For Catholics, no good choice this fall

Well, if this is an example of some sort of official Catholic position re war, I suppose it is another good reason not to be a Catholic.

I'm not persuaded that the decision to go into Iraq in the first place was unjust or unreasonable, given what we thought we knew about the regime's WMD programs. The intelligence supporting that decision was wrong, and perhaps culpably wrong, but that does not mean that McCain's support of the war was unjust.

Once we were in, the real problem was our lack of follow through, including our lack of planning for a post Saddam Iraq, the failure to appreciate that the various factions in Iraq were going to go after each other, and the failure to send in an adequate force to keep a lid on things. In that light, McCain's advocacy of the surge was and remains well placed.

I actually don't believe that McCain is eager to resort to war. One might as well say that Obama is eager to resort to a supine posture.

As an Evangelical progressive who was raised Roman Catholic, let me say this first. I left the Christian Church as a youth because of its support of WAR in the Name of GODLINESS.

So when it come to being a Christian in Wholeness of Christ, I OPPOSE WAR! While I still am pro-life, I can never vote for a man who claims to love Jesus and still wants to fire the first shot at people that may differ from him.

This is why I would not vote for Goldwater and why I regretted voting for LBJ. Why would I ever even think of voting for McCain?

Why does being conservation translate into being a Hawk? Why does wanting a balanced budget by making the Nation pay its way translate into lax taxes for the rich? these are ideas that scare me. The big question is why does fighting a war that America does not want require that we borrow money from China who supports the very people we are fighting? These seem to make sense to McCain, but they do not make sense to me.

Why do I necessarily have to choose between those two? To paraphrase Samuel Eliot Morison, "Vote for Barr, hope for McCain, but bet on Obama."

Rod, you're starting to sound like one of those anti-Reagan whiners from back in the 80's who blasted the Gipper for being a war-monger. ("My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.")

To Hattio,
And how many already breathing, already born, already living, people is it worth it to get on the bench two more conservatives. For how many years? How great of a chance of overturning Roe does it have to be worth.

This is the thing. Quite a while ago Rod linked to something by a Catholic priest (maybe a Bishop, I can't remember) which basically said it's not a sin to vote for Obama, but make sure the reasons you have to vote for him are proportional to the harm he will cause. Rod posted to it and basically endorsed it in his columns.

Since then, McCain has made it pretty clear he's going to get us involved in SOME war SOMEwhere. If he's not talking about bombing Iran, he's talking about poking Russia, even though he admits that Georgia gave provocation. If not war in Iran, then war with Russia. Well, that's seems to be a pretty clear indication that more people are going to die under McCain. Well, you linked to something you agreed with, and endorsed it. How about you actually live up to that...or explain why it doesn't apply. But, as far as I can see no matter what happens, Rod is never going to vote for Obama. Well, if that's the case just admit it.

Hattio makes a good case. The way I would put it is this: for good or ill, the abortion issue is not on the national agenda at the moment and it is not an active issue in the presidential campaign. Even if the (nominally) pro-life candidate is elected, there is little or no chance that there will be any significant progress on the issue in the next President's term. Voting for a candidate who is quite undesirable on every other issue (which is my assessment of McCain) for the sake of the abortion issue doesn't make much sense.

And while the next President will have relatively little impact on the abortion issue, he will have a massive impact on our foreign policy. On that front I believe that a McCain victory would be quite dangerous. It's time to back away from the building the American empire. Obama might very well begin that backing-away, but McCain will do the opposite. That, unlike the abortion issue, is an issue on which this election may make a huge difference.

I have not voted for a Democrat for President since I was a liberal college student 36 years ago. But I very well might do so this time.

I'm a Catholic who doesn't vote for pro-abortion candidates, period. That includes the pro-abortion Republicans in my district: I leave the ballot blank. I'd vote for a pro-life Democrat over a pro-abortion Republican.

