Because of widespread dissatisfaction with current candidates the Constitution Party, a coalition of leaders from various organizations, will be choosing a candidate at their convention in April. Some of the names being considered are Ambassador Keyes, Judge Roy Moore and Chuck Baldwin among others. An article on their website has a good analysis of why John McCain is unacceptable. 

Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:

1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual; 
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

With McCain we have a chance of getting 2-3 pro-life Supreme Court Justices.  With Alan Keyes we have a chance of making a statement but no chance of getting him elected.  And since voting for him takes votes away from McCain, a vote for Keyes may well help the candidacy of pro-abortion candidates Hillary or Obama, whichever the party of death nominates.

This  is the first time that I'm getting active in supporting my pro-life candidate.  I joined McCain's campaign and plan to start fundraising for him.  I agree that getting a pro-life candidate into the White House is more important than making a statement.  I think that if a candidate has the fundamental issues, we as voters can pressure the right things to happen when the time comes.  (Truth be told, election promises are fleeting.  "Read my lips.  No new taxes."  Fundamental principles count, not particulars.)  Supporting someone who has virtually no hope of getting elected is, in my opinion, a possible distraction from achieving a life-giving national agenda.

Having said all that, I certainly encourage every American to get out and VOTE according to their consciences. 

"I know the Lord won't give me more than I can handle. I just wish he didn't trust me so much." ~Bl. Teresa of Calcutta

If you think McCain is going to further the cause of life, think again. His "pro-life" stance is rhetoric  calculated to deceive folks of good will.

From the article at constitution website also at WND. 

"McCain claims to be "pro-life" but supports destruction of human embryos for use as "spare parts" in unproven medical research. McCain won’t veto; he’ll fund the murder of innocents."

"McCain wrote the bill censoring free speech by religious organizations and shutting down grass-roots criticism of elected officials (McCain-Feingold)..."

" McCain still carries the scent of George Soros, who has contributed heavily to McCain’s effort to stifle grass-roots free speech and action."

 Council on Foreign Relations, Abortion, & Population Control

"George Soros's pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia group Open Society Institute."    

"...Ever hear of Council on Foreign Relations member George Soros? He's one of the world's richest men (estimated worth: $10 billion) and probably the biggest international investor of all time." 

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2807/emabort.html

John McCain funded by Soros since 2001

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=56177

Connect the dots. McCain will sell you out. Sound familiar? Bush has done the same thing. Supreme court justices will not win this battle. 

Thanks Kent4jmj!

I'm voting for Alan Keyes whether he's on the ballot or not. He's the only one I can go to God, in the end, and say I voted for life in all forms in every stage. He doesn't want embryonic research or hybrid people and is for the Constitution. He's taught me much in regards to my rights as a citizen. And what rights I need to fight for in the US.

There is no voting for the lesser of two evils. Evil is Evil.

Did you know the President has the right and obligation to overturn Roe vs Wade? We don't need the Judges to do it!

I've been a Catholic and a Democrate my whole voting life. I can't vote the Democratic way because they vote for death. I can't vote for McCain because of his embryonic views. The only one I can vote for is Ambassador Alan Keyes.

God bless America! We certainly need all the prayers we can get!

 Monica from Stow

Fr. Frank,

I have never voted for a candidate yet who was not 100% PRO-LIFE-- which McCain is clearly NOT. Yet the dilemma here, if we vote for Keyes or any of the other 100% PRO-LIFE candidates, are we not helping to elect a radical PRO-ABORT president and therefore helping to seat more PRO-ABORT judges on the Supreme Court? This could result in the death of more vulnerable persons than ever before! It is like saying, "if I can't save them all, I am not saving any of them, isn't it?

For the sake of argument. 

Under candidate A, 2 million die.

Candidate B, 1.5 mill. die.

There really is no "choice." The seriousness of the situation is difficult to embrace, comprehend and process.  But an intrinsically moral evil must never be supported. 

