Pope captures hard truth: American Catholics destined to be ‘politically homeless’

[Michie]

ROME – For a pontiff often seen as having a chip on his shoulder about the U.S. – and, let’s face it, that impression isn’t entirely without merit – in his recent comments on the “lesser of two evils” vis-à-vis the Trump/Harris race, Pope Francis nonetheless seemed to channel his inner American fairly well.

I mean, how many Americans, Catholic or not, have sometimes felt in recent election cycles that we’ve been posed with a choice between two flawed alternatives, forced to make the best of disappointing options?

Granted, there are enthusiasts on either side of our partisan divides who probably don’t see things in those terms, but Pope Francis’s way of sizing up the situation nevertheless will resonate with a vast swath of Americans, of all religious faiths and none, who simply can’t get into a full, upright and locked position in favor of either alternative.

For American Catholics specifically, however, Francis’s comments aboard his return flight from Singapore to Rome also captured a hard truth, one too often forgotten amid the rattle and hum of an election season: To wit, any American who takes the full range of Catholic social teaching seriously simply cannot be comfortable in either of our major political parties.

Continued below.

Pope captures hard truth: American Catholics destined to be ‘politically homeless’

Any American who takes the full range of Catholic social teaching seriously simply cannot be comfortable in either of our major political parties.

cruxnow.com

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

"In highly over-simplified terms,
Republicans tend to be congenial to church teaching on life issues, religious freedom and public support for religious organizations, while Democrats are often closer to the catechism on social issues, including anti-poverty efforts, the death penalty, the environment and race relations."

Add gender identity to Republicans and solidarity with other countries to Democrats.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

"In highly over-simplified terms,
Republicans tend to be congenial to church teaching on life issues, religious freedom and public support for religious organizations, while Democrats are often closer to the catechism on social issues, including anti-poverty efforts, the death penalty, the environment and race relations."

Add gender identity to Republicans and solidarity with other countries to Democrats.

That is what they like us to believe, but how many dig deeper and want to know what they really stand for? What is really going on?

Democrats say they protect the rights of women. Excuse me, what? They say they are for women, yet destroy the one thing that a woman has that a man can never have, motherhood. Let’s make them free to have sex and keep them in the work force by telling them they are no different from men. Now we have to accept that some men are women. Really? This sounds like a good plan?
Say that the party is pro-woman by destroying motherhood and handing the role of women to men. Ok, I fail to see the advantage in that.
The Church teaches against birth control, abortion and trans gender. The Bible even says the effeminate will not enter the kingdom of heaven, but we are lead to believe that party is sympathetic to women? Who has bewitched us?

Social services? All I can see is Al Pacino in Devil’s Advocate playing Satan and giving his speech. “I am a fan of man” equality sounds like a laudable goal, but destroying the “patriarchy” and stirring workers to revolt does not bring happiness, but universal misery. It’s a deal with the devil, give me all the power and I’ll make you all equal. Like that is a good thing, equally miserable, equally damned

The only thing the other side has is to stand against this plot: there are myriad flaws in their ranks. This world is not where we are to have our heart. I would not vote for republicans because wealth and prosperity abound, as these are cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water. The more we try to gain pleasure from the world, the more we lose.
If we vote Democrat, we vote Satan into power and let people believe all his empty promises to give us freedom in sin and abandoning God, if we vote republican we vote greed into power under the illusion of serving God

Oh wasn’t wretched men we are to have to make this choice. No wonder Jesus said that if we follow Him, we will be hated by all men for His sake. Vote for who you want, but use your free will to repent in your own life and ask God to cleanse you from sin now, not tomorrow, not five years from now, but now

 

[Wolseley]

Military field hospitals have a system called "triage", which determines which casualties they work on first. (Bear with me on this; the analogy will become clear as we go along.)

Let's say you have four casualties come in: one has a double GSW (gunshot wound) in the upper torso, through-and-through (went in the chest and out the back), and the bullets punctured a lung, which has collapsed, and he has lost an enormous amount of blood. The second man has splinters of shrapnel in his chest, arms, and face; he's bleeding, but not badly. The third man tripped a landmine and had lost most of his left leg below the knee. And the fourth man is suffering from temporary deafness, bruising, and blast effect from having an artillery round explode next to him.