I haven't thrown my support behind McCain, but I don't blame fellow Catholics who do support him. Last I checked, presidents can't unilaterally declare war, and it wasn't a Republican who bombed an aspirin factory for no apparent reason. If McCain's a hothead theoretically it's Congress's job to keep him in check (remember checks and balances? Whatever happened to that idea, anyway?).

What I want to know is this: what makes anybody so sure Obama can get us out of Iraq and avoid entangling us elsewhere, anyway? What part of his lengthy record of serious statesmanship can we look to for examples? Oh, wait; there isn't one. The junior Senator from Illinois hasn't had time to become a seasoned foreign policy strategist, what with all the autobiography-writing and presidential campaigning.

Okay, I'm being a bit snarky, but what evidence do we have that Obama will be able to deliver on his promise to get us out of Iraq? He's already had to tweak the timeline from what I understand, or at least, his former adviser Sam Power insisted in a BBC interview that the timeline was subject to change. So it seems that Catholic voters have to weigh Obama's extreme pro-abortion views against the unknown quantity of his ability to get us out of Iraq cleanly enough that we don't end up back there a year later. I'm all for "hope" and "change" but I'm not particularly inclined to see either as a certainty.

Erin Manning,
Yes, Obama is pro-choice and McCain pro-life. But once again, what difference will that make? Which do you think is more likely, McCain being able to and willing to overturn a significant portion of Roe or Obama being able to and willing to shorten our time in Iraq?

Obama: pro-abortion, but loves peace.
McCain: anti-abortion, but loves war.

Or, as I've said before: the choice is between a man who wants to kill American babies, and another who wants to kill foreign ones.

Some choice. No thanks; this Roman Catholic can't vote for either one of them.

Rod: "Jeremy Lott, writing from a Catholic perspective, speaks for me."

Jeremy Lott: "Senator John McCain championed an unjust war in Iraq."

Have you no shame, Rod, misrepresenting the position of the RC Church?
Lott may speak for you, but he does not speak for the Church or "from a Catholic perspective."

Speak for your own church, not mine. If you want to speak for my Church, quote B XVI, not some loony-left "Catholic". What's the difference between that and lying?

Why is my comment being held for approval?

Cleveland: Why is my comment being held for approval?

Because the homosocialists asked me to.

Ha ha! Cleveland, how many times do I have to tell you this: I don't have anything to do with holding anybody's comments for approval. It's something automatic to this software. If you've been reading the comboxes today, you'll know that it held one of my own comments for approval.

Secondly, how would I know it's your comment? You frequently forget to attach your name to your comments.

And as regards your comment, Jeremy Lott is no "loony left" Catholic. Good grief, he most recently worked for the Cato Foundation! Let me explain something to you, Cleveland: the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not a document produced by the Republican National Committee. The integrity of one's Catholicism, or one's conservatism, does not depend on the extent to which it matches GOP talking points.

Your commentary is beginning to read like the answer the question, "What if the Fox News Channel hired Grampa Simpson to provide political commentary?"

As Rod notes, both major-party choices are evil: Obama, the pro-abort zealot, who will probably be more restrained in his foreign policy than McCain ... or McCain, the notionally pro-life senator who lusts for war.

I am in a hard Democratic state, and will therefore vote for the best available third party candidate.

My doomer perspective (paraphrasing Ferlinghetti, I think) is that when small men cast long shadows, we know that sunset is very near.

Lee

Franz: Well, if this is an example of some sort of official Catholic position re war, I suppose it is another good reason not to be a Catholic.

John Paul II, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger, and most Vatican theologians all agreed that the invasion of Iraq was not a just war, according to the classical criteria. That's not quite the Catholic Church's "official" position (that's a complex topic), but close. However, I might ask, can you name any church that was in favor of the war (I mean the whole denomination or its "official" position, not individual congregations or pastors)? And if Church X was for the war, would that be a good reason to belong to it?

