Vote Democrat, Mortal Sin

Facebook 0
Twitter
LinkedIn 0
Reddit 0
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon 0
WhatsApp
Email
Print

 

It was clear before – vote democrat, commit mortal sin –  but two things the Democrat Party has done since the last presidential election  make this crystal.

 

Ignore for the moment, for purposes of this discussion,  the state of the Catholic Church in America, the foetid, stinking, evil, corrupt  entity it has become.  Simply put, those in power at the very highest echelons in the church hierarchy should not be heard when they tell anyone to vote for democrats; and, in general, they should not be heard on any moral issue, period.  Michael Brendan Doughtery has summarized the state of the Catholic Church:

I thought I was already inured to the moral rot in the Catholic clergy . . . There is an undeniable psychological tension between my religious belief that I cannot have hope for salvation outside the visible, institutional Church and my honest conviction that of all the institutions and societies that intersect with my life, the Church is by far the most corrupt, the most morally lax, the most disillusioning, and the most dangerous for my children. In that tension, personal prayer will dry up like dew at noon. (“Off the Shelf: What Catholic Traditionalists Foresaw;” National Review, June 29, 2018 )

Two more recent developments have exposed the democrat party for what it really is, and has been.

First, proceeding initially under the guise of seeking only “toleration,” they sought to accord the legal status of “married” to those who voluntarily engage in homosexual actions. This alleged “toleration” has now morphed into a totalitarian call by democrats to label words that amount to “marriage always was, is, and always will be the  marriage of a man to a woman” as hate speech; and, by some democrats, to have any public denial that “same-sex” marriage is either not possible or, in some sense, wrong, be declared a crime. Again and again, they seek to use the power of government:  to abridge or abolish  the religious liberty of those who disagree with them;  to abridge believers’ right to free speech in saying what they believe; and to have these rights squelched with governmental power by requiring all to implicitly affirm “same-sex marriage.”

Secondly, and is some ways far more deadly, the democrats, who in the past supported, advocated for, and demanded taxpayer support of all abortions, now are openly celebrating abortions. They have implicitly admitted that their previous camouflaging mantra for abortion – “legal, safe, and rare” – was a smokescreen. All along their goal was abortion as a killing  to be welcomed, promoted, paraded, and joyously celebrated.

Prior to the 2016 elections, liberal bishops, priests, and pastors, many of them either open or closet democrats, who wanted to deliver the “catholic vote” to their beloved democrats, hid behind “we are not single issue voters” and “life is s seamless garment.” They ignored the fact that – with respect to intrinsic evils like abortion and racism, as proclaimed to us by the United States bishops – if a candidate is wrong regarding an intrinsic evil, that is a “disqualifying” issue . No matter what else a candidate says or does or stands for, if a candidate is wrong on a disqualifying issue, a catholic with a well-formed conscience cannot vote for such a candidate.  For the democrats, the Party of Death, party in toto, is disqualified

Clerical shills for the democrats may spout that “when a democrat is disqualified on abortion, but a republican is disqualified on ________ (fill in with war, poverty, immigration, justice, etc.), then a catholic can, in good, well-formed conscience,  vote for the democrat.”  But the fact is, when a candidate is disqualified because of support for intrinsic evil,  there is no issue, no consideration that then makes it moral to vote for such a candidate. Even if all the listed candidates of all parties are wrong and all are disqualified, a catholic with a well-formed conscience cannot then vote for a democrat. One option is not to vote or to vote for an unlisted “sign-in” candidate.

This must be made perfectly clear: to state the fact that it is a mortal sin to vote for any democrat is not to endorse any candidate of any other party.  Of course the democrat clergy, bishops,  priests, and pastors fear that if the truth gets out – it is a mortal sin to vote for any democrat – that some, or worse, many, such voters will vote for a republican. Their other fear is that some of those whose votes they have in the past herded 100% into the democrat fold simply will not vote at all.