During world war ii the Pope had to walk a fine line with Nazi germany to maximize the number of people he could help to save. This may seem like a similar situation but it is not. for although he was careful not to say anything that would cause more harm unnecessarily he still told germany they were wrong. He did not support Hitler to try to steer him from doing less harm.

 Do you really think that a McCain Presidency will reduce the number of Abortion? I do not. 

Are you familiar with Lord of the Rings?  There is a seen, end of book 1, where Aragorn is faced with a difficult choice. Does he follow Frodo and the ring, which is what he swore to do or does he go after Merry and Pippin who were also his responsibility. He decides to go after Merry and Pippin The lesson I see in this is that Aragorn bases his decision on what his duty is relative to what is actually happening in the present not what might happen in the future. 

Our duty in the present is to support a Candidate that is 100% pro life. Not to worry about the future.

This is the first time in my voting history were I will not be voting Dem or Republican.  I dont care if McCain looses to the Dems or not, he will not help our cause.  The past 8 years have shown us a very little progress and I truly believe the Republican party has no real intention of helping us to get rid of abortion in our country.  If Bush didn't help us, McCain certainly wont.  Unlike the author, I'm not looking forward to this election.  I just pray a good third party candidate will show up so I will have someone to vote for. 

kel3at You're understanding of the Republican parties soft to non existent stance on Life is  dead on. Bush could care less and McCain is of the same stripe. Supreme Court Justices are not the solution. A more direct approach is needed.

Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to God's Mercy. Kent C. Bois

Kent, with all due respect, I have to point out the obvious, here.  You, yourself, stated that "an intrinsically moral evil must never be supported".  So, how do you plan to present yourself for Holy Communion knowing that you have indeed "supported an intrinsically moral evil" by voting 3rd party and thereby helping to assure the election of a pro-death President?

If all those who think Mr. McCain stinks (and he does) vote 3rd party--whether for Dr. Paul or Ambassador Keyes or anyone else (whatever happened to Mary Kochan for President?!)--we're going to end up with President Death!  And, what will you say to God then?

Btw, your analysis of "intrinsic moral evil" is incorrect.  Back to the books, kiddo!

Tough choices to make this year that is certain.

Here is some food for thought (in case a few of you haven’t had time to see Faithful Citizenship by the USCCB).

34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

Oh and something else Fr Pavone put out a few weeks ago…

“A vote is not a philosophical statement. It is a transfer of power. It is a pragmatic act to preserve, as much as possible under the circumstances, the common good, and to limit the evils that threaten it…. what matters is not how closely a candidate measures up to my preferences and convictions. Instead, it's a question of who can and will actually get elected… we may find that we don't like any of the names on the ballot. At that point, we have to shift our thinking and focus on "better" rather than "best." The reality usually is that one of several unsatisfactory candidates will in fact be elected. So we use our vote to create the better outcome and to limit the damage. That's the shift that some fail to make.”

This column can be found in its entirety at

www.priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2008/08-02-25-what-i-have-failed-to-do.htm

Pray hard. God is still in charge.

So, how do you plan to present yourself for Holy Communion knowing that you have indeed "supported an intrinsically moral evil" by voting 3rd party and thereby helping to assure the election of a pro-death President?

Sorry, but that is completely out of line. Same as if I accused you of supporting the murder of innocents because you might plan to support someone who supports embryonic stem cell research.

I think that for the faithful Catholic, voting 100% pro-life is every bit as justifiable as voting for McCain in order to keep Clinton or Obama out of office.

There are downsides to either position: McCain is probably more unlikely than Bush to actually do anything to end abortion in this country. The Republicans think that they don't have to worry about people like us because who else will we vote for? We aren't going to vote for Clinton or Obama, and why would we "throw our vote away" on a third party candidate? As far as most of them are probably concerned, we're just all a bunch of far-right nut-jobs whose beliefs they can completely ignore. If we vote for him anyway, we've just confirmed their belief that they can depend on us for votes but don't have to worry about doing what we'd like them to do.