ScurvyOaks: If you replace Stevens with a Roberts-type justice, Roe still won't go away any time soon, but the Court will start to nibble away around the edges and undermine Roe analytically, as part of a 10-year strategy to get to where they can overrule it.

Maybe, maybe not. That's what they've been saying since Reagan, and as I've pointed out elsewhere all but three justices are Republican appointees, and nothing has changed. However, Scalia/Alito/Roberts types are likely, based on the last few years, to kowtow to the truly scary unitary executive theory, which essentially grants the President effectively unlimited power. They would also likely chip away further at many civil liberties and make rulings on case law that would roll back many of the remaining legal principles of the New Deal era (which for those of us that think the New Deal was a good thing, is also scary). I don't think the slim possibility of undoing Roe is enough to risk such decisions, along with everything else negative that a McCain presidency might do. In short, proportionate cause.

Yes, Obama may push the "Freedom of Choice Act", but I think there's a reasonable liklihood it won't pass Congress; and even if passed and signed, it will certainly end up in the SCOTUS, which has a fair liklihood even at present of striking it down (though I think they wouldn't strike down or seriously change Roe, I don't think they'd uphold this act). I could be wrong, but it's something that can be fought; and even if the worst case scenario occured and it passed and was upheld, it's debatable how much change in actual numbers it would cause, and ultimately, like most things in politics, it's a calculated risk.

No good choice for Catholics probably means two very good choices for the rest of us.

Substitue "blacks", "Hispanics", "Jews", &c. for "Catholics" in this statement if you can't see how ugly it is prima facie.

Rod: You and those wacky homosocialists! ;) Seriously, I think this is one of your best recent posts. Too many liberals would shrug it off if a candidate supported abortion by napalm, and too many conservatives would vote for Beelzebub if he was pro-life. It's good to see you making the argument that it's not good out there no matter how you look at it. Contra what Archbishop Chaput seems to think, voting in light of Church teaching doesn't guarantee that there will be anyone that one can in conscience support.

Personally I'm very much disillusioned by both sides. I'll probably vote Obama since I think there is a slightly higher chance of his ratcheting down the war in Iraq, and a slightly better chance of his not bombing Iran or sending troops to Georgia. If things change, my call as to how to vote might change. In any case, I desperately wish we had more choices. I often think a parliamentary-style system with a few large moderate parties and several small radical ones might work better. People would have more choices and there would be more options for balancing things out.

In any case, I would fully respect anyone who voted third party or write-in in this election. I think the next four years are going to be interesting (in the sense of the old Chinese curse) regardless, so all we can do is fasten our seatbelts and get ready for a bumpy ride.

Telling that you quote a writer in a British publication. Last time I checked, this was a U.S. election.

If you don't want to vote, don't. This is an imperfect and violent world, about to get more violent in Eastern Europe. Americans will vote accordingly and , hopefully, wisely.

The whining this election year is deafening.

Rod: "Secondly, how would I know it's your comment? You frequently forget to attach your name to your comments."

I don't know, Rod, how did you know it was my comment? Probably because of that Je ne sais quoi and Force majeure they contain ;-).

Rod: "Jeremy Lott is no 'loony left' Catholic. Good grief, he most recently worked for the Cato Foundation!"

Why would that have anything to do with whether or not Lott is a leftist Catholic? Are you saying Libertarian organizations exclude folks on the Catholic left?

Rod: "Let me explain something to you, Cleveland: the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not a document produced by the Republican National Committee. The integrity of one's Catholicism, or one's conservatism, does not depend on the extent to which it matches GOP talking points."

Nice try, Rod. You know those irrelevant, self-evident facts have nothing to do with my belief that Lott is a leftist Catholic straight out of the loony-left Cardinal Renato Martino hand book. And for the umpteenth time, I am not a Republican.

So, if it's OK with you, this Catholic will take his direction on the war from B XVI, not Jeremy Lott.