What is especially feared by the democrat clergy in Texas and elsewhere in the United States is that the truth will become widely known – the truth that the republican party is now the party of family and the democrat party is now the party of baby death – not just baby death, but the party of “If-you’re-happy-killing-babies- clap-your- hands” celebrations of abortions. This truth is particularly damning for democrats among Hispanics who value family above party affiliation.

The mortal sinfulness of voting for a democrat is presented in some detail in  “Faith-Filled Citizenship Voting Catechism,”

http://sinvote.democrat/faith-filled-citizenship-voting-catechism/

 

Here are some excerpts:

 

DEMOCRATIC PARTY –  PARTY OF INTRINSIC EVIL  PARTY OF ABORTION, PARTY  OF DEATHQ.

Q. Does the Democratic Party promote abortions?

A. Yes. The Democratic Party advocates abortion, promotes abortion, celebrates abortions, and seeks to have and has succeeded in having abortions paid for with taxpayer money.

Q. Will the Democratic Party support a prolife candidate?

A.No, never. The Democratic Party has stated publicly that any candidate who wants to receive funds and campaign money from the party must be proabortion. It has stated that this position is non-negotiable.

Q. Is the platform of the Democratic Party proabortion?

A.  The Democratic Party Platform has and continues to advocate for taxpayer-funded abortion for all nine months of pregnancy; and has ignored the request of some thousands of people to amend the Party Platform to recognize the existence of pro-life members. The Party also rescinded language that abortion should be “rare.” For these and other reasons it has been called the “Party Of Abortion,” and the “Party Of Death.”

Q. Has a Cardinal Archbishop of the Church called the Democratic “Party the Party of Death”? A.  Yes.

Q. Has a Bishop of the Church resigned as a registered Democrat because of the Democratic Party’s support of abortion? A.  Yes.

Q. Is it a mortal sin for me to vote for a Democrat with the intention that the Party’s Platform be enacted and preborn babies be aborted?

A. If you vote for a Democrat so that preborn babies will be killed by abortions, you commit mortal sin.

Q. What if I do not vote for a Democrat knowing that preborn babies will be killed by abortion and this will be a result of my vote – but I vote for a Democrat to achieve some other good, such as the reduction of poverty, the end of war, the elimination of the death penalty, a fair economic system, or just treatment of immigrants?

A. Since abortion is an intrinsic evil, none of the other goods listed can change this evil and none of the other goods listed can be used to outweigh or negate this evil. So, again, in this situation, you will commit mortal sin.

Q. Does this apply to all Democrats at all levels of government?

A. Yes, this applies to all Democrat candidates. The Democratic Party does not change its program, policies, platform, or agenda for any member who disagrees with its policies and aims regarding abortion, nor does it do so for Democrats who say they are against the party’s proabortion program. No candidate for office – at any level – who is a Democrat no matter if he or she denies  individual support of intrinsic evil –  can negate the Party’s involvement in, advocacy of,  and promotion of intrinsic evil.  Therefore, a vote for any Democrat at any level of government is a vote on behalf of the Party’s program, goals, platform, policies, and agenda and a vote for its agenda of abortion.

Q. So is it a mortal sin to vote for any Democrat?

A. Yes, it is a mortal sin to vote for any Democrat.

 

This Voting catechism also deals with the racism of the democrats:

DEMOCRATIC PARTY –  PARTY OF RACISM

PARTY OF BLACK & HISPANIC GENOCIDE

Q. Does the Democratic party advance racism and racist policies?

A. Yes. The Democratic Party is a racist organization because it advocates and promotes abortion businesses that perform abortions for racist motives, such as Planned Parenthood, an organization founded on principles of eugenics and racial superiority, which intentionally locates about 70% of its locations in or near minority neighborhoods and is on record as willing to accept donations used for the killing of minority babies who be killed by abortions at Planned Parenthood abortion business locations. The Democratic Party has seen to it that millions of taxpayer dollars have been paid to Planned Parenthood and other abortion businesses, knowing full well that this money will be and has been used for racist purposes.  For these reasons, the Democratic Party is the “Party Of Racism.”