Which case do the surgeons take first?

Under triage, the man with the missing leg goes first. He can be saved, his wound cleaned and cauterized, and he will live. His condition is serious, but not fatal if attended to quickly.

The blast effect victim and the man with shrapnel splinters come in second. Neither is in danger of dying, neither is going to bleed out. They can be shunted into a waiting ward and attended to when things settle down a bit, their conditions evaluated, and proper treatment rendered.

The man with the GSW? He comes in last. His situation is grim; operating on the destroyed lung will take time, which, due to conditions and numbers of casualties, the surgeons perhaps do not have. Furthermore, the amount of blood lost by this man is critical; he cannot be given transfusions to keep him alive until his holes are plugged, because he's losing it faster than they can pump it into him. He's also barely breathing due to lung damage, and by the time they get the lung repaired, he might very well be brain-dead due to oxygen deprivation.

In the meantime, the amount of time they'd spend on fixing this guy up means they don't have time to attend to the traumatic amputee, who might very well die while waiting for treatment. The shrapnel victim might develop sepsis for the same reason.

So the gunshot victim is set aside in a "moribund ward", which is where the cases go whom the assessing surgeons basically don't think can be saved. They're set aside so the men who can be saved with certainty are treated, and when those cases are squared away, the moribund cases are re-evaluated. If there's anything than can be done for them, they're taken care of, now that the doctors have no other critical patients. If, in the meantime, they have died, well, then they're dead. It's harsh, but that's the battlefield reality.

This scenario is how I have approached our elections for at least the last 36 years. Who do I vote for? Well, who has the least problems? Who has values that align the closest to my own? Who has radical concepts that I absolutely do not agree with? Who is more likely to cause major damage to the country due to their policies? In short, which one is the lesser of two evils?

In this cycle, Trump is the only viable choice. Does he have flaws? Yes. Does he support some policies that I don't like? Definitely. But he is likely to protect the country's borders, improve the economy, and keep our enemies at bay better than the alternative.

I could, I suppose, vote for a third-party candidate. But let's be realistic: under the current system, hijacked and held hostage as it is by the two major parties, a third-party candidate has little to no chance of getting elected; and if enough votes are siphoned off for a third-party candidate which could have gone to the lesser of two evils, then it might mean that the greater of two evils garners enough votes to win the election....and we end up with the situation we most wanted to avoid to begin with.

So, for the sake of preventing the country from (literally!) going down in flaming ruin, it has to be Trump. He is not perfect by any stretch---but he is tolerable. A third-party candidate is dead before we even start, because he won't win; he's in the moribund ward. And a Kamala win is unthinkable and intolerable; therefore, she must come in second, and lose.

Not an ideal situation, all way around. But it has to be done. I can see The United States surviving, at least for a few more years, if Trump wins. But if he loses, and Kamala Harris becomes the chief executive, you can stick a fork in this country, because she will, through either incompetence or malice, be the final push to send the whole edifice tumbling over the edge. The economy will collapse, our enemies will press their advantages against us, civil unrest will ensue, and by 2034, what was once the US of A will consist of the Chinese People's Greater North American Colony for most of the west; various Islamic Caliphates here and there; small pockets of democratic cooperatives; and a large section under conditions of guerilla activity and anarchy. The Russians will reclaim Alaska; Hawaii and all other American possessions in the Pacific will be Chinese.

That's how I see it. Harsh choices; none of them ideal. You may or may not agree with me. All I can say is, choose your vote carefully, and pray harder than you ever have before in your entire life, because we may be losing the comfortable, settled, civilized, and predictable life we've all become accustomed to since the end of World War II. This whole house of cards may come crashing down no matter who wins this election; and by this time next year, we may all be huddled in a ditch next to our burned-out homes, most of our families scattered or dead, clutching our rifles, hoping to avoid attracting the attention of the Opposing Forces, and trying to figure out where we're going to get food and ammunition for the next few days.

 

[Wolseley]

That is what they like us to believe, but how many dig deeper and want to know what they really stand for? What is really going on?

The Church teaches against birth control, abortion and trans gender. The Bible even says the effeminate will not enter the kingdom of heaven, but we are lead to believe that party is sympathetic to women? Who has bewitched us?

Who has bewitched us? Well, I don't know; could it be......

SATAN???​

​

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Well spoken Wolesley. The Democrats, Hollywood and even basketball are afraid of offending China. They supposedly represent and reflect us, but they are all getting millions of dollars from China to say what they say
Trump is the only one that can stand up to them like he did before
I believe like you that if Kamala gets in we will become either the
Union of Soviet socialist America (USSA) or
People’s Republic of America (PRA)

We will see religious persecution not seen since Roman times. Merick Garland is already sending machine gun troops after pro life supporters and called traditional Catholics dangerous extremists
I personally have already lost two jobs because I am Christian. The first I deserved but the second was blatantly discriminatory
Don’t worry, God is good and I am safe
Just pray for our country, it’s getting rough out there

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Who has bewitched us? Well, I don't know; could it be......

SATAN???​

View attachment 354679​

Would be really funny if it were not so true

 

[Miss Shelby]

Big deluxe spear guns. (because we will run out of bullets) and learn to plant food hunt and live off the land.

 

[Miss Shelby]

We will see religious persecution not seen since Roman times. Merick Garland is already sending machine gun troops after pro life supporters and called traditional Catholics dangerous extremists
I personally have already lost two jobs because I am Christian. The first I deserved but the second was blatantly discriminatory
Don’t worry, God is good and I am safe
Just pray for our country, it’s getting rough out there

If it isn't too intrusive bwap, are you willing to share the details of your job terminations? I know some other people have been wrongfully fired. Maybe you have lawsuit material for the second one anyway.

 

[RileyG]

Well spoken Wolesley. The Democrats, Hollywood and even basketball are afraid of offending China. They supposedly represent and reflect us, but they are all getting millions of dollars from China to say what they say
Trump is the only one that can stand up to them like he did before
I believe like you that if Kamala gets in we will become either the
Union of Soviet socialist America (USSA) or
People’s Republic of America (PRA)

We will see religious persecution not seen since Roman times. Merick Garland is already sending machine gun troops after pro life supporters and called traditional Catholics dangerous extremists
I personally have already lost two jobs because I am Christian. The first I deserved but the second was blatantly discriminatory
Don’t worry, God is good and I am safe
Just pray for our country, it’s getting rough out there

God is faithful. In the end, everything will be well.

I am sorry for the loss of your job.

 

[RileyG]

"In highly over-simplified terms,
Republicans tend to be congenial to church teaching on life issues, religious freedom and public support for religious organizations, while Democrats are often closer to the catechism on social issues, including anti-poverty efforts, the death penalty, the environment and race relations."

Add gender identity to Republicans and solidarity with other countries to Democrats.

You're not wrong. Neither party represents the faithful pretty well.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

If it isn't too intrusive bwap, are you willing to share the details of your job terminations? I know some other people have been wrongfully fired. Maybe you have lawsuit material for the second one anyway.

I can give you the basics. First job promised I would not have to assist with abortions but assigned them to me anyway and told me to find a substitute. Wasn’t fired, made me bitter, got fired for bad attitude later.

Other jobs did not have any association with abortion but did have tubal ligations and vasectomies. I started in a doubtful conscience regarding birth control so it did not bother me much. I was Protestant but returned to the Catholic Church at that time.
My doubtful conscience led to a presumptive conscience that got me cut off from the sacraments. During that time, I could not take communion, so I believed I was excommunicated. I was presumptive because I believed my marriage would be annulled so I went ahead and divorced and remarried with plans to get the annulment later.

I received an affirmative response from the tribunal, but my priest said in order to receive communion, I had to convince my non-Catholic wife and her anti-Catholic family to go through the annulment process for her previous marriage.
She did not want to do it, but I guilted her into it by saying of the roles were reversed and she asked me to do it, there would be no question. She relented.

Received grace with full submission to authority of Catholic Church. Did not want to sin mortally anymore, also did not want to participate in procedures against Catholic teaching any longer

Lawyer wrote up request for accommodation according to Natural Law and US Title VII. First job was at Catholic Hospital so no problem. They asked me why I was not vaccinated because the Pope said it was morally acceptable. I said abortion is against the natural law and the Church has no authority to dispense the natural law, even the USCCB says that.