Nor is Jeremy Lott a Conservative; he said Senator Joe Lieberman "might as well be a Republican." Lott thinks it's a Republican trait to be pro-abortion, anti-second amendment, and a tax and spender? Admit it, Lott dislikes Lieberman only because Joe supports the war on terror.

Lot also said: "Hypocrisy accusations are a staple of leftist rhetoric and also conservative talk radio palaver." Anyone who equates leftist rhetoric with conservative talk radio is a Libertarian, not a Conservative.

Cleveland

Rod makes excellent points. Many of us are trouble by McCain and could never in conscience vote for Obama. We need a realistic foreign policy and McCain seems to be completely out of sync with the times with his "demands" that Russa retreat from Georgia. We are in two wars and our army is completely over extended.
Even if we had a military option,we should not promise to defend all those former Soviet republics for the simple reason that we cannot. This is why McCain is out of step with the times and Obama's abortion stance is monstrous. We need a president with Obama's foreign policy (assuming he has one) and McCain's domestic. In short..we have to vote third party.

The sanctity of pre-born life trumps all, far outweighing the issue of the Iraq war. In America alone 3000 unborn children are slaughtered each day through abortion, the evil effect of this carnage on civilization is fatal in every way; it is the destruction of Western Civilization both from a moral standpoint and a demographic one. McCain has a 25 year history of pro-life voting, Obama, the opposite.

Remember what you already know, Politics is the art of the possible, never the perfect. There are only two viable choices today, McCain or Obama; McCain is the one.

I agree about McCain & Obama. So, what's the problem? Vote Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr. Write in Ron Paul or your man Huckabee. "Throwing away your vote"?. No, voting for some evil of two lessers even though who don't agree with them and can't support them, because that's what the monopolistic two party system has thrown up, that's throwing away your vote. Some people even say "Don't vote it only encourages them" or "If God had meant for us to vote, he would have given us candidates." Well, I always vote for someone, if for no other reason that I can complain about the bozo who gets elected because at least I tried to get someone good in office.

I am not discounting the necessity of nor the effectiveness of good government, but I think Samuel Johnson was wise when he said "of all the ills that human hearts endure, how small the part that kings and laws can cure."

You justify your premise by comparing a non-negotiable issue, abortion, to an abstraction, "trigger-happy." Any objective Catholic can see that John McCain's record, and his pledges, are pro-life and that Obama's are completely opposed to Catholic teachings. Period. It is intellectually dishonest to give those facts the same moral weight as a vague fear of a McCain agressive foreign policy. The Church has always believed in a state's general right to defend itself and it's interests.

"Let him who has ears hear". Obama believes is allowing babies to die who have survived a late-term abortion attempt. That's a fact. That is also infanticide. He believes in abortion under all conditions. Of course, he uses the PC term, pro-choice. Abortion is a mortal sin and is condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. War is not. Some 4000 military personnel have died in Iraq. Do I have to tell you how many babies have died by abortion in this country during the same period? I guess not, because you don't want to hear.

Ron, you need to take responsibiliby as a Catholic and a citizen of this great country so, based on Church Teaching, determine your priorities and decide what will be best for this country and you. From a Catholic perspective, voting for Obama is out because of abortion(among others). You can vote for someone else, but many votes will go to Obama so you have to consider the effect of not voting for McCain. McCain will present judges for the supreme court that will be similar to the conservative judges whereas Obama will select liberal judges that will have a negative effect on this country. The issue of war is a red herring. When America goes to war, it is not because of America but because of evil motivated states and leaders. Yes, the president makes mistakes but the decisions are based on his best judgement and advice of others including congress and are not easily made. In McCain's case, he has sons in uniform so he doesn't take war lightly. McCain clearly is motivated by a desire to serve his country. Others are clearly motivated to gain power. Does that make him the best choice? You do your homework and then decide (as a good Catholic and a good Citizen). If all Catholics vote against the dems, maybe they will finally get the message and dump the pro abortion, gay marriage issues and rejoin the America of our forefathers. They may rediscover religion and it's proper place in American Life.