On the other hand, voting for a third party candidate takes votes away from the only person likely to defeat the Democratic candidate, and no question, the Democratic candidates are bad news. It does, however, let Republicans know that they still have to work for our votes.

Maybe I'm jaded, and while I believe that voting is important, I don't think that there will ever be a political solution to this issue. I will be very surprised (pleasantly surprised, but surprised, nonetheless) if anything more than merely holding the ground we are already on is ever accomplished through political solutions.

Matthens-  I've read what USCCB wrote, however, it's not really helpful to me- it sounds like there are too many loopholes and it's wide open for subjective interpretation.   e.g. it is basically saying it is okay to vote for Clinton or Obama as long as it is not the voter's intent to support them on abortion.  !!!!!???

Fr Pavone's statement are much more helpful.

Kent and Kel-  why do you think the Supreme Court Justices would be of no help?  I don't agree. Bush did put two strict constructionist judges in there, and time will tell whether it will help decrease the intrinsic evil of abortion or overturn Roe v Wade.    

The issue is not whether McCain is 100% as prolife as say Father Pavone or the readers of Catholic Exchange. Let us stipulate he is not. The point is that Alan Keyes has zero chance of being president. The next president will be either Obama, Clinton or McCain. This is simply a fact. Obama or Clinton will nominate judges, not just to the Supreme Court, but at all levels of the federal judiciary. These judges may decide that Catholic hospitals should not enjoy any right to conscientious objection in providing abortion, they will further restrict even the mildest expressions of religion in public life, they most certainly will not restrict abortion in any way. At the very least McCain is more likely to appoint judges who will not make things even worse. He is not a prochoice advocate like Clinton or Obama, as foreign policy is is main interest. So at the very least he is not likely to actively make things even worse. There is some reason to hope he is at least on some prolife issues likely to be an ally. While wrong on the ESC research issue and not a prolife leader, as someone like Sam Brownback, he in fact is prolife "enough" to recieve Brownbacks endorsement. At some point unless one also thinks Sam Brownback is a "sellout" as well, this is evidence of some sympathy for the prolife cause from McCain. There is further evidence of this, in that the culture of death crowd at NARAL give McCain a zero lifetime voting rating. so in terms of his senate voting record his prolife credentials are pretty good. He has consistently voted to defund the pro-abortion crowd. Finally his heroic performance in war suggests a degree of personal integrity, as does the fact that he adopted a child from India. I will grant he is not the perfect prolife candidate, perhaps. Alas, Father Pavone or someone like him will not be on the ballot, but Sen. McCain is infinitely better than the alternative. As far as far as giving an accounting before God for our vote, I think it is obvious that a vote for Sen. McCain is a vote to do one's best to limit the evil that would be caused by the election of a president of the culture of death party, aka modern Democrats. A vote for "the constitution party is worthless. It is identical in effect to not voting, and Father Pavone has already addressed the folly of this approach.

Sorry, Stacey, I'm not willing to give ground on this one.  I don't like McCain any better than anyone else, but mdepie (cute!  I "speak" medicalese) and matthens are correct---and, realists, to boot.  I firmly believe that you head-in-the-clouds folks who won't vote for anyone who's not "100% pro-life" (Jesus is the only name that comes to mind: I don't think He's 'running') are going to have to answer for your refusal to at least limit the damage. 

I know it's unrealistic, but think about it: suppose McCain lost the election by one vote.  And, it was yours.  Then what?

And, thanks, matthens: your #36 and the Fr. Pavone quote were what I was referring to.

Cooky,

I'm completely a realist, thank you very much. I just happen to think that one can be a faithful Catholic and in this election, after much prayer and reflection, vote either for McCain or for a third party candidate who more accurately reflects our views as a Catholic. It is a prudential decision. You obviously disagree with me, but I think that it is wrong to therefore consign me and anyone else who thinks that way to the 7th circle of Hell. That is what I consider out of line, not a vote for McCain.

