41 - 50 of 63 Comments

1. Stephanie

   1 year ago

   Why are some people only not voting for Romney because he is Mormon? I mean, if you disagree with his campaign on other issues, fine. But because he is Mormon? Seriously?! Look at the issues and the plans for the country, not their personal religious beliefs. Some people say Catholics are not Christian and won't vote for them. Same concept. It's voting for a candidate, not for our national religion.

2. Theresa H

   1 year ago

   I voted (with a bit of reluctance) for Rick S. in our Primary. Now, it is pretty much settled that Mitt Romney will be the man to run against the President. I have been glad to hear Mitt R.'s responses to the President, etc., since Rick S. left the "race." I was also glad to hear that Rick S. has indicated that he will continue to support the causes that he passionately believes in (Catholic that he is) and work with Mitt R, not against him. Obama has a war-chest--but I believe the majority are not "with" him--We just need to speak up and vote him out! Otherwise, "One nation under God" will be utterly destroyed--to the leveling of our very Foundation!

3. Rob

   1 year ago

   I agree with the sentiment of this article. But I too think we are missing the boat here. At some point we are going to have to acknowledge that government is failing miserably at governance. Their record on financial stewardship is a joke. Our discontent lies in the fact that government has stopped working for a vast majority of Americans. When you consider the number of Americans who do not vote and the hyper-partisianship of the majority left who do vote, it's no wonder we get nothing done. That hyper partisianship has made us lose our ability to be objective and actually hold our own teams accountable. And if we don't think the political establishment in DC doesn't know this we are dreaming. They can always say, "I know I promised to do this and my base is upset, but they will never cross over and vote for the other guy." But what is the most freightening to me is we've allowed the government to give more power to money in our legislative process than our vote. What we are really voting for these days are the interests that fund these campaigns. I had a lot of issues with Santorum's voting record, but if he had the money backers, we would be talking about him instead of Romney. At some point we need to take off the rose colored glasses we are looking at things through and get serious about holding these folks accountable, particularly the ones we send to deal with very specific problems. Want to know why abortion is still here? It's because we keep pulling the lever for the candidate that promises to get rid of it, but we fail to hold them accountable when they do NOTHING. If we are going to walk into the voting booth with the understanding that nothing is more important than life, why is it that we do not put the same standards on the politicians once they take office? We are choosing party over life when we fail to hold them accountable. Worse, they do not believe we are serious. I sometimes think they are right. Results speak for themselves.

4. lighthouse

   1 year ago

   I will not retreat from the political arena because Santorum is suspending his campaign. I will continue to support all avenues that support the gospels, whether the Catholic Church is following them or not.
   
   

5. Eileen

   1 year ago

   Joe,
   One has to practice prudence in these matters. In regard to voting, it is acceptabe to choose the candidate, who though not perfectly in line with the Church on all moral matters, will do more to overturn or limit issues like abortion,etc. than the alternate candidate. Write-ins and third party candidates never win -- they only serve to help the worst possible candidate. Let us be careful that we do not propose to know better than the Holy Father or the Church.

6. Eileen

   1 year ago

   As disappointed as I am about Rick Santorum -- I will not write him in -- that never works and only serves to risk putting the worst candidate into office. I believe that he made a decision backed by careful consideration and prayer -- it will do no one anyone good at this point to write in candidates.

7. Joe

   1 year ago

   There are five non-negotiable issues that should be consider in voting for a president. They are: Abortion,Euthanasia,Embryonic-stem cell research,Human cloning,and Homosexual marriage. When you have candidates from both major party supporting these issues then you are left with writing a candidate that support these issues. That is why I will write in Senator Rick Santorum for president. Joe

8. Colleen

   1 year ago

   Can we all write in Santorum in November?

9. ccs

   1 year ago

   @Clinton - What sin of omission? The Bishops' voting instructions in the past have indicated that there may be times when it is better not to vote for one of the principle candidates. I am attempting to discern - prayerfully (not rhetorically) - whether or not this is one of those times. I said nothing about voting for Romney leading someone to hell; however, the social normalization of his religion could. Mormonism is a religion founded by demonic forces for the perdition of souls. Romney is an adherent of that religion - and an adherent with a highly compromised record on life issues. It does not help at all that Romney has no discernible moral core. A Romney presidency could indeed lead to the perdition of souls. So could Obama's re-election. The fact that the choice boils down to Perdition A vs. Perdition B indicates that it is quite possible that God is passing a very severe judgment on the United States. I suppose it will become clearer when we see who Romney chooses for VP. Oh, and my reference to St. Athanasius was rigorous (apples compared to apples: i.e., opposition to false religion then and now). We do not know whether or not St. Athanasius would compromise those principles, as you would so glibly have me do, if faced with the same choices. It is a matter for considerable prayer and discernment, not empty political rhetoric.

10. Colleen

    1 year ago

    Excellent article as always, Mr. Fournier!!
    
    Question, "To be "a" Catholic?" or "To "be" Catholic?"
    
    One thing that I have pondered over the years, is asking myself honestly, "Am I "a" Catholic?".....or...."Am I Catholic?" That might seem trivial....but I first thought about that when a neighbor hired the Amish to do a building project where our son worked. The farmer was a "practicing" Catholic, and the Amish man was Amish! The Amish man refused to work on....get this.....Ascension Thursday,.....BECAUSE it was Ascension Thursday! The Catholic farmer was upset in that he wanted his building project moving forward.
    
    I asked myself at that moment,..."Am I "a" Catholic?" ...or..."AM I Catholic?" Because the Amish refer to themselves as "being" Amish.
    
    To me, the article "a" in front of Catholic here limits the noun! Remove the limiting article "a",....then change the interrogative sentence to a declarative sentence, you get... "I AM Catholic!" Now it is a Predicate Nominative! The subject "I" connected by the state of "being" linking verb to the Predicate noun, "Catholic" basically states the subject noun "I" IS Catholic!
    
    Grammar is basic logic! But now "being" Catholic is no longer limited, "I must BE Catholic",....sort of like the "Amish" man was living his believe....that Ascension Thursday was a "holy" day and thus would not desecrate it by working!
    
    Simply, I AM Catholic is a "way of living" in the mind of the Catholic Church, instead of "a" Catholic.....ponder it, and let's live our Catholic lives as Mr. Fournier explains very well here!! :)
    
    

Leave a Comment