I could not vote for Obama under any circumstance whatsoever. His wacko pro-abortion and pro-homosexual agenda is very disturbing, to say the least.

At the same time, though, I'm not going to buy into the idea that I *have* to vote for McCain. I'm finished with the ritual every 4 years where we're told that we HAVE to vote for whatever pathetic "Republican" they throw at us because they're better than the even more pathetic Democrat. And, every time we're told how the stakes have never been higher..."Al Gore will appoint liberal judges"..."John Kerry will appoint liberal judges"...and on and on and on. No matter what happens in this election or the next election, there's one thing that I'm certain of: A few years from now the Democratic nominee will be absolutely hideous, and the Republican will make DUHbya and McCain both look like the ultimate candidates. And, we'll be told that we *have* to vote for the horrible Republican candidate because the Democrat will destroy the country, appoint liberal judges, etc, etc.

As long as we keep voting for these lame "Republicans", the RNC will have no reason whatsoever to field better candidates. I'm getting very tired of being told that if I don't vote for McCain then I'm not a good Catholic. BALONEY! I'm not a good Catholic if I vote for someone who isn't pro-life. McCain's support for embryonic stem cell research says to me that he is not pro-life. And, his unqualified support for the death penalty and war doesn't help. Are they morally equivalent to abortion? Of course not. Are they pro-life issues that matter? Yes.

When I'm in that voting booth, I'll look at the little button beside John McCain's name and I'll think of: The McCain-Feingold bill, support for embryonic stem-cell research, and him singing "Bomb bomb Iran" and thinking it's funny. And, I'll be reminded of how I cannot vote for that man in good conscience, no matter how horrid the Democrat is.

And, besides, the fate of our country has nothing to do with politics. If God wills that we be severely chastised, then no president and no congress and no supreme court is going to stop it.

Take Responsibility says, "When America goes to war, it is not because of America but because of evil motivated states and leaders." Right. And this is because America is populated by an unfallen race of morally pure beings, whose leaders never act out of base motives. Ever. Because we American citizens never act out of base motives. Ever. You cannot be serious.
On the one hand you embrace American exceptionalism, and on the other, you lecture us about Catholic Church teaching, which is fatal to American exceptionalism. How do you keep your head from exploding?
Some historical review is in order. America went to war in 1848 to rob our neighbor, Mexico, of her best lands, in order to provide more room to expand slavery. America went to war in 1898 for no reason at all, whipped into a nationalistic frenzy by Pulitzer and Hearst. America went to war in 1917 because the German army was mere miles away from Washington DC, and we had to defend ourselves. Wait, that's not right, is it? Why DID we go to war in 1917? America went to war in 1941 because we were attacked. Okay, I'll spot you that one. America went to war in 1950 because we thought Stalin was going to be in a position to threaten our forces in Japan. I'll spot you that one, too. America went to war in Vietnam because if we didn't stop the Communists there, all of SE Asia would become Communist. 53,000 Americans and God knows how many Vietnamese later, we pulled out, and part of SE Asia became Communist. We now have trade and normal relations with communist Vietnam, and with communist China. That war did a lot of good and made a difference, didn't it? Can't spot you that one. So, let's sum up. We have six foreign wars, starting in 1848. Of those six, exactly one came about as a result of an attack on American soil by a foreign enemy. One, the Korean War, was a response to clearly aggressive moves by a proxy of a strategic enemy. Two, the Mexican War and the Spanish American War were exercises in imperialism. Two, WWI and Vietnam, are inexplicable to the enquiring mind. That leaves us with two out of six foreign wars that might meet the criteria for a just war.
Your premise about going to war only because of evil states and leaders is demonstrably false.

