Bishops Will Proclaim How, In Good Conscience, You Can Still Vote For A Democrat

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on reddit
Reddit
Share on delicious
Delicious
Share on digg
Digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

For decades the U.S. catholic bishops have figured out ways to deliver, or to try to deliver, the catholic vote to their democrats. The faithful have heard about the “seamless garment;” that catholics are “not single issue voters;” and, of late, that there can be “proportionate reasons” to vote for candidates of the Party of Death who espouse and advocate for intrinsic evils like child murder and ‘same-sex marriage’.

Recent Events Make It Clear?

Two things that have occurred relatively recently would make one think that there is no way that any catholic bishop today, and in the coming runup to the 2020 elections, could be heard to say that a catholic with a well-formed conscience can vote for a democrat.

The first is that the democrats, who pushed so many intrinsic evils in the past and continue to do so,  have now come out and demanded that the court-created right to abortion should be extended to include a mother’s right to kill her baby who has been born, her baby who is no longer inside her, if the baby survives her murderous abortion attempt. And they demand that we all pay for the murders, for this new “right to infanticide.”  Watch for it . . . this will almost certainly be in the Party Of Death 2020 Platform.

Couple this with all the other intrinsic evils the Party Of Death promotes, along with candidate litmus tests for each evil, and there is no way – one would think – that any bishop could say that all this evil can be ignored and a good catholic can vote for these death dealers.

The second thing that has happened over the last decade, and more so over the last three years, is that it is now known that each bishop of a prelate plethora – “a large or excessive amount“ –  across the entire United States, (a plethora that increases almost weekly  like a plague with revelations from prosecutors, district attorneys, and state attorneys general)  is in one or more of these categories:

  • actively himself freely choosing to engage in homosexual acts
  • active homopredator
  • active sexual predator
  • active pederast
  • active pedophile
  • knowing, and so criminal, shuttler of such criminals from parish to parish or diocese to diocese, fully aware they will commit further crimes against the faithful, and against children
  • knowing, and so criminal, enabler of such persons
  • concealer of the crimes
  • embezzler of the money of the faithful, or defrauding the faithful of money, or both
  • one authorizing the payment of billions (new estimate, to include ongoing suits, over 8 billion dollars, that is: $8,000,000,000.00) of the faithful’s money to pay victims of the homopredators, etc.; and demanding that the details of the crimes and of the payments be maintained in secret in court records

All of this concealment, predation, evil, and crime is facilitated and funded by the money of the faithful.

Recent revelations make it clear that “bishopmonster,” “serpentprelate,”   and “bishopwolf” are not exaggerations, and are the writing error of saying “baby puppies.” And now there is a warning from some sources, get ready, (to paraphrase Al Jolson), you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

No Way They Could Say For Whom To Vote ?

So, with all this and the denial of Holy Communion to the present democrat frontrunner for the presidential nomination, done in accord with Canon Law, one would expect any sane and savvy member of the laity to say, “No way do these bishops come out now and say ‘vote democrat’.“

Wrong!

There are two reasons this is wrong. First, Satan never sleeps, and pointing out clear hypocrisy is a compliment to any devil.

Secondly, to remind the faithful that they cannot under any circumstances vote for a candidate who advocates for so many intrinsic evils as does the Party of Death, particularly the evil of abortion, would undercut many bishops’ support for the attempted normalization of, and thus the moral validation of, freely-chosen homosexual actions. These bishops want no recognition of, let alone publicity of, the abortion-sodomy connection with respect to political positions and legislation.

So what is a homosexualist bishop to do? How does a  democrat bishop deliver the catholic vote to his fellow democrat travelers?

Yes, Way

In some recent elections more than half of the catholic laity have shown that they no longer listen to the faux shepherds’ shilling and subterfuge of past decades,  e.g bishops directly or indirectly saying you can vote for a democrat.  But evil admits no limits of logic, truth or consistency. Without saying you can vote for a democrat, they are now saying “You cannot vote for a republican.”  Genius!  Evil genius! Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, so you CAN vote for a democrat!