Q. What if I do not vote for a Democrat so that its racist agenda, programs, and policies will be successful, or so that minority preborn babies will be killed – even though I know my vote will result in this  racism – but I vote for a Democrat to achieve some other good, such as the reduction of poverty, the end of war, a fair economic system, or just treatment of illegal aliens?

A. Since racism is an intrinsic evil, none of the other goods you list can change this evil and none of the other goods you list can be used to outweigh or negate this evil. So, again, in this situation, you will commit mortal sin.

Q. So is it a mortal sin to vote for any Democrat?

A. Yes, it is a mortal sin to vote for any Democrat.

 

Despite the fact that all this is known and has been published;  despite the clear teachings of the Church; and despite the revelations about the living evil that is many of the highest ranking clergy in America; the  priests, pastors, bishops and cardinals who support the democrat party will, somehow, say to the faithful this Fall and in Fall 2020 “you can, in good conscience, vote for a democrat.”  Nothing will stop them because they saw what happened in 2016 – from their vantage point they failed. More than half the catholic voters voted non-democrat.

Each time they speak for a democrat, whether it be outright endorsement or an attack on a republican running against a democrat they support, they must be openly and vigorously opposed. Each time some well-meaning catholic or some yellow-dog democrat (whether family member or not) says that the Church says you can vote for a democrat, they must be publicly and openly corrected.

More to explorer

Seeing the Light

  Hard to believe it is seventy-one years since I Saw the Light was written by Hank Williams.  The song powerfully coveys

27 Comments

  1. According to “Life in Christ – A Catholic Catechism for Adults” (1995) it asks the question in the section discussing sins against the Fifth Commandment: “Are religious and racial prejudice against the fifth commandment?” The response is: “Prejudice is an unreasonable emotion and always opposed to charity. To judge and condemn any person because that person happens to belong to a certain religious group, nationality or race injures that person. To manifest prejudice by our actions hurts the feelings of our neighbor and is therefore a sin against charity. To deny any person her or his rights is a sin against justice as well as charity. This is particularly true in the case of joining an organization (such as the Nazi Party or the Ku Klux Klan) which promotes racial, ethnic or religious hatred.”

    So, to simply join the Nazi Party or the KKK is a mortal sin for reasons stated above from the text. Common sense says if joining such organizations is a mortal sin against the 5th Commandment, then certainly joining an organization that supports and promotes the murder of innocent life in abortion, must be a mortal sin, too. As stated in the answer to religious and racial prejudice, “To deny any person her or his rights is a sin against justice as well as charity.” Well, abortion denies a person their right to life, and to join any organization that “supports and promotes” abortion, such as the Democrat Party, must be a sin against the 5th Commandment, also. How could endorsing with one’s name the Democrat Party, which is solely responsible for abortion remaining legal, not be a mortal sin? Yet, the U.S. bishops have not addressed that aspect of the 5th Commandment, and the number of Catholics registered in the Democrat Party and voting for it gives that organization the electoral power to keep abortion legal.
    Commandment.

  2. In his 2004 Memorandum to Cardinal McCarrick, Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was) was more nuanced: ” A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

  3. Michael, My point now is that – due to what the democrats have done and have promised to do – it is not possible for their to be any “proportionate reasons” to outweigh what they have and will do (this point made in the Voting Catechism in detail). The democrats have gone light years past a mere “stand” on abortion and same-sex sodomarriage. There are no proportionate reasons when you are dealing with intrinsic evil, especially when a party celebrates that evil and demands that you and I pay for the celebration with our tax dollars. Thank you – it is so interesting that a would be pope writes to Uncle Ted about formal cooperation in evil. I can only imagine Uncle Ted’s request that prompted the cardinal’s reply. Guy McClung.