Take Responsibility says, "When America goes to war, it is not because of America but because of evil motivated states and leaders." Right. And this is because America is populated by an unfallen race of morally pure beings, whose leaders never act out of base motives. Ever. Because we American citizens never act out of base motives. Ever. You cannot be serious.
On the one hand you embrace American exceptionalism, and on the other, you lecture us about Catholic Church teaching, which is fatal to American exceptionalism. How do you keep your head from exploding?
Some historical review is in order. America went to war in 1848 to rob our neighbor, Mexico, of her best lands, in order to provide more room to expand slavery. America went to war in 1898 for no reason at all, whipped into a nationalistic frenzy by Pulitzer and Hearst. America went to war in 1917 because the German army was mere miles away from Washington DC, and we had to defend ourselves. Wait, that's not right, is it? Why DID we go to war in 1917? America went to war in 1941 because we were attacked. Okay, I'll spot you that one. America went to war in 1950 because we thought Stalin was going to be in a position to threaten our forces in Japan. I'll spot you that one, too. America went to war in Vietnam because if we didn't stop the Communists there, all of SE Asia would become Communist. 53,000 Americans and God knows how many Vietnamese later, we pulled out, and part of SE Asia became Communist. We now have trade and normal relations with communist Vietnam, and with communist China. That war did a lot of good and made a difference, didn't it? Can't spot you that one. So, let's sum up. We have six foreign wars, starting in 1848. Of those six, exactly one came about as a result of an attack on American soil by a foreign enemy. One, the Korean War, was a response to clearly aggressive moves by a proxy of a strategic enemy. Two, the Mexican War and the Spanish American War were exercises in imperialism. Two, WWI and Vietnam, are inexplicable to the enquiring mind. That leaves us with two out of six foreign wars that might meet the criteria for a just war.
Your premise about going to war only because of evil states and leaders is demonstrably false.

The argument that you are morally allowed/required to vote for the lesser evil is flawed. In a race with Stalin and Hitler, the same argument would be that you have to vote for Hitler because Stalin is the greater evil. Sorry. You can't vote for either without cooperating with evil.

I certainly hope that many people who are not Catholic also think that there is no good choice this election. I suspect a whopping 50% of the electorate and not thrilled by either McCain or Obama and would really favor having other candidates nominated by the major parties.

I suppose I will vote for McCain without any excitement because I suspect Obama has no leadership or backbone.

People who think electing Obama will bring peace are either ignorant or in some kind of wishful fantasy. And when McCain wins, as I suspect he will, I do not have a clue what that will mean if anything.

Finally, a fellow Catholic has written something after my own heart! I decided months ago not to vote for Obama or McCain for the very reasons Mr. Dreher published here. Indeed I've decided to farther and boycott the presidential element of the 2008 election because I believe that neither Dems or the GOP are offering me anyone qualified to hold the office of president. And I refuse to hold my nose while pulling the lever as I did in the past. These two parties have had this country wrapped up like gift since the election just before the Civil War broke out. That's almost one hundred and forty eight years now! I suggest it's high time that Catholics begin looking at forming new political parties as these two certainly do not really represent us anymore.

Senator McCain has seen war, loaths war, and would not want to get us into war. He sees the very real danger in radical islamism and would only take us to war if we were threatened. I do not believe that this war was an unjust war, any more than any of the previous wars. Our President had a duty to protect us from those who had already killed thousands of people on 9/11, and therefore felt that we had to confront the evil that was lurking, and is still lurking out there. We can pray that God will touch the hearts of those who would want to harm us, and pray for a leader who will protect us.