Democrats & Intrinsic Evils – Been There, Done That – For Years

In 2008 I first published the conclusion about voting for democrats being a mortal sin, including this letter:

Based on what Obama and the Democrats have said, and on what Obama has said he will do, it is clear that a Catholic voter can no longer divorce his or her intent from what both Obama and the Democrats promise they will do. In other words, today a Catholic voter, who has learned the facts and the commitments Obama has made, and who votes for Obama, necessarily has the intent to support abortion and infanticide and other intrinsic evils. A Catholic who votes for Obama will formally cooperate in grave evil. (Brownsville Herald, Texas 22 Oct. 2008).

Sadly, those predictions more than came true (see, e.g.,

Is it a Sin to Vote Democrat?

https://www.catholicstand.com/is-it-a-sin-to-vote-democrat/

Sin Voting: Reasons and Intrinsic Evils

https://www.catholicstand.com/sin-voting-reasons-and-intrinsic-evils/.

Of note are the many democrat voices now advocating the public celebration of the abortion murder of babies by the mothers in whose wombs they were once safe and happy.

With all the relatively recent revelations regarding the crimes and depravity of  bishops, and the unbelievable embrace of more and more evil by the democrats, I am presently revisiing the document Faith-Filled  Citizenship Voting Catechism which for some years now has made the point crystal that it is a mortal sin for a catholic with a well-formed conscience to vote for any democrat (http://sinvote.democrat/faith-filled-citizenship-voting-catechism/ ).

Your Excellency, Some Questions

If you have paid attention to what the demobishops have done since the 1940s, it will be no surprise that they will not be silent for the 2020 elections and they will do everything in their dark power to try to promote and fund the candidates of the Party Of Death.

So, when some bishop says you cannot vote for a republican because of the GOP stand against mother earth, the uncharitable treatment of innocent illegal aliens, or institutionalized homophobia [none of which are intrinsic evils], ad nauseam, ask him three things:

  1. Your Excellency, please place a list of what the Church says are intrinsic evils side by side with the Party of Death’s platform. How you can support, even implicitly, democrats?

(If he goes on and on about so-called ‘proportionate reasons,” tell him that a correct proportionate reasons analysis demands that all, each, and every intrinsic evil be taken into account with each candidate’s position on each one of them, and of a candidate’s silence regarding them when the party’s position is clear and public. And remind him that catholic doctrine says real world dealings with issues like immigration, war, poverty,  and the death penalty, etc.  are not at the moral level of intrinsic evil).

  1. Your Excellency, how many millions of your precious sheeps’ dollars have you authorized to be paid out for the crimes of ordained homopredators, pedophiles, pederast prelates, and clerical sodorapists, and for your own crimes? And why the cover up?
  1. Your Excellency, yes or no answer please – are you one of those named in any of the criminal, pervert, predator, etc. categories listed above?
  1. And finally, ask him why, as is very likely: Your Excellency, why do you refuse to reply to 1. , 2. and 3 ?

This Does Not Demand Anyone Vote Republican

Note well – this is very important – make it clear that saying it is a mortal sin to vote for a democrat, any democrat, is NOT saying one could, should, or must vote for a candidate of the GOP. A person with a well-formed conscience has several other options.

Do not let it be heard that, so that one’s vote is not wasted, one can vote for a democrat death dealer (but there I go again with the “baby puppies”).

 

 

 

More to explorer

Saint of the Day Quote: Saint Jaime Hilario Barbel

To die for Christ, my young friends, is to live. The last words of Saint Jaime Hilario Barbel to his firing squad. 

