Voting In November and The Role of Moral Discernment: Why Romney and Ryan Get The Nod

By F. K. Bartels
9/9/2012
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

Through responsible voting in accordance with the full truth about the human person, we Americans possess the ability to positively form the character of our nation, and thereby contribute to the proper moral formation of our children in the future.

In authentically exercising the privilege to vote is required careful and reasoned moral discernment, which must always be guided by the light of faith and governed by a properly formed conscience. In this process of discernment, we must always remain faithful to the teaching of the Church on the full truth of the human person, which leads us to oppose intrinsic evils with maximum determination.

Our vote gives to us the power to shape the future course of our nation. The moral realm and the moral character of political candidates must become of primary importance in order to direct that course properly and for the good of all.

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

GLADE PARK, CO (Catholic Online) -- There was never a time in the U.S. when the privilege of voting was to be taken lightly. Through the democratic process of electing political leaders, the citizens of our nation take an active role in shaping not only America's future, but even its character. That is, the citizenry by its vote has a say in what America is about, what it means to live within her borders, and what our nation stands for as a people. The choices we make this November in the voting booth will in some way form America, and, additionally, they may even, perhaps to a very large degree, form our children in the future.

To say that voting choices will form our children, is not to refer only to economic, public debt, or tax burden concerns. As important as these are, they pale in comparison to the manner in which our children may be morally formed, either in a positive or negative way, as a direct consequence of our vote. The fact is, society acts as a moral teacher. What is legal is often deemed moral, whether it is or not. Accepted practices become the norm. The virtues and vices of a society imprint themselves upon the people who live within it. Whether a particular civil law is in sync with what is right and good or not, whether cultural norms are in accordance with the divine law and the natural law or not, is often inadequately considered by individuals until they have already fallen under their influence. The obvious example of such a tragic situation is legalized abortion.

The political opponents for the offices of President and Vice President in the election of 2012 stand in diametric opposition on crucial moral issues -- namely intrinsic evils. While it is true that both the Democrat and Republican candidates speak in some form or other of providing a positive socio-economic influence on the nation, their personal moral philosophies concerning human life and the dignity and truth about the human person could hardly be more radically divided.

President Barack Obama's position on critical moral issues facing our nation is well known. These include: legalized abortion; embryonic stem-cell research (embryo-destructive experiments); homosexual unions (so-called marriage equivalency); the continued dismantling of the institution of marriage; and the attacks on freedom of religion and freedom of conscience through the unjust HHS mandate. Obama's adamant and consistent support of these gravely immoral practices, most of which involve intrinsic evils, is so well documented as to be without question.

Vice President Joe Biden has repeatedly distanced himself from the Christian fold and damaged his communion with the Church through his tenacious support of legalized abortion, homosexual unions, and embryonic stem-cell experimentation. For Catholics, these intrinsic evils can never be supported, nor permitted nor condoned under any circumstances. They are entirely contrary to the Gospel, Christian discipleship, and the true Christian religion transmitted in its fullness by the Church. Nevertheless, Biden has publicly made his position of dissent clear on numerous occasions.

One the other hand, presidential and vice presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan oppose these intrinsic evils. Whatever one may think of their views on how to balance the budget, shore up the economy, solve the health care dilemma, combat terrorist attacks, and so forth, there is an essential difference in the moral character of these two men in contrast to their political opponents. The question is, does it matter? As disciples of Christ, the moral character of those we place in positions of authority must always be of primary concern.

Nevertheless, there are a number of Catholics who are taking swings at Ryan. The claim is that his proposed policies fail to conform to their understanding of "social justice." Unfortunately, some Catholics advocate a social justice that is detached from the principle of subsidiarity, which skews the whole meaning of the doctrine. Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" plan, which focuses on debt reduction, most often comes under fire. However, Ryan is a faithful Catholic who is dedicated to implementing the principles of Catholic social justice doctrine properly understood. He is by no means unconcerned with helping the poor. On the contrary, in a column he wrote in 2011 for "Our Sunday Visitor," he stated that his budget plan "helps the poor, first and foremost, by ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 18 Comments

Joe
8 months ago
Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

And this is your moral compass??
Bill
8 months ago
Ryan should be running for president and Mitt VP. Mitt does not have the true catholic beliefs .
JoAnn
8 months ago
techwreck: I agree with Vance. Great posts. God bless.
vance
8 months ago
techwreck, Great posts, I couldn't have said better myself.
techwreck
8 months ago
Cindy,