  4. Stilbelieve, Thank you – I had not stated what you added. Of course it is a mortal sin to be a member of the democrat party. The folks living outside Auschwitz could not say they did not know what was happening behind the barb wire. No one can join the democrat party and say I don’t know what they think about murder and perversion. Guy McClung

  5. I tend to agree with Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was). Keep in mind that one must have full knowledge of what they are doing in order to be in mortal sin. Many have no idea what they are doing, and I suspect we’ll all be punished as a nation for abortion. A lot of blood on our hands… A LOT

  6. So everyone in IL-3 who voted in the Dem primary to keep Dan Lipinski, one of the last pro-life Dems in Congress, from losing the primary to a rabid pro-abort, knowing that the winner was going to face off against a bona fide Nazi (Arthur Jones) who had wheedled his way onto the GOP ballot, is guilty of mortal sin and going to hell? Silly me, I would have thought they were doing the right thing and keeping a bad situation from becoming even worse. This is a prime example of why I would never state categorically that voting Democratic is always a sin; it always depends on the circumstances behind a particular ballot race. As then Cdl. Ratzinger said, it is clearly sinful to vote for a pro-abort BECAUSE they are pro-abort, but there can be situations in which one may vote for that candidate DESPITE his/her position.

  7. Guy McCleung wrote, “There are no proportionate reasons when you are dealing with intrinsic evil…”

    Of course, there are, for there are degrees of intrinsic evil.

    Think of those who joined with the Communists to fight the Fascists in Spain; each had some intrinsically evil policies, but Fascism was the greater threat, as events proved.

  8. Elaine and Michael, Please let me know what “proportionate reasons” there are that will not simply equal what a democrat does and proposes, but outweigh it so that a catholic with a well-formed conscience, as that is defined by Holy Mother Church, can vote for a democrat. To be specific, the question is this: accepting what the democrat party has done, is doing and promises to do in future re: abortion in comparison to another candidate – choose your party, green, independent, republican, libertarian, – what proportionate reasons can there be for voting for the democrat? I am assuming that you disagree with the notion that there are “disqualifying issues” – an issue that, no matter what other candidates say or do – you cannot vote for a candidate who is wrong on a disqualifying issue. I, of course, believe there are such disqualifying issues. Guy McClung

  9. “what proportionate reasons can there be for voting for the democrat?”

    Well, take the example I cited: a PRO-LIFE incumbent Democratic Congressman (Dan Lipinski, who really is pro-life, you can look it up; he is probably one of the last, if not the last, pro-life Dem in Congress) was facing a strong, well funded primary challenge from a committed pro-abortion Democrat. On the GOP side, the only candidate who filed to get on the ballot was a genuine neo-Nazi crackpot (Arthur Jones, look him up), who was guaranteed to win the primary even if he only voted for himself.

    In this particular case, pro-life voters who would normally take a Republican ballot could, IMO, have crossed over to take a Democrat ballot (you can do that in IL, you do not “register” with a permanent party affiliation but in primaries you can take one party’s ballot or the other) and voted for the pro-life incumbent so that the residents of the district were not left to choose between a rabid pro-abort and a neo-Nazi in November. A write-in or independent candidacy by a pro-lifer is a possibility, but in IL there are major obstacles to getting one’s name on the ballot that way. So in order to minimize the damage that would have been done by having a rabid pro-abort Dem taking this congressional seat, I believe it was justifiable for pro-lifers to vote in the Dem primary. It’s not that there are no disqualifying issues, but that there are times when the best one can do is minimize or head off the damage that might be caused by the candidate most likely to win.

