I Suppose Social Conservatives Should Feel Fortunate ...

... that at least it wasn't Rob Portman's daughter wanting to get an abortion that caused him to make a a social policy about-face :

Republican Sen. Rob Portman said Thursday that he now supports gay marriage – a surprise turnabout on a hot-button social issue, sparked by a deeply personal reflection that began two years ago after Portman’s son, Will, told him that he is gay.

[...]

Portman said his previous views on marriage were rooted in his faith.

But “the overriding message of love and compassion that I take from the Bible . . . and the fact that I believe we are all created by our maker . . . that has all influenced me in terms of my change on this issue,” he said.

That's right. Don't let those timeless truths of a pesky religious faith stand in the way of your own personal Jesus. Actually, Mollie Hemingway says it better:

Leaving apart the question of whether marriage law should be changed, this strikes me as a problematic approach. I mean, marriage law should be changed or it shouldn't be changed -- but it shouldn't hinge on the sexual attractions of one senator's son, should it?

What if a conservative senator said, "I'm reversing my views on whether abortion should be legal because my daughter got pregnant and wished she weren't."

One of the fascinating things about society today is that personal experience trumps everything else in argumentation. Very few people seem to care about fundamental truths and principles while everyone seems to care about personal experience and emotion. It's the Oprahfication of political philosophy.

Should a conservative determine good policy this way?

Romney's Sister: Romney Administration Would Not Work to End Abortion; “Not His Focus.”

From one of the women who knows Romney best, his sister:

Mitt Romney’s eldest sister, who has backed prominent Democrats for office and is in Tampa showing support for her brother, had some reassuring words Wednesday for women concerned about the Republican Party’s hard line on abortion.

Mitt Romney would never make abortions illegal as president, Jane Romney said when National Journal asked her about the subject after a “Women for Mitt” event. "He’s not going to be touching any of that,” she said. “It’s not his focus.”

[...]

But as Jane Romney put it, “Mitt’s much more in the middle” when it comes to abortion.

Mitt Romney has said he supports legal abortion in cases of rape and incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger. As for the fate of abortion rights, “Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court," he said in an interview with CBS News this week. "The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It's been settled for some time in the courts."

Jane Romney said she believes “life is sacred” and suggested those seeking abortion should be required to undergo counseling. But she also said that abortion should “absolutely” be safe and legal. “Every woman needs to be left to make her own choice,” she said.

A ban on abortion is “never going to happen” under a Romney administration, Jane Romney said. “Women would take to the streets. Women fought for our choice, we’re not going to go back."

[...]

With the way Romney has backed off in the last few days from the pro-life stance he pretended to hold in order to win the GOP primary, does anyone REALLY doubt that Romney's sister is entirely correct in her assessment of him? She's right about Romney. And what's more, we all KNOW that she's right about him.

And, yet, pro-lifers are falling all over themselves to get this guy elected, even going so far as to say that those of us who will not vote for Romney because of his weak position on life are not authentically "pro-life". [NOTE: It was this piece that caused me to drop LifeNews from my Facebook feed.]

I have been saying for years that Romney is a fraud on the pro-life issue, trying to be all things to all people. But when it comes time to fight for anti-Roe judges, or for defunding Planned Parenthood, or for any other controversial right-to-life initiative, does anyone really believe that Romney will go to the mat in the same way the Dems are willing to fight to the death for abortion? Of course not. It is my heartfelt belief that pro-lifers will come to rue the day they ever supported Mitt Romney's bid for the presidency.

And, yet, the pro-life movement continues to make preposterous claims on Romney's behalf. Just stop. It is one thing to say that Obama is just so much worse that supporting Romney is a necessary evil. But pro-lifers just need to stop claiming that there is otherwise a pro-life argument in Romney's favor. There's just not. And, if he's elected, pro-lifers will eventually ask themselves "What were we thinking in supporting this guy?"

Allegedly "Pro-Life" Romney Holds Fundraiser With Abortion Drug Manufacturer; CatholicVote Sells Soul in Response

DO NOT VOTE FOR THAT FRAUD MITT ROMNEY !!!

MIAMI, FLORIDA, May 17, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney scheduled a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser at the home of Phil Frost, the executive of the company that makes the Morning After Pill, on Wednesday night. Plan B One-Step is produced by Teva Pharmaceuticals, Frost’s company.

The pharmaceutical executive’s residence was one of several stops scheduled to increase Romney’s war chest during a two-day swing through Florida.

“It’s a huge disappointment,” Brian Camenker, director of the Massachusetts-based pro-family organization MassResistance told LifeSiteNews.com. “You wouldn’t see someone who was really pro-life doing a fundraiser with somebody who helped the abortion industry.”

Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.org, didn’t seem troubled by the fundraiser saying, “What matters is whether a President Romney will end all taxpayer support for abortion-inducing drugs, repeal unconstitutional mandates that force private institutions to cover such drugs, and whether he will make progress in building a culture of life.” [ED.: But isn't this a fairly good indication that Romney is NOT what he proclaims himself to be on life issues? On what basis are we to conclude that Romney will follow through on the pro-life initiatives that CatholicVote proclaims are "what matters"? On what basis are we to believe that Romney is going to cut off federal funds from flowing to a guy who just hosted a $50,000 per plate fundraiser for him?!?!?]

[More]

... But for Wales, CatholicVote? Look, we know you're in the tank for the guy now that Santorum is out, but at least have the decency and consistency of principle to call the guy out in no uncertain terms when he does crap like this.

Folks, don't listen to the professional Catholics who inevitably expose themselves as Republican-first-pro-life-second political hacks. You DON'T have to settle for the fraud Mitt Romney. You DO have a pro-life choice in this election.

Vote the 100% pro-life (with no exceptions) Constitution Party and its 100% pro-life (with no exceptions) nominee for President, Virgil Goode.

Dear Pro Lifers ...

Virgil Goode... the ONLY 100% Pro-Life 2012 Presidential Candidate running on the ticket of the only 100% Pro-Life (anti-abortion with NO EXCEPTIONS) political party in the country..


(With all due respect to Ron Paul, who is also pro-life and still running in the GOP race, but is highly unlikely to win that party's nomination.)

Don't Vote for "Lesser" Evil... Vote for Goode

Reject the Obama-Romney Ticket - Vote Virgil Goode for President

Obamney/Robama in their own words:

 

There's barely a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Romney, and NEITHER will fight for the principles and priorities that are most important to you.

Don't get stuck choosing between the alleged lesser of two evils. You have a REAL choice, if only you'll escape from the two-party box in which the Republicans think they have trapped you into voting for whoever they nominate just because the other guy is allegedly worse.

 Vote for someone who shares your values, priorities, and political philosophy.

Vote for the only candidate with a 100% pro-life voting record running under the banner of the only 100%-without-exception-pro-life party.


Vote for Constitution Party nominee

Virgil Goode!!!

Fight the Goode Fight!!!

"Game On" - Oklahoma Family's Pro-Santorum Song

A little too saccharine for my tastes, but this is cute:

Paul Zummo on Rick Santorum and It Takes a Family

My friend Paul Zummo writes at The American Catholic on why he is supporting Rick Santorum:

I recently completed Rick Santorum’s It Takes A Family. I quipped on Twitter that had I read this before the campaign started then Santorum would have been my top Rick pick before that other Rick entered the race (though I still maintain that Governor Perry would have been an outstanding nominee, but no need to go there)...

The book title really says it all. The heart of Rick Santorum’s political philosophy is the family, meaning that to him strong families are the heart of any functioning society. The family has been undermined both by big government programs and by the culture at large. Santorum mocks the “village elders” who view more government programs as the solution to all problems. Santorum acknowledges that many of the problems we face don’t have quick and easy fixes, and often no legislative action can be taken. Santorum offers a series of small policy proposals that are aimed at giving parents and individuals in tough economic circumstances some tools to help, but he also emphasizes the doctrine of subsidiarity. Ultimately we must rely principally on local institutions, starting with the family.

Santorum understands what even some on the right fail to appreciate, and that is we can’t divorce social issues from economics. The breakdown of the family coincides directly with economic hardship. If we want a healthier economy, we need healthier families...

[...]

I would like to end on a personal note. When I was a kid I dreamed of running for the presidency in 2012 – the year I turned 35 and became constitutionally eligible. Obviously that has not happened. Yet, running for the presidency now is a slightly dweebish, socially conservative, Italian-American. It’s kind of the next best thing to running myself. Well, when I see the passion with which Santorum writes about issues that matter to me, I can’t help but respect the man. The second half of this book is terrific, and the sincerity of his convictions particularly shines through when he is discussing abortion. Some of you remain skeptical that such a man can actually win a general election. I am not gonna link to the polls that suggest otherwise. I just want you to consider that if you’re like me and believe as I do on the issues that matter most, we might not ever again get a chance to put someone who shares so many of our convictions in the White House. So don’t cast your vote out of some fear of what might happen in November.

[Read the whole thing]

I am in complete agreement with Paul's assessment. Just put up my Santorum yard signs yesterday, and will gladly pull the lever for Santorum in next week's Ohio Primary.

Susan B. Anthony