 asserts that it is morally obligatory for a Catholic to exercise his right to vote, but certainly does not bind us to vote for a candidate who openly supports that which is intrinsically evil (in this case abortion) merely because he “has a viable chance of winning.” A vote for evil is a vote for evil, however you wish to re-brand it (“A rose by any other name…”).
“If you want Obama elected instead of Romney, vote for Obama. If you would rather see Romney elected than Obama, you should vote for Romney, even if he’s not ideal.”
And, what if I would rather see neither of them elected? There is nothing in the US Constitution mandating that only a Democrat or Republican may become president. If we wish to have elected officials who work for the common good, we should start voting for candidates who do not support evil, rather than continuously cooperating with the perceived “lesser evil.”
“And, what if I would rather see neither of them elected?”
Frankly, it’s not a choice we’re given in America right now. If our political system was different, not voting, or voting for the perfect candidate may be a more feasible option. But as it is, it does nothing but weaken the front against Obama.
Not voting (or wasting a vote on a 3rd party guy that won’t win) is the same as giving half a vote to the worse of the evils (Ob). I’d much rather give a whole vote to a lesser evil(Rom) than half a vote to a much more heinous evil. Any way you slice it, this year, either Obama or Romney will win.
Of course, there’s nothing in the constitution that forbids 3rd party candidates, but the practical reality in 2012 (and probably for the foreseeable future) is that no viable 3rd party candidate will have much of a chance.
The current situation is like a light-switch. Romney is up, Obama is down. We can’t step away from the switch and refuse to switch it because both have aspects of evil. We ARE going to get one of them in 2012 (just as a light switch is always on or off), so we need to flip the switch up (ie, away from Obama), not because we love Romney and think he’s best for the job, but because it’s either him or Obama. Trying to push the switch sideways will do nothing, and only allow others to make the choice for us.
Do note that all this discussion applies only to the general election. The primaries is really the time to rally behind the 3rd party candidates.
Your light-switch simile is simply inaccurate. Either a Republican or a Democratic vote in this presidential election represents the light-switch in the “off” position, as both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney are well described by the Evangelist: “et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt” (Jn 1, 5).
Perhaps you should re-read Bishop Morlino’s column which you had referenced above. His Excellency succinctly states:
“Some of the most fundamental issues for the formation of a Catholic conscience are as follows: sacredness of human life from conception to natural death, marriage, religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and a right to private property.
“Violations of the above involve intrinsic evil — that is, an evil which cannot be justified by any circumstances whatsoever. These evils are examples of direct pollution of the ecology of human nature and can be discerned as such by human reason alone. Thus, all people of good will who wish to follow human reason should deplore any and all violations in the above areas, without exception. The violations would be: abortion, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, government-coerced secularism, and socialism.
…
“Nor may a conscience well-formed by reason or the Catholic faith ever choose to vote for someone who clearly, consistently, persistently promotes that which is intrinsically evil.”
If I may comment, Tim Staples points out in his “Five Non-Negotiables” that we can vote for one of two candidates who are both for abortion. If one will make late term abortions illegal, we can vote for that candidate etc. But if their is a third candidate available? I don’t think this is brought up.
Please, answer this directly: do you honestly think there is any reasonable chance that the next president will not be Romney or Obama?
There’s two types of immoral acts, those of commission and omission. By not voting (omission), or voting for someone you know will loose, you’re weakening the front against Obama, who is the worst candidate.
In the same way, by voting for someone who will loose the election, you’re giving half a vote (through omission) to Obama. This year, it is inevitable that a candidate that is pro-abortion to some degree or another will be elected. Our choice is to choose between them. Who do you want?
In this election, the true sin would be not doing whatever you can to make sure Obama is not elected, even if he’s replaced by someone who is still immoral to a lesser degree. Voting 3rd party or not voting does exactly that.
“[D]o you honestly think there is any reasonable chance that the next president will not be Romney or Obama?”
Again, this is utterly irrelevant. There is at least one candidate on the ballot who is wholly pro-life. I cannot, therefore, in good conscience, vote for murder when the option to vote for life exists, regardless of how hopeless the prospects may seem.
Your reasoning is no different from the (il)logical formulations that lead to “safe-sex” education in the public schools: Many teens will not abstain, therefore we should at least teach them to wear a condom to minimize STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Nonsense. Fornication is fornication. Abortion is abortion.
If voting for someone whom I “know will lose” is a sin of omission, and the ever-adored “poll numbers” indicate Obama has a fifteen percentage point lead on November 5, by that logic I would be committing a sin of omission by not voting for Obama!
I would contend the far greater omission has been that of the pro-life movement in refusing to demand that candidates stand up for ALL lives, without any exception. Twenty years ago it would have been absurd to even think a Republican presidential candidate could be pro-abortion. The pro-life movement kept making concessions and cooperating with intrinsic evil. Now it is nearly impossible to find a Republican politician who is actually pro-life.
If every Catholic, and every man of good will, heeded Bishop Morlino’s instruction, “Nor may a conscience well-formed by reason or the Catholic faith ever choose to vote for someone who clearly, consistently, persistently promotes that which is intrinsically evil,” we would not be in a position of despair.
Michael, we seem to just be spinning our wheels, so let’s just end our discussion now. Thanks for joining me in it!
Indeed. It is always good to see fellow Catholics thinking about their political choices in the light of the true Faith and making an informed decision.
I know we will at least agree to both pray for an end to abortion this Election Day:
(Collect “For Giving Thanks to God for the Gift of Human Life” from the Roman Missal, Third Edition)
God our Creator,
we give thanks to you,
who alone have the power to impart the breath of life
as you form each of us in our mother’s womb;
grant, we pray,
that we, whom you have made stewards of creation,
may remain faithful to this sacred trust
and constant in safeguarding the dignity of human life.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.
Amen.
Okay, I am coming out of left field with this…. once upon a time there was a Democratic Catholic President named, John F. Kennedy. He is who I have patterned my Political belief’s from. I myself wasn’t born while he was in office, but I have been a big admirer of his.
Fast forward 49 years later, and “democrat” is a dirty word now within the Catholic faith. Of course “abortion” wasn’t legal during the Kennedy administration.
Anyhow… here we have Biden and Ryan, “both Catholic”. I saw “some” of their debate and it is “my understanding”, Biden accepts Catholic teachings, but refuses to “impose” those teaching into his politics.
Former Congressman, Patrick Kennedy (Google this): Patrick Kennedy Denied Communion because of Pro-Choice-Zimbo.
Does anyone know to what extent Biden is being sanctioned by the Church? I’m just curious?
Thanks,
Debra
So, does anyone know if Biden has been denied Communion?
“So, does anyone know if Biden has been denied Communion?”
Yes. And no. Unless and until an individual is publicly excommunicated, it is up to each individual bishop.
In 2008 Bishop Martino of Scranton (Biden’s hometown) said Biden would be refused Communion in his diocese.
Also in 2008 Archbishop Chaput (then of Denver, now Abp of Philadelphia and a Cardinal) said Biden should voluntarily refrain from receiving.
Just this week Bishop Sheridan of Colorado Springs said Biden will be refused Communion within his diocese.
Cardinal Burke, the highest ranking American Cardinal, has repeatedly stated (at times specifically responding to questions about Biden) that pro-abortion politicians should be denied Communion until they publicly change their views.
Michael:
Thanks for the response.
Debra