Thanks Stacy for your comments. I agree with you about being jaded. If we as Catholics would rise up from our slumber a third party candidate could win. It wouldn't be a "throw away" vote. I'm not for limiting the damage. Evil is evil. I understand about the Judges appointments. It's not just the Supreme Court, as was previously mentioned. It's the appointment of judges that got poor Terry slaughtered in FLA. I sincerely will have no problem telling God I voted for Alan Keyes-a Catholic and 100% pro-life candidate. If we could all become a block of voters like our grandparents and great grandparents were, we could promote a 100% pro-life candidate and not have to choose the "lesser of two evils or lesser to create damage." Sigh.  Monica

"Sorry, but that is completely out of line." Thank you Stacey.

Cooky you're reasoning is kooky. Supporting evil is evil. Supporting the Good that loses is not by default a support for evil.

The bigger picture here is that you have been conned into believing that the only option is supporting the lesser of two evils when there is a legitimate alternative. That is really scary because it seems that a majority of people agree with this position.  It only goes to highlight how morally degenerate we've become.

With this kind of reasoning our Country could never have come into existence! It certainly will not stay in existence indefinitely with this type of thinking.

While I can only speak for myself, the other consideration is that a vote for a 100% pro-life candidate need not be some sort of "I refuse to have any contact with a less-than-ritually-clean candidiate" or "head in the clouds" kind of thing. I honestly believe that the longer we compromise and vote for the lesser of the two evils, the more likely the Republican party is to continue to drift in the Rudy Guiliani/Arnold Schwarzenegger direction. Eventually, there will be no electable candidate who is even remotely pro-life, and then what do you do?

That's not to say that voting third party this time around necessarily solves that problem, and I agree that there are a number of other considerations, but I don't think that it's reasonable to assume that anyone who disagrees with you on this issue has, therefore, not even thought this through, hasn't considered all the options/ramifications, etc. Or worse, has therefore put themselves out of communion with the Church. That's really beyond the pale.

Stacey, I was not "consigning (you or kent, either) to the 7th Circle of Hell".  I was trying to make a point that, it seems, no one "got".  Since you didn't "get" it, I do apologize.

As for a 3rd party being desperately needed, I happen to agree.  I'm willing to be my great-grandfather's progeny (he was a delegate to the founding of the Republican Party here in MI) and work my tail off toward making that happen.  However, we're going to have to sweat blood and tears to make it happen in 20-30 years!  It isn't going to happen in 6 months, or even 4 years. 

Monica's idea on our becoming a voting bloc sounds peachy, but we can't even agree as to whether Mass should be said in the vernacular or in Latin, whether or not people who get married should stay married, or whether we should receive the Body and Blood of Christ in our hands or on our tongues!  How are we going to agree on who represents us?

And, finally, to kent: Who besides you has judged McCain to be "evil"???  And, whether you believe it or not, there IS no "legitmate alternative"......and won't be for a very long time, even if we start working on it tonight!  Again, you don't "get" it, and I feel great regret.

Well said, mdepie!  Thank you for voicing the facts so eloquently! 

If the good Father Pavone sees McCain as a positive alternative to Obama or Hillary for orthodox Catholics, it seems to smack of some kind of holier-than-the-pope kind of thinking to suggest that voting for McCain would be some kind of vote for evil. 

Sometimes voting pro-life means voting against pro-death.  McCain may not be perfectly pro-life, but at least he is so in the majority.  Obama & Hillary are perfectly pro-death - I have a real hard time understanding how anyone could knowingly vote in a way that would help one of those two take our country from our steadily downward slide into an all out sprint for hell...

Good for you, SolaGratia.  I think I'm going to shut up (since I seem to have an acute case of foot-in-mouth disease!), and let you and mdepie do the talking. 