I live in Virginia and I know about Virgil Goode. He is just appealing for votes that could help defeat Obama in Virginia (a key battleground state) because he doesn't like Romney. But then, no one ever accused Virgil of being smart!
Kasoy
8 months ago
Remember we ar voting not for ourselves but for our children's and grandchildren's future. Let's vote with a well-formed conscience. The best way to prepare for this is to go to confession, receive communion, and spend some time before the Blessed Sacrament before we make our decisions.
techwreck
8 months ago
For those still considering a vote for Obama, America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President - When one observes President Obama’s unwillingness to accommodate America’s four-century long religious conscience protection through his attempts to require Catholics to go against their own doctrines and beliefs, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Catholic. But that characterization would not be correct. Although he has recently singled out Catholics, he has equally targeted traditional Protestant beliefs over the past four years. So since he has attacked Catholics and Protestants, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Christian. But that, too, would be inaccurate. He has been equally disrespectful in his appalling treatment of religious Jews in general and Israel in particular. So perhaps the most accurate description of his antipathy toward Catholics, Protestants, religious Jews, and the Jewish nation would be to characterize him as anti-Biblical. And then when his hostility toward Biblical people of faith is contrasted with his preferential treatment of Muslims and Muslim nations, it further strengthens the accuracy of the anti-Biblical descriptor. In fact, there have been numerous clearly documented times when his pro-Islam positions have been the cause of his anti-Biblical actions.
Listed below in chronological order are (1) numerous records of his attacks on Biblical persons or organizations; (2) examples of the hostility toward Biblical faith that have become evident in the past three years in the Obama-led military; (3) a listing of his open attacks on Biblical values; and finally (4) a listing of numerous incidents of his preferential deference for Islam’s activities and positions, including letting his Islamic advisors guide and influence his hostility toward people of Biblical faith. For example, April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren't like them” February 2009 – Obama announces plans to revoke conscience protection for health workers who refuse to participate in medical activities that go against their beliefs, and fully implements the plan in February 2011.
April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus' name be covered when he is making his speech.
May 2009 – Obama declines to host services for the National Prayer Day (a day established by federal law) at the White House.
April 2009 – In a deliberate act of disrespect, Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican; of course, the pro-life Vatican rejected all three.
October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions.
November 2010 – Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law.
January 2011 – After a federal law was passed to transfer a WWI Memorial in the Mojave Desert to private ownership, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the cross in the memorial could continue to stand, but the Obama administration refused to allow the land to be transferred as required by law, and refused to allow the cross to be re-erected as ordered by the Court.
February 2011 – Although he filled posts in the State Department, for more than two years Obama did not fill the post of religious freedom ambassador, an official that works against religious persecution across the world; he filled it only after heavy pressure from the public and from Congress.
April 2011 – For the first time in American history, Obama urges passage of a non-discrimination law that does not contain hiring protections for religious groups, forcing religious organizations to hire according to federal mandates without regard to the dictates of their own faith, thus eliminating conscience protection in hiring.
August 2011 – The Obama administration releases its new health care rules that override religious conscience protections for medical workers in the areas of abortion and contraception.
November 2011 – Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial.
November 2011 – Unlike previous presidents, Obama studiously avoids any religious references in his Thanksgiving message.
December 2011 – The Obama administration denigrates other countries' religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights.
January 2012 – The Obama administration argues that the First Amendment provides no protection for churches and synagogues in hiring their pastors and rabbis.
February 2012 – The Obama administration forgives student loans in exchange for public service, but announces it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion.
Cindy
8 months ago
Right now, I'm tempted to go to the Constitution Party's tickect for President/Vice President-
Goode/Clymer
techwreck
8 months ago
Those who are offended by the statement, "I cannot understand how any Catholic can vote for Obama", either have not looked into Obama's record of support for both all abortions and the killing of live born children who have survived an abortion (record as an Illinois Senator). Obama's support for homosexual marriage and his refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act are clearly acting contrary to Church teaching. I would go so far as to argue that those who support Obama cannot claim to be Christian. And, those who hide behind 'I cannot support Mitt Romney because ..." statements are either justifying a vote for Obama or willing to stand by and let an evil person continue as our President. "And Jesus wept ..."
Coulro DeSouth
8 months ago
For me, the decision has come down to mere appearances. The Republican platform is clearly better on Life and overall supports more natural law-based positions than the Democratic platform. I don't trust Romney - he seems to have no principles. I expect he'll find a way to justify any position he deems politically expedient. However, he, on the surface, makes pro-life noises. Obama clearly supports abortion rights, changing the definition of marriage, and is against religious freedom.

I'm going to hold my nose, vote for Romney, expect the worst, but hope for the best.

Prev12 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment