Whether political apathy is a mortal sin.

[LausTibiChriste]

Saying no to choosing between Satan and Beezelbub is not surrender, ya monkey.

Welcome back, btw. Nice try this time.

[KreKre]

Welcome back, btw. Nice try this time.

If that is addressed to me, and you believe I have been a member of this forum previously, you are mistaken. This is my 21st post on this forum, never before have I been a member here.

[Bonaventure]

Been pondering why so many people actively try to circumvent bans. By means of:

VPNs
Sockpuppet accounts

I don't think it is outside of the realm of possibility that, if someone were banned, if they asked the forum owner nicely to be unbanned, apologized, etc, he would likely not refuse.

Instead, people seem to not be able to be honest, despite professing to be (traditional) Catholics.

A good example is @Baylee . I cannot prove it, but based on IP Address information that I have seen as a moderator, I strongly suspect, hugely suspect, that this person is @Petrie , who also posts at CathInfo as "2Vermont." This is a person who asked to be banned in 2014, then re-registered in 2021. Presumably because she doesn't like CathInfo's placating of Feeneyites, SSPXers, etc.

I just find it incredibly bizarre behavior, that a Catholic woman in New England would resort to such behavior. I suppose folks need their digital crack pipe fix.

It leads to accusations, etc.

My own feeling is we should ban the use of VPNs, proton email accounts, etc. for any new users.

[LausTibiChriste]

And who jumps into a decade (plus) old forum and just starts rambling. How about an introduction, feeling yourself out, etc.

You woudn't walk into the parish coffee hour and conduct yourself the same way.

Maybe KreKre is a nickname for Chris

[Bonaventure]

Unfortunately, tis the age we live in.

When we all first got to know each other at the place Tracy flushed down the toilet (both literally and figuratively), the internet was not as weird as it is now.

People were not afraid of being doxxed and possibly losing their jobs, having posts used against them, having people send their posts to connections on LinkedIn (as what happened to @Greg on CathInfo), etc.

We all knew each other by name, chatted, even video chatted, knew where everyone lived, went to Mass, etc.

I don't think those days will ever come back, sadly.

A core contingency of the people who still post here, and who were and are the most active posters, are the "originals" who posted on FE 10-15 years ago.

Only a small handful of folk are completely new generation.

[Mono no aware]

If we dispense with democracy, then what about the second question?  What obligation (if any) would a Catholic, living under a monarchical or totalitarian government, have to prevent infanticide if it's made legal?

[Mono no aware]

Protests have never been a requirement, but I would need clarification on what you mean by "resist" before giving my opinion.

Assuming a situation where abortion is legal and there is no democratic recourse to remedy this, is it enough for a Catholic to simply pray for an end to abortion?

[Bonaventure]

Protests have never been a requirement, but I would need clarification on what you mean by "resist" before giving my opinion.

Assuming a situation where abortion is legal and there is no democratic recourse to remedy this, is it enough for a Catholic to simply pray for an end to abortion?

I'd say, yes.

These walks and marches, I don't care for. "Abortion hurts women," I find a pathetic joke. I've talked about this at length with @Kaesekopf .

There are other possibilities that entail "resisting" but I do not want to break forum rules nor attract...other attention.

[diaduit]

I was done with voting until the referendum here on mothers in March and boy did the government get a massive kick in the ahole. 
We had a massive protest march on May 6th and the normies were there in huge numbers, even the media didn't do the usual trashing of far right yadda yadda, we have elections in June for local authority and European MEPs so they are behaving themselves.  The normies are stirring and beginning to smell a rat.

I am going to vote tactically as we have proportional representation here.

[Mono no aware]

We had an election last month in my country. Two weeks before the election, my priest explicitly said during the sermon that it is: "a duty of all Christians to vote in the elections" and that "there is no doubt that giving support in elections to those who promote abortion, gender ideology, and same-sex unions, it is being accomplice in crime against Divine Law and thus a mortal sin, which brings us eternal ruin in Hell."

The above is what I assumed the Catholic Church had taught.  Modern parliamentarian democracy is fairly young, but even with only 200 years, that would be enough time for pre-Vatican II moral theologians to weigh in on the obligation of a Catholic to vote, particularly if it provided an opportunity to prevent evil.  With respect to your priest, do you know of any official papal teaching/recommendation that endorses the same view?

[queen.saints]

This whole essay by Frank Duff, The Mystical Body Must Function as a Whole is excellent, but here is one particularly relevant passage:



"Perhaps some may say that it suffices to pray... Certain it is that prayer is necessary. To adhere to the imagery of the body, it is like the natural breathing which is essential to life. But is it enough by itself so that other activity may be dispensed with? St. Pius X answers this question in decided terms.

Prayer alone would not represent a full functioning Mystical Body.

'Certain souls believe it is quite sufficient to pray, because God knows best how to defend the Faith, humiliate His enemies, and make the Church triumphant. But these good people, whom I call optimists, will wait in vain for society to re-Christianise itself simply by the prayers of the good.