I was let go from the Catholic hospital because I was too expensive. Temporary agencies are very expensive for hospitals so I was disappointed but understood. My agency promised that I would get another job where I did not have to do procedures I found objectionable.

It was not a Catholic hospital, and they assigned to sterilizations and transgender surgeries. I asked for and received accommodation, but the job was not as presented and I wanted to leave immediately, my agent begged me to put in a thirty day notice to keep my end of the contract. I did that, but got a very bad review from the hospital and was suspended from my agency pending investigation. The bad review was baseless and I was again cleared to work
The next hospital I was told was aware of my request for accommodation. They acted like they were not and when I asked for accommodation and explained my reasoning per their request, I was fired the next day

I left without incident abandoned by the hosptial, abandoned by my agency and out of work. I had to drive home and tell my wife I was fired. I expected her to be mad and call me a stupid jerk, but she immediately knew what happened without my having to explain. She said you were fired for your beliefs. I contacted a lawyer and it is in process to charge discrimination

In the meantime I had to mitigate my damages. I contacted the Catholic hospital. They were happy to hear from me but said my agency required a buy out of my contract for me to be able to work for them. I am explained fully why I was calling. They made arrangements for me to pay the buyout and I sent a generic resignation to my agency and started full time work at a Catholic hospital and my conscience clear

I am at reduced salary 1000 miles from home, but there is so much peace at work and in my family
My wife is proud of me and we have faith that things will work out

 

[fide]

In short, which one is the lesser of two evils?

I think I understand what you really mean, but words matter. The evil one wants us to use this language that you have used, because he delights that you are saying that you are choosing evil - and thus he likes it.

I acknowledge that this is a common way to describe many, many difficult moral choices. Would that we would all stop ever choosing an evil! The lesser evil is never a good in itself, ever, it is an evil. Catholics must resolve to choose good, always. We very seldom have a choice of either a perfect good or a complete evil, but we mostly do have choices between two candidates having mixed moral positions, one with some good mixed with one collection of evils and the other with some good mixed with fewer or less serious evils. The choice must be that we always choose the greater good. That, we can and ought to do.

To do this we need (at least) the gifts from the Holy Spirit of moral discernment, prudence, and fortitude. These gifts can be gained - received - in the journey of sanctification walked in supernatural faith, and hope, and holy charity, remaining in our Lord in all things. This impure and morally mixed world is passing away, and we were created here and now in this moment, to live His Life. It is not easy, but neither was His Cross.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I think I understand what you really mean, but words matter. The evil one wants us to use this language that you have used, because he delights that you are saying that you are choosing evil - and thus he likes it.

I acknowledge that this is a common way to describe many, many difficult moral choices. Would that we would all stop ever choosing an evil! The lesser evil is never a good in itself, ever, it is an evil. Catholics must resolve to choose good, always. We very seldom have a choice of either a perfect good or a complete evil, but we mostly do have choices between two candidates having mixed moral positions, one with some good mixed with one collection of evils and the other with some good mixed with fewer or less serious evils. The choice must be that we always choose the greater good. That, we can and ought to do.

To do this we need (at least) the gifts from the Holy Spirit of moral discernment, prudence, and fortitude. These gifts can be gained - received - in the journey of sanctification walked in supernatural faith, and hope, and holy charity, remaining in our Lord in all things. This impure and morally mixed world is passing away, and we were created here and now in this moment, to live His Life. It is not easy, but neither was His Cross.

on that thought, we look at the good of the two choices. If we vote on that, what are the choices

We are told that one is for the poor and oppressed, yet kills the innocent. The other claims to want to protect the innocent yet it is said has total disregard for the poor and oppressed.

Are those claims true? Do we believe the propaganda and vote based on that limited information, or do we dig deeper?
Do we believe what we are told?

With research we find the two lies of one cloaking themselves with the reputation of being for the poor and oppressed yet offering no real solutions other than a cat and mouse lottery game of figuring out who is worthy of government programs, with those programs making things worse for everyone else

The other we are told has disregard for the poor and oppressed, yet sets people free from dependence and offers a reward for hard work
The other side says that is too mean, not everyone can work so they must receive free things

The one side says they are for the poor and oppressed yet has some of the most vicious suppression tactics against those with whom
They disagree, namely cancel culture, censorship and outright imprisonment, all done with the gleeful approval of their allies

Not sure if even the proposed choices are clearly presented in a way that we can distinguish evil and good

 

[fide]

Not sure if even the proposed choices are clearly presented in a way that we can distinguish evil and good

Then you really are in a quandary. It appears very clear to me. Each has a record which speaks louder than "what they say."