PopeWatch: That Was Close

News PopeWatch missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:   GREENSBURY, AZ—Local Catholic woman Gabriella Perez was getting ready to tell her friend

Glory: Final Song

  Something for the weekend.  The closing song from Glory (1989), the rousing tribute to the men of the 54th Massachusetts, one

20 Comments

  1. Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. The death penalty is self defense against being murdered, homicide in the first degree. Self defense of our constitutional Posterity is defined by our Preamble to our Constitution. The death penalty is executed through the power of attorney of the condemned murderer. He, himself brings himself to his Justice on the gallows through his own power of attorney. To deny the condemned his own Justice is injustice. To deny the condemned his own power of attorney is to deny the condemned his own human dignity. No sovereign person’s dignity stands above or below all sovereign persons’ human dignity as all men are created equal by “their Creator”. Self-defense is not debatable, nor is self-defense eradicable. Self defense is an innate human right, If one is a human being one has self defense as an attribute to protect and defend human life, yours, mine and ours.
    All sovereign persons are created equal, not born equal, by “their Creator” All sovereign persons created equal have the sovereign person’s right to life, the right to self-defense and the right to be free, as freedom is written in every sovereign person’s heart by “their Creator” Declaration of Independence. We are human with human sovereignty.
    “The rights the state gives, the state can take away.” Thomas Jefferson. Baby-killing is a right that the state gives. Baby-Killing is a violation of God’s Law, our innate human nature and our Founding Principles. Any person lay or ordained who supports baby-killing needs to be drummed out of his office, his country and his citizenship.

  2. Okay, here’s an argument against the death penalty that I recently heard, having to do with the retributive aspect of justice: we don’t mug muggers, or rape rapists, or steal from thiefs, so why do we kill killers?

    I think maybe there’s say 3 to 5 16ths of a point there. The death penalty is the only piece of the oldest (think Hammurabi) legal codes we still enforce. If we’ve done away with plucking eyes and pulling teeth, maybe we should do away with the death penalty as well.

    Like I said, it’s not a particularly strong argument (more of a sentiment really). So, does anybody have a strong counter-argument, or are we in no-arguing-with-feelings territory?

  3. we don’t mug muggers, or rape rapists, or steal from thiefs, so why do we kill killers?
    Note the verbal sleight of hand in the argument. It attacks a traditional punishment by comparing it to punishments almost never assessed by any society. A classic apples and rock salt comparison.

    The traditional punishments are fines, incarceration, exile, whippings, brandings, mutilation and executions. An argument could be made that executions should be in the same category as whippings, brandings and mutilation, but it would be a bad argument. Society needs an ultimate punishment for truly vile crimes. Life imprisonment is no reliable substitute as the opponents of capital punishment, like the Pope, are busily attacking life imprisonment. Where public punishment is inadequate, sooner or later private vengeance will come roaring back.

  4. “Where public punishment is inadequate, sooner or later private vengeance will come roaring back”.
    ……and then you have anarchy.

  5. There are Republican politicians who are pro-choice and many Republican politicians are anti-catholic

  6. The bishops were called by H.L. Mencken to be the Democrat Party at prayer.
    Today all the bishops want to import aliens from Latin America thinking that they will stop the decline in Church attendance. It is not happening. We used to go to one of the Spanish language Masses. People went, but it was in large part to celebrate themselves. They did not contribute much in terms of money, either.

  7. “All of this concealment, predation, evil, and crime is facilitated and funded by the money of the faithful.”

    [And Jesus wept.]

    Guy.
    Thank you for your post.
    It is a battle for souls and many of the one’s who are in supervisory roles just don’t give a damn. Money. Prestige. Honor. Caring more for flow of cash than the flow of mercy, many a Bishop will regret having been born.

    If you are voting for any representative that is pro-death, pro-same sex marriage please do yourself a huge favor. Don’t cast a vote. Sit it out. Get on your knees and pray. Pray that you have the eyes to see and ears to hear the wisdom of God.

  8. Okay, here’s an argument against the death penalty that I recently heard, having to do with the retributive aspect of justice: we don’t mug muggers, or rape rapists, or steal from thiefs, so why do we kill killers?

    This is actually false, too– we do “steal” from thieves. It’s not at all uncommon to not just take back what they took, but require a thief to provide some sort of additional damages.

    And take steps to prevent the action from happening again, for that matter.

    The death penalty is the only piece of the oldest (think Hammurabi) legal codes we still enforce. If we’ve done away with plucking eyes and pulling teeth, maybe we should do away with the death penalty as well.