And, to stacey and kent: I'm still waiting on a jump-start on a national Pro-Life Party.  "Tempus fugit", folks!

One last comment. Someone posted that the Republican party thinks it can rely on us for "votes" and ignore the prolife cause later. This is not true. First Rudy Guiliani is not the nominee largely because of his pro choice position. 2) Bush has been a pretty good friend in office, he limited ESC research ( taking much heat) has appointed judges who are likely to be somewhat friendly to our cause. 3) He has limited federal funding to international organizations that promote abortion as a right. ( Continuation of the Mexico City policy) He has stopped the endless push for abortion as a basic human right via the UN that was a large part of the Clinton foreign policy and was a major problem for Pope John Paul II. McCain will probably continue most of this. The idea that any president or party os going to "end" abortion in the current political climate is delusional. The vast majority of people support legal abortion to some degree, although would agree to limit it. Full restoration of legal protection to the unborn, while absolutely required will need to be a goal that we proceed to in increments, much as slavery was abolished in increments. It requires not just that the law change, but that the majority of citizens agree to the laws justice, police will need to enforce the law, citzens testify against abortionists, juries willing to assign blame etc.. This is a long term project in a society that has lived with 30 plus years of unlimted abortion viewed as a fundamental right. In fact it is a society in which the Church itself has been somewhat timid in its opposition ( when was the last sermon about abortion anyone has heard, how many openly prochoice politicians have been criticized by the bishops explicitly? How many denied the sacraments for the support of this "unspeakable crime" as Vatican II called abortion? In this situation those of us who wish to protect the unborn have a moral duty to be realistic. Right now the best ( only!) option to limit the damage is to support McCain and indeed the Republican party. They are a very inperfect vessel for the prolife cause, but as SolaGratia said, the democrats will change our "steady slide into hell into a sprint" ( Great line!) If we can slow the descent we have a chance at reversing the trend. Right now the folks at NARAL would encourage people like Stacy to throw away their vote on a third party candidate. Folks who do this are unwitting accomplices to the culture of death party ( the democrats). 

Tempus fugit, Memento Mori

There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me... Remember, the Sun is always shining!

There will be surprises in the next four years.

As Catholics, we have an obligation to vote and to do so to promote the common good in accordance to a well-formed conscience.   Does voting for a third party candidate with zero chance of being elected promote the common good? Does continuing to post arguments to your fellow-convinced that the king is a fink? 

Instead of writing off all the politicians as sellouts, we need to pray for them and strive to determine which of them are of sufficient moral character to lead the country.

I posted this on an earlier thread, but it seems to fit here now:

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was nominated as a moderate Republican; he supported the Corwin Amendment to the US Constitution, explicitly protecting slavery in the states which already had it. His message was that slavery was wrong, and ought to be confined to the areas where it already existed. But he had no plan to outlaw slavery in the South.

Lincoln was elected into office on abolitionist votes, he was not even on the ballot in nine of the southern states. Many abolitionists, we may surmise, voted for him in the hopes that his moderate position would, in the long run, allow a majority of free states into the Union and enable the outlawing of slavery by Constitutional means.  Of course, we all know the war broke out and the issue was resolved with bloodshed...

The fact that hindsight is 20/20 is exactly the point — at the time, conscientious voters were not at all certain Lincoln would not fold, especially when the stakes were raised to open warfare on our fellow citizens. 

The parallel to the abortion issue, in my opinion, is this — slavery was also the defining moral issue of the time with no middle ground, and yet citizens of conscience found a way to vote into office a candidate who ended up having the strength of character to stand firm on the issue, make hard choices, and see it through. They didn't refuse to exercise their responsibility as co-owners of the franchise.

We need to take this seriously, as the posters here have.  In love, we must help our misguided fellow citizens to properly form their consciences. We need the theological virtue of hope.