 

[Markie Boy]

I agree - one side is pro-life, and marriage between a man and a woman. The other side is pro-"choice", and change your gender like you change clothes daily.

It's not that hard to see which is in line with God more.

But I wonder this - follow the money.

I read the Cathoic Church gets around a billion dollars a year for "migrants and refugees". Possibly more as the USCCB and various charities get grants and other monies.

Is it possible the Pope does not want the party that closes borders, as it's bad for business?

 

[Miss Shelby]

BWAP. Good for you and thanks for sharing that. I fully expect to be fired at some point for not participating in the insanity of using multiple pronouns.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Well the majority of the country doesn’t have real alternatives but so far as Catholic issues only the Vatican is purely reigning on them.

Even Ireland caved on abortion.
However we have stepped back from it being law of the land via the Supreme Court and I’m thankful.

Kamala wants infanticide so .. I can’t get behind that.
Nor her woke, gay marriage or…

Tim Walz pedophile policy in Michigan which I looked up and the pedophile part of not accepting it was scratched out.

So Trump it is, though not Catholic may surprise us as his wife is Catholic.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

BWAP. Good for you and thanks for sharing that. I fully expect to be fired at some point for not participating in the insanity of using multiple pronouns.

Stand your ground. You do not have to been mean or cause a scene. Just call them by their proper name and refuse pronouns. I was assigned to help remove the breasts of 19yr old girl and I refused.
They accommodated me but were not happy.

They were probably setting me up to fire me for my beliefs, so they assigned me to assist with a gall bladder in a woman that wanted to be called a man’s name. Probably to see what I would do.
I am a physician, and everyone deserves health care regardless of other issues. That is human dignity and their right as created in the image of God. I would not refuse to help.
When taking to her, I used her requested name but did not communicate so as to use pronouns.
When giving report, I said she without thinking about it. I was not corrected and did not apologize. My brain was just not thinking he, when she had full breasts and only a hint of a beard. I gave her anethesia just as I would for anyone else and had no problem
The question then becomes, if I say everyone deserves healthcare regardless of who they are, how do I justify refusing to assist in abortions, sterilizations and transgender surgery? Are not those procedures “healthcare”?

I thought about it, and it came to me, they certainly are not. Healthcare enhances the health of the patient without question, or at least it is intended to enhance health.

Abortion ends the life of a human being, tubal ligation and vasectomies mutilate a healthy body for pure pleasure. Transgender surgery is also a mutilation of a healthy body.

They are called healthcare because the advocates “believe” it will make their life better. Others disagree. Wait a minute, what do we do with other’s beliefs?
The US constitution says that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion. By calling these procedures “healthcare”, the government is effectively establishing a religion and commanding universal adherence. That is unconstitutional.! These procedures are religious rituals designed to give one faith preference over another. The US constitution says that we cannot do that, but we are being duped into doing just that.
What does that mean? Well I have standing because I was prevented from practicing my profession because I declined to participate in another religion. If I could find a lawyer willing to take the case to the Supreme Court, I would argue that these procedures be removed from all institutions which receive federal funding, based on the establishment clause

We have freedom of religion, so these religious procedures should be taken out of hospitals and placed in religious settings

All these states are passing these laws of their constitutional right to abortion. I say ok, do that, but it is illegal for you to use federal funds to do it or even state funds, or allow them to be performed in secular institutions. Go to your own house of worship to perform your religious rituals and pay for them yourselves

Insurance cannot be required to cover abortion or birth control. Those that want it will have to get a religious policy, or would you like your insurance money to go to my parish, so I may continue to receive the Eucharist and Penance?
Oh you object? Now you know how I feel


Far fetched? Maybe, but the argument is sound. These procedures are healthcare only because people believe they are healthcare. That makes them religious rituals and not constitutional for the government to establish them and demand universal obedience

This will be my testimony in federal court if asked on the stand