    Even if this is true– not knowing which code it’s mentioning, I don’t know– it’s the genetic fallacy, that is, shifting the worth of a thing to its source rather than its merits. It’s also equivocation, since while yeah they’re both laws, I don’t care how old the law is I care if it’s any good.


    Where public punishment is inadequate, sooner or later private vengeance will come roaring back.

    Yep, which will REALLY SUCK for those falsely accused. Those justly accused, too, actually– moderation tends to go out the window.

  9. “Like I said, it’s not a particularly strong argument (more of a sentiment really). So, does anybody have a strong counter-argument, or are we in no-arguing-with-feelings territory?”
    Equal Justice as in our Declaration of Independence.
    Why should Jesse Timmendaquas sit in solitary confinement for 22 years at taxpayer expense while enjoying his life and his crime while Timmendaquas’ victim seven year old Megan Kanka lies in a cold, dark grave. Justice? Well?

  10. Ernst,

    Ernst,

    The only way the argument you put forth would have consistency is to if we murdered murderers. We execute murderers. And that’s not the same as just killing killers.

  11. Eye for eye punishment actually was a limit on what retribution a victim would get. It meant you could not burn down the perpetrators home and children or wipe out his village.

  12. There are many parts of this article easily deflated but I will stick with two. 1) The $8 billion in settlement funds reimburses victims of both heteropredatory and homopredatory priests, so let’s not be one-sided in this regard, as well, and 2) a party that advocates for the death penalty (for which the only justification of being the “only way to protect society from them” is said to no longer exist in modern society) or allowing refugees to be killed in their home countries rather than granted asylum or left to die in the desert is no more “pro life” than any other political party. The author suggests there are other “options.” Except for not voting at all, what parties oppose abortion and the death penalty but welcome refugees as strangers, as we are called to do? Cardinal Sean O’Malley, on more than one occasion, has said that there is “no ‘Catholic’ political party in America.” He’s right.

  13. Deflating arguments is a door that swings both ways. The number of victims of heteropredatory priests is minuscule, for example. Also, the “consistent ethic of life” argument that you advance obscures more than it elucidates. In my own state, for example, two murderers serving a life sentences murdered a prison guard in a failed escape attempt. Presumably prison guards are entitled to the same protections as the rest of society, so that particular justification for the death penalty, while much rarer in modern society, hasn’t ceased to exist. A similar confusion exists regarding refugees and illegal aliens. Not everyone who seeks to come here is a refugee. So if we don’t want people dying in the desert, we need to discourage them from attempting the crossing in the first place.

    Finally, there’s substantially less room for prudential judgement on the issue of abortion. That issue ought, at least in my opinion, trump all other “life” issues.

  14. a party that advocates for the death penalty (for which the only justification of being the “only way to protect society from them” is said to no longer exist in modern society) or allowing refugees to be killed in their home countries rather than granted asylum or left to die in the desert is no more “pro life” than any other political party.

    Thank you for demonstrating that you are not arguing in anything even faintly hinting at good faith, and are indeed attempting to hijack opposition to the murder of innocents in order to give political cover to your chosen side.

    Otherwise I may have mistakenly wasted time trying to argue in good faith with you.

    You want to both have “allowing refugees to be killed” in their home countries as a bad thing, and yet explicitly support a policy (no death penalty) that kills the innocent, and ignore how many of those “refugees” then go on to kill here?

    No.

    If you were anything close to honest, you’d be wanting to arm those poor refugees, so they can defend their God-given rights, starting with their lives.

    But you just want to feel all good, and to heck with the poor innocents who die. Even if you have to sacrifice the unborn to get your good feelz.

  15. The head of spiritual direction in our parish is still sporting her Obama stickers on the car. We have”centering prayer, and are to walk the “labrinth” while reading our Father James Martin books of enlightenment. We have so many events in our parish that overwhelm the true study of the faith. Call me old fashioned would ya?

  16. Labyrinth’s are old fashioned. But I think I’d read John of the Cross or Julian of Norwich or Thomas à Kempis myself.

    Centering prayer is a problem, though.

Comments are closed.