Prayer is absolutely necessary because in the ordinary economy of salvation God does not concede graces except to him who prays, but India and Japan would never have been converted by the prayers alone of St. Francis Xavier. The apostles would never have conquered the world if they had not done the work of heroes and martyrs. It is necessary, therefore, to join prayer with action.' ST. PIUS X

... It was from the lips of our most sweet Lord came those uncompromising words:

"Depart from Me into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels."

The reason ascribed is not that those people did evil deeds, but that they had failed to serve their neighbor. When those persons, horrified at hearing their condemnation, asked for an explanation they were told that in failing to serve their neighbor they had failed to serve Him."

Frank Duff, founder of The Legion of Mary



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1049MFGVbXaFNf7_5uvEvBUMyW0kXesRg/preview

[queen.saints]

Catholic Voting Principles


https://www.stjoanarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Catholic-Voting-Principles.pdf


"Pope Pius XI in the encyclical to Mexico Firmissimam constantiam, March 28, 1937 said:


"A Catholic will take care not to pass over his right to vote when the good of the Church or of the country requires it." AAS 29, 189. 

Ven. Pope Pius XII said in 1946, "The exercise of the right to vote is an act of grave responsibility..." AAS 38, 187. 

Pope Pius XII, in a speech given on September 11, 1947, said, "There is a heavy responsibility on everyone... who has the right to vote, especially when the interests of religion are at stake; abstention in this case is in itself, it should be thoroughly understood, a grave and a fatal sin of omission." 

When there was a threat to the Church in Italy in 1948, Pope Pius XII said, "In the present circumstances it is strictly obligatory for whoever has the right... to take part in the elections.  He who abstains, particularly through indolence or from cowardice, thereby commits a grave sin, a mortal offense." AAS 40, 119.

So, what does a conscientious Catholic do when one has two major candidates, both of questionable moral character?

In 1921, in a letter from the French hierarchy to all the Catholics of France, the bishops wrote, "It is your duty to vote wisely; that is to say, in such a way as not to waste your votes.  It would be better to cast them for candidates who, although not giving complete satisfaction to all our legitimate demands, would lead us to expect from them a line of conduct useful to the country, rather than to keep your votes for others whose program indeed may be more perfect, but whose almost certain defeat might open the door to the enemies of religion and of the social order." 


St. Robert Bellarmine even pointed out in his work De laicis that some rulers who were personally immoral sometimes do more good than harm, such as the Kings Saul and Solomon.   

The traditional theologian Tanquerey said that if the vote is between two evil persons, however one is worse than the other, one may vote for the less evil and most profitable to the cause of good.  (Tomus Tertius, De Variis Statuum Obligationibus, Caput I, De officiis laicorum, n. 999)."

[queen.saints]

I used to think that, too, but I trust my priest when he says otherwise.

"I was taken into captivity...  We deserved this, because we had gone away from God, and did not keep his commandments.

We would not listen to our priests, who advised us about how we could be saved." St. Patrick's Confession

[Mono no aware]

When there was a threat to the Church in Italy in 1948, Pope Pius XII said, "In the present circumstances it is strictly obligatory for whoever has the right... to take part in the elections.  He who abstains, particularly through indolence or from cowardice, thereby commits a grave sin, a mortal offense." AAS 40, 119.

Thank you.  This is exactly what I was looking for.

[Bonaventure]

When there was a threat to the Church in Italy in 1948, Pope Pius XII said, "In the present circumstances it is strictly obligatory for whoever has the right... to take part in the elections.  He who abstains, particularly through indolence or from cowardice, thereby commits a grave sin, a mortal offense." AAS 40, 119.

Thank you.  This is exactly what I was looking for.

It is also important to note the context and audience for the citations from Pius XI and Pius XII (both of blessed memory).

Pius XI was writing to the Mexican episcopate in the wake of the activities of Catholic Action under the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI).

This was the party that ran the entire Mexican State for essentially a century, and openly persecuted the Church.

The Cristero War was waged in response to el PRI. Ancestors of mine participated fiercely in this struggle.

Indeed, Pius XI states just a few sentences after those cited by Queen:

But there exist many other beneficent activities-such as the Leagues of Fathers of Families, for the defense of scholastic liberty and religious instruction, the union of citizens for the defense of the family and the sanctity of matrimony, and of public morality, which can be reorganized about the central nucleus of Catholic Action

I cannot think of a single political candidate, issue, or campaign currently in 2024 USA that attempts to do any of the above.

Pius XII explicitly mentions "in the present circumstances."

What were those circumstances?

The first elections of the Italian Parliament, where the communists ran against an explicitly Christian Party. Catholicism was the official, State Religion of the Italian Republic.

Those present circumstances differ enormously from Italy today, let alone the United States.

The Republicans do not care for the defense of the family. They do care for the defense of Israel, Ukraine, and their interests.

Public morality? Mr. Trump used the might of the Federal Government to campaign for decriminalizing sodomy around the world.

Christian Party?

Conservatives and their shills make sure to emphasize "Judeo Christian."

Our situation has never been addressed (post 1960s West) because no pope possessing the traditional Catholic faith could ever imagine such a thing were possible.

Even Jefferson believed in natural law, opposed sodomy, and abortion.

Thus I think my opinion, in light of the current situation, still holds, until and unless the Church decides otherwise.