I once heard Mother Angelica say that one time when she was faced with a moral dilema by voting for either presidential candidate, she simply checked the "other" box on her ballot and wrote in the name Jesus.  She raises a good point.  When faced with a moral dilema if both parties on the ticket are, for example, pro-abortion, does one vote for the "lesser of the two evils",  or not vote at all?  How, as Catholics, should one vote if neither party, on the ticket, promotes the culture of life? 

I throw out these questions to encourage dialog because this is something that I am wrestling with and do not have an answer for.  I can't wait to review the document once the USCCB publishes it.  These are times when the authority of the Church is necessary.

Pax Christi, 

Catalina22

Svengerpen

You wrote:

I once heard Mother Angelica say that one time when she was faced with a moral dilema by voting for either presidential candidate, she simply checked the "other" box on her ballot and wrote in the name Jesus.

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.

Ignoring thre Democratic process and spoiling one's vote does not seem to me the Catholic way.  I think one should think carefully, pray fervently and them vote in an election.

God bless,


NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________

Y-How can you say that:

 According to the proper formation of conscience, the only moral choice for President of the United States of American is Governor Bill Richardson. He is the only candidate that does no offence to the morality of Catholic teaching and he is Roman Catholic also.In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen

 The following is taken directly from Mr. Richardon's website and he clearly identifies himself as pro-choice (I would rather say pro-abortion). As the artcle recentlt posted ny Mary Kochan indicates the USCCB clearly gives much more grave weight and concern in deciding on a candidate based upon the life issues. Mr. Richrdson fails this test.

If you want a candidate that is 100% pro-life, check out Mike Huckabee.

Reproductive Rights and Reproductive Health

Bill Richardson is pro-choice. As President, he will continue to support abortion rights and medical privacy for women, and he will support full law enforcement against domestic terrorists who bomb abortion facilities.

Bill Richardson believes birth control should be available regardless of income, and states should not limit women's access by allowing pharmacies to refuse to fill legal prescriptions. Insurance programs should cover birth control, the single highest out-of-pocket medical cost for women of child bearing age.

Governor Richardson wants every state to provide sexual assault survivors who are treated in hospital emergency rooms with counseling regarding risk of pregnancy and objectively offer emergency contraception.

Young people deserve the best information available on how to avoid unplanned pregnancies and protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases. Bill Richardson supports comprehensive education, which includes teaching of abstinence, birth control and sensible options for disease and pregnancy prevention.

Bill Richardson supports international reproductive health programs (see Global Women's Rights).  Bill Richardson is the only candidate explicitly committing to appoint only judges who consider Roe v. Wade settled law.

PTR- I think we all know the answer to your question. I've often wondered how Palnned Parenthood which I believe is a tax exempt organizations gets away year after year with not only publically endorsing the pro-abortion candidates in both national and local elections, but how they donate money to these candidates. Year after year, i write my County legislature and ask that county funds not be used to support PP, but they always fork over our tax dollars to this group. How do they get away with it, but we Catholics have to worry if a priest or bishop stands in the pulpit to teach our catholic values and which candidate might better meet those values?

DTG

While I agree that sovereign nations often make unjust laws, and as Catholics, we are called to try and bring about more just laws.  Legalized abortion is unjust.  Amnesty for illegal immigrants would be unjust to those who followed legal channels of immigration, and unjust for U.S. citizens who follow the laws but don't enjoy the same priviliges as illegal immigrants. 

The bishops have my prayers daily.  The USCCB is a way for the more liberal bishops to band together and use their power to try to influence Catholics.  I have not a few friends who believe that the USCCB is an official part of the hierarchy of the Church and speak with the authority of the Church.  They do not understand that it is an imperfect organization instituted by humans which is becoming increasingly corrupt.  The USCCB acts as if it is a part of the hierarchy of the Church in making voters guides which butcher Vatican documents to support their agendas.  Why publish a voter's guide when Gaudium et spes clearly identifies our duties as Catholics in the political world?  

It is true that we must serve others, but is serves no one to encourage breaking just laws and giving those law-breakers whatever they want.  It only encourages others to break those laws and builds an entitlement mentality among the law-breakers.   

Catholic News Service (www.catholicnews.com)

"Svengerpen

You wrote:

I once heard Mother Angelica say that one time when she was faced with a moral dilema by voting for either presidential candidate, she simply checked the "other" box on her ballot and wrote in the name Jesus.

...

Ignoring thre Democratic process and spoiling one's vote does not seem to me the Catholic way."

Sam Brownback for President, anyone?

Regards,

Old Sigma (Cradle Catholic [Latin rite] & generally inveterate amateur)

DTG

Dominion isn't defined as the right to move from place to place without any regulation.  The problem with having people undocumented is the inability to keep criminals and terrorists out.  We don't want serial rapists, murderers, drug dealers coming in and out of the country, and we also don't want more Muslim terrorists like the Fort Dix 6.  

The immigration issue isn't about race or class, it is about keeping order in our country.  Nobody has ever said the reason for border security is to keep our country rich and white.  It has everything to do with knowing who comes into the country for the safety and welfare of those who already live here.  Nobody has a problem with poor Mexican immigrants coming to the U.S. through legal channels to help better themselves and the country.  I have every problem with someone sneaking into the U.S. stealing my SSN, flying a Mexican flag, and cussing me out in the supermarket for not speaking Spanish. 

Finally, this notion of voting for third party or write in candidates is not well thought out.  A vote for a non-viable candidate is a vote for the worse of the two evils.  I do agree that it would suck tremendously if Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani were the two nominees, but the fact is, Rudy Giuliani, while pro-choice, has promised to appoint a strict constructionist Supreme Court Justice, and most likely won't further the cause of abortion.  Hillary Clinton will most likely appoint a Supreme Court Justice who will uphold liberal beliefs, regardless of the constitutionality.  Sam Brownback and Mother Angelica are as likely as Oscar the Grouch to win the presidency, and thus do anything to limit the expansion of abortion or even lessen it.  The action of not voting or voting third-party or write in does not defend against but enables a greater evil.

I'm responsible for my own conscience, and no one else's.  When voting, my vote does two things:  

First, it indicates which candidate I think will best represent my wishes in the government.

Second, it contributes to a candidate's victory, not necessarily my candidate's -- if, say, he's running for the Constitution or Libertarian party, my vote will contribute to the major candidate LEAST like myself.

Looking at the Republican party (which represents my POV much better than the Democrats), I think my best bet to move them closer to my position, which is mostly libertarian, is this:  I vote for the best of their candidates in the primary.  In the general election, I vote for the best of the presidential candidates.

See, Karl Rove and like minded people in the Republican work from the assumption that they will only get Republican votes, so the only voters that they're anxious about are the Republicans who are so disgusted with the party that they vote outside of it. 

@DTG - I don't recall reading or hearing anything about the Indians having laws which governed the land, especially in the case of strangers from another continent.  I do recall that at first the colonists were welcomed by the Indians.  I also don't reacall that the Indians had any kind of promulgated law which they tried to enforce.  The system then was quite a bit different than our system of government and promulgation of laws now.

@yanastrovich - Catholics are the worst offenders in the Federal government when it comes to breaking God's laws.  The Pope, cardinals, bishops, etc. have already tried to convert their thinking, but alas, their hearts have grown stubborn.  A Catholic in conflict with the teachings of the Church is twice destructive in that they display a heretical understanding of Catholicism in addition to their support of grave practices.