  10. Elaine-I have been considering your thoughts in detail and I realize the importance of getting this right.

    Your candidate, Dan Lipinski, has recently changed his position on “marriage equality” to one of acceptance. I cannot find the words “prolife” on Lipinski’s website-maybe I am missing them. Pope Benedict included the Church’s teaching on marriage as one of what he termed “non-negotiables:”

    Pope Benedict on “not negotiable”:

    “As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today: a) protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; b) recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role; c) the protection of the right of parents to educate their children” (“Address to European Parliamentary Group,” March 30, 2006).

    In comparing your candidate Dan Lipinski to Arthur Jones, Nazi, republican, you must take into account your candidate’s position on marriage and, since he is a member of the democrat party, his party’s positions on issues in addition to abortion. You must take into account all Nazi party positions on all issues also.

    Simply saying “since Jones is a NazI, what the democrat party stands for on any and all issues does not matter,” is 1. Avoiding the fact that this whole discussion is directed to a catholic with a “well-formed conscience” as defined by the Chruch; and providing a facile and mistake mantra for voting for a democrat.

    And you must consider what the democrat party has done, advocated, promoted, championed, and celebrated that the Nazis never even dreamed of – yes, this is true, and it is part of what a catholic learns in well-forming a conscience. For example, although the Nazis used human flesh to make soap, human skin to make lampshades, and human hair for both submariners socks and bomb fuses – they NEVER harvested and preserved human organs and body parts, including brains, and marketed and sold them to multiple purchasers for profit. This is exactly what Planned Parenthood did, an organization supported and encouraged by the democrat party, and which the democrats have successfully sought funding with our tax dollars. And across the USA, democrats fight every effort to legislatively protect women from the abuses of abortions and from the dangers to their life and health in abortion businesses, often to further the business and profits of Planned Parenthood-and they fight efforts to prevent the deaths of women and girls due to botched abortions.In return, Planned Parenthood has given millions$ to democrat candidates across America at all levels of government. ONe cannot vote for a democrat without cooperating in this evil.

    The democrats also fight the enforcement of existing laws and the enactment of new laws to require the reporting of every minor who has an abortion—ie every victim of statutory rape – and efforts to have the DNA of the aborted baby saved since it is evidence of the identity of the rapist.

    Elaine, your scenario not only ignores Lipinski’s position on “marriage equality,” – which is congrary to catholic teaching and “non-negotiable” – but also ignores the fact that you can vote for someone other than the democrat or the Nazi; or you can write in a name; or you can refuse to vote. Those seeking a moral way out and facile justification for voting for democrats rarely mention these other alternatives to cooperating in intrinsic evil.

    George Weigel had some interesting thoughts on this:

    “But the crucial questions – largely missing from press coverage of the cardinal’s letter – remain: When is this morally justifiable? What are the “proportionate reasons” that would lead a pro-life voter to conclude that a pro-abortion candidate’s unacceptable position on the life issues can, in effect, be bracketed? I can imagine one such situation: when the choice is between two pro-abortion candidates, and a voter opts for the pro-abortion candidate of a pro-life party in order to keep that pro-life party in control of Congress. That was the case in my own Congressional district for years. But that is not the situation that Catholic voters face in the current presidential contest or in most Congressional races.”

    Father Roger J. Landry has made it clear that one cannot blithely quote the- Cardinal Ratzinger re “proportionate reasons” and then vote for a democrat:

    “When Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments are viewed within the general context of all his declarations, it’s clear that he thinks few justifications would suffice to outweigh participation in the evil of the politician’s pro-choice position and votes. In an address to European politicians on March 30th of this year, Pope Benedict stated, “As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today: the protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family — as a union between one man and one woman based on marriage…; and the protection of the rights of parents to educate their children.”

    Elaine-I believe in your case your logic can be turned around on you. You want to conclude that –given the two choices as you state them-one can in good conscience vote for the democrat and not for the nazi. Let us extend your reasoning to the choice between these two candidates:

    Number 1: Nazi who is personally opposed to some Nazi positions and, re all the others, supports them, Nazi positions known to have been those of Nazis 1920- 1945, And add in those of neo-nazis today.