I must say that all of your comments sadden me a little. Obama and McCain are NOT the only two people to vote for. This point must be made to as many people as possible. If there is no one on the ballot that you like, write someone in for heaven's sake! People have bought the illusion that there are only two people to vote for every election. They won't vote for someone that they like because (and if I had brushed my teeth every time I've heard these words, my teeth wouldn't be clean- they'd be gone) "they don't have a chance of winning". That kind of attitude of defeat and the attitude that we must choose a lesser evil is destroying America. Also, the lack of interest that people show during Congressional elections is appalling. The elections are smaller and easier to win and congress has quite a bit more power than the president, constitutionally speaking anyways. We need to get people into Congress who will not bow to the whims of the executive branch. The executive branch has been out of control for some time now- Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter- and it's high time it was reigned in by Congress or was voluntarily reigned in by a good man in office. None of this will be done with some of the attitudes I see here. But disillusionment is at least a start. So I have some hope.

First, Rod,

You have disqualified yourself from speaking for Catholics or as a Catholic when you left the faith for Orthodoxy in 2006. You should put a disclaimer in your Catholic themed articles for full disclosure.

Second, McCain is far, far better on abortion than Obama who supports the Free Choice Act--which is a complete abomination--not to mention infanticide. Blurring those lines is not good journalism.

Obama wont end up much different on military issues as we are where we are and cant change the facts too much.

Lastly, McCain is a socialist. His socialized medicine will be a disaster. I grew up an Army brat. If the govt. cant manage health care for the military, how's it going to provide for the entire nation?

Fr. J.

June V. I was born in 1953, hardly a product of "the teaching system in this day and age" unless you want to include the early 60's through the middle 70's as part of this day and age. Regarding the substance of your argument, there is none, neither substance nor argument. Take a shot at refuting my argument, or challenge my historical interpretation, but please don't pull out the blind nationalism card and then think you have made some kind of point. One may be deeply patriotic without endorsing every action ever taken by our government or our people. In fact, one who does endorse every action ever taken by our government or by our people is simply blind, deaf, and dumb, and not a patriot at all.

War is not the same as killing innocent unborn human babies. In one year the US allows the killing of more American unborn babies (1,400,000) than all the American lives lost in all the wars we have been in since our founding as a nation. There are over 48 million that have been killed in the US from surgical abortions since 1973. There are close to 40 million killed every year in the world because of people like Obama and Planned Parenthood International and Marie Stopes group and the UNFPA. You people need to educate yourselves. Look up Human Life International, Population Research Institute,Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam), Priests for life, American Life League, National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, Family Research Council and other pro-life groups and see what they say about this election. Catholics (and any one else who believes in God) have a MORAL obligation to vote and we should not throw our vote away.
There are only two candidates who have a chance of being our next president. One is permissive and even enables killing the unborn, partially born, and born babies as well as his own grandchild and the disabled. He also wants to give equal status to sodomites in civil unions that would be like marriage. Obama is a major advocate for more intrinsically evil actions than any recent presidential candidate in our history. We would commit a moral evil if we were to vote for him. His commitment to evil makes me wonder if he does not need an excorcist.
Catholics have a very strong choice on the stand of the most important human rights issue (the killing of unborn human babies) of our time according to the USCCB 1989.
John McCain is the only candidate we can vote for. For someone to say anything else, would indicate to me that they are not following the teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on ethics and morals and as Cardinal George wrote in the Catholic New World (June 22,2008)the word for those who deny part of the faith are "heretics"

Erin: "...it wasn't a Republican who bombed an aspirin factory for no apparent reason."

Monica may not have been a good reason, but she most certainly was the apparent reason. :-( And you might have added that it wasn't a Republican who for days bombed Bosnian men, women, children, dogs, and the Chinese Embassy. It was a lying "war criminal" who never got a Congressional declaration of war. Maybe it was a Republican who started the Vietnam war; no, that was a lying war criminal Democrat, too. It always takes a Republican to clean up the Democrat messes when they are allowed to get out of hand, including bin Laden and Saddam.

Erin; "If McCain's a hothead theoretically it's Congress's job to keep him in check (remember checks and balances? Whatever happened to that idea, anyway?)."