    Number 2. Candidate who supports, accepts, champions all in Number 1 above PLUS child sacrifice daily at the Lincoln Memorial and at black masses nationwide daily; along with cannibalism to defeat hunger in America. Throw in black genocide and Hispanic genocide.

    On your reasoning, Elaine, you are not sinning by voting for Number 1. But a catholic with a well-formed conscience cannot vote for Number 1 or for Number 2.

    Whether those who in their hearts wish to vote for democrats for their positions on many issues – eg immigration, war, death penalty, hunger, etc., – there are nonnegotiables, there are disqualifying issues. No matter who is running against Dan Lipinski, it is a mortal sin for a catholic with a well-formed conscience to vote for him. This does NOT mean that such a catholic must vote for his opponent.

    Guy McClung, Texas

  11. “no matter who is running against Dan Lipinski, it is a mortal sin for a Catholic with a well-formed conscience to vote for him”

    So everyone who voted for him in the PRIMARY for the sole purpose of preventing a much MORE pro-abort (and pro-gay, etc.) candidate from winning and thereby gaining a lock on his seat (not to mention giving all sorts of encouragement to Planned Parenthood, EMILY’s List, and all the usual suspects who were trying to knock him off for not being pro-abort enough) is guilty of mortal sin and going to hell?

    I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make. I was not talking about the general election but about a specific PRIMARY election in which Lipinski faced a very serious challenge from a MUCH MORE pro-abort, pro-gay and all around leftist Democratic challenger. The challenger (a woman) was far worse than he on all the non-negotiable issues, and she was his only opponent in that race — because it was a primary, not a general election.

    It was and still is my position that crossing over and taking the Dem ballot in the primary in order to vote for him would have been morally justifiable as a means of curbing the potential damage that would have been done had he lost to the MORE pro-abort Dem.

    Now that the general election is simply Lipinski vs. the Illinois Nazi, he will (barring a miracle) win and keep his seat, so pro-lifers can opt to not vote for either without making matters any worse.

  12. Elaine, If you include what I said – a catholic with a well-formed conscience as that is defined by Holy Mother Church – YES, it is a mortal sin for any such catholic to vote for any democrat at any level of government, inclduing in a primary. The sin alone does not get one one’s ticket to hell-one can always repent, confess, and do penance. But one who dies in mortal sin, unrepentant, Jesus will let such a one have the choice made – to reject Him for ever in hell.When Stalin is running against Hitler, you cannot vote for Hitler because he saw to the extermination of only about 10,000,000 compared to Stalin’s over 20,000,000 (not including the total number of armed combatants who died) . I know this is hard for yellow and blue dog democrats, especially those who see my words – “You cannot vote for any democrat” – as implicitly saying “Vote Republican” (which is wrong) – to swallow; but with the democrat party’s recent prodeath litmus test for getting party funds and now its higher ups and shining lights AllAboard! on the “Clap your hands and Celebrate abortion! ” death train to Planned Parenthood,and advocacy of the other intrinsic evils of sodomarriage and mercy murder, it is even clearer than in 2016 – such a vote is YES mortal sin.A vote for Dan Lipinski in the primary was a vote to increase the overall power of the democrat party in Illinois and nationwide. Guy Mcclung, Texas

  13. Guy,

    Pope Benedict is correct, as is Elaine. One may vote Democrat for appropriate reasons, and the sufficiency of those reasons is almost entirely a function of prudential assessment. From the standpoint of abortion alone, assuming one’s intentions are properly disposed (i.e., one opposes abortion and wishes to eliminate it) then one must evaluate the various practical consequences of his votes, and this includes difficult prudential assessments. Those assessments include not only what a candidate will actually do (i.e., involving assessments of both true intent as well as practical capacity) as opposed to what that candidate might claim — two entirely different things — but also the consequences of public policy options. For instance one might reasonably conclude that more generous welfare laws will do more to reduce the number of abortions than more restrictive laws against abortion. Such a person may in good conscience vote for the candidate who will advance the former in spite of (but not because of) that candidate’s pro-abort position.