AnotherBeliever can answer that for you: The culture of death (i.e., Democrat) U.S. Court of Supreme Beings got rid of it. We can't let the Constitution or the hateful American way of life thwart Progressivism forever, you know. What would Homosocialist Europe think of us?

"Stalin and Hitler"/"lesser of two evils".... huh? Talk about completely nonsensical, ....if you are referring to McCain. If you are talking about Obama, both apply; simply on the abortion principle.

Here's why the blog's author and all the "worry about McCain/war" types are simply delusional.

First the author "I worry a very great deal about where he would take us with regard to war."; the author worries because he doesnt KNOW where McCain would take us.... i.e. the author is projecting his fears, not looking at facts and more importantly, reality.

Those of you out there who espouse views which ignore the "just war theory/tradition", they also do so from the security and comfort of the centurion's who protect them. At least McCain was a centurion. As a centurion I can say most Americans, including Catholic Americans - of which I am one, are woefully ignorant of the evil that exists in the world. Not in the theoretical sense, but the reality of it. One hears it when they watch the news and hear "I never thought it could happen here...." astonishment.

I dont like McCain because he's not conservative enough. But the last thing I worry about is his being too "trigger happy".

Why? Well that exposes another problem in the US. Ignorance of the Constitution and declaration of war..... The President cant go around starting wars, it takes the support and consent of Congress.

Those of you wackos out there who want to start pointing to history, please your doing so only proves your ignorance.

As for evil, Obama's beliefs are evil. When you can point to a McCain belief that is evil then you can throw around such stupid and immature comment containing Hitler and Stalin.

As for the blog author, he seems like a ninny.

Who is the only non-Apostle quoted in every Mass?.....

The Centurion.

unfortunately, the Catholic Church can make whatever determination on the membership it wants. It has ruled with an iron hand for over a millennia.
I don't agree with its beliefs or tenants, so i'd never be a part of said religion. it's not an easy vote for a Catholic but eventually, that individual will have to make that choice. my thoughts on the subject, either vote as you believe or live in fear. you're choice.

Abortion and war are not moral equivalents. In 2004 in a letter to Cardinal McCarrick from Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, "There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." The greater context can be found below.

Seeing what is right & true is easy; accepting it and acting on it is the stuff of saints. We are all called to be saints. Vote for the pro-life candidate and continue to press both parties to end abortion.

-Francis

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

for full text see: http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

Frankly,

I wish an independent would enter the race. We need another choice. I am not convinced that either candidate is the right one, and I do think that McCain is too hawkish, and I do not agree with Obama's stand on abortion. Nor do I think "getting down" and fighting back and forth about "personality" issues and who owns fewer homes is the way to go. But, boys will be boys.

For my candidate, however, I'm looking for a man--or woman--who can do the job--and I wish with great desire for a strong independent candidate. Our country is in great need at this hour.

As for the comment on the Constitution and the president not being able to go to war without the consent of Congress--the gentleman who pointed that out is correct--that IS what the constitution says. Too bad recent presidents have ignored the constitution and fired up the war guns first, then gone to Congress second.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Abortion is legal due to Roe V. Wade. Res Judicata, Stare Decisis Baby. No Politician can change that. Listening to the Republicans say they are against abortion means nothing, The Supreme Court made the law, only a constitutional amendment can re-criminalize the act. Neocons only like the Supreme Court when they rule their way. Patriots love the supreme court as much as the founding fathers did, they are part of the balance of power. 7 of the last 10 presidents were Republican, they did nothing but talk and make the Religious right feel warm and fuzzy. Mrs. Barbara Bush, Mrs. Gerald Ford, and other first ladies were for a woman's right to choose and the others keep their mouths shut.
But, all the idiots keep buying the line, and vote for the Party that sanctions torture, strips away our rights, spits on the Constitution, starts pre-emptive wars we cannot afford, hands out billions to Iraqis while Americans starve and have no health care. Anyone dumb enough to vote for the Republican Platform gets what they deserve...more of the same