    Furthermore, one may consider other issues even if they are not of equal weight with abortion. This is because one might well conclude that the election at issue will have no practical effect on the abortion issue but will have practical effect on other moral issues. This assessment, too, is one of prudence.

    All that said, I acknowledge that some voters are dishonest in their assessments, perhaps even to themselves. But certainly not all, and it is reductionist nonsense to claim that Church teaching prohibits voting for Democrats. I’m surprised that Don, who is a really smart fellow, would allow this forum to suggest such a silly thing.

  14. Peeking in from vacation. In regard to Mike’s comment I would note this is a group blog and the contributors write what they wish. I have never exercised any control over what a contributor posts to the blog and it should never be assumed that I agree with everything in posts other than the ones I submit. Now back to my vacation!

  15. Ah Mike, the older I get the more reluctant I am to return back to work after vacations, and the higher the work tends to pile up. However, as an 80 year old attorney told me when I was a 25 year old attorney, “It beats starving to death Kid.”

  16. I fully understand, Don. I am retiring at the end of this year. I’ve enjoyed my practice and my law firm for 35 years, but big law firm practice takes a toll. I have family with various needs, and I will now be able to concentrate on those needs. Other less demanding professional options are available, but I’m in the fortunate position to not have to do anything remunerative if I don’t wish — so will take my time sorting out next steps. I’ll be content to just be Grandpa and perhaps launch some targeted micro-aggressions in my spare time. 😉

  17. Don’t read if you vote democrat or put your trust in “princes.”

    A number of times I’ve commented, “You likely won’t be getting into Heaven if you vote democrat.”

    In order to be a Christian, you do not need to surrender to democrat totalitarianism. In the end, they want to take your property and enslave you. You can be a Christian by giving to the least of Christ’s brothers of your personal time and treasure. In God’s eyes, the widow’s mite (given out of her poverty) is more valuable than all the billionaire’s millions given to find cures for AIDS and STD’s, and to execrate millions of law-abiding Americans and the NRA. They don’t hate the NRA, they hate you.

    A Christian with a well-formed conscience would know that democrats are intrinsically evil and in good conscience cannot directly or indirectly support any. It’s not only abortion and sodomy privileges, it’s class envy and hatred – coveting thy neighbors’ goods. And, it’s violence: force and coercion are inherent in laws and regulations, including those surrounding stealing other peoples’ money/property to give to others.

    Elected democrats nominate/approve federal judges that serially “discover” in the Constitution “rights” that legitimize mortal sins which miniscule minorities want regularized.

    Luke 22:36, “And if you don’t have an AR-15, sell your coat and buy one!”

  18. Thanks to everyone who has commented. This needs to be discussed past the time the cows come home, and spread far and wide – especially before this November. and then Fall 2020. I will be waiting for priest and prelate predators and their enablers and shutlers to soon be telling us to vote for democrats across the USA. Guy McClung, Texas

  19. I just have a few words. Casuistry, proportionalism, consequentialism.
    Anti life, anti God, anti Christ.
    Veritatis splendor.

  20. I take it that higher education, the social work and mental health trade, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation do not ‘intersect’ with Mr. Dougherty’s life. I think most Christian confessions are in wretched condition, but institutional life generally is deficient. About the only professionals I’m inclined to trust are pharmacists and engineers.

  21. All that said, I acknowledge that some voters are dishonest in their assessments, perhaps even to themselves.

    The Vox Nova crew, ca. 2010.

  22. 🙂 I am sorry Mike Petrik. I don’t read Mark Shea. (my time is fleeing way too fast!). but this is a good example of why just a few words is not enough. My meaning ofthose words is to describe how I see modernism degrading our understanding of truth.

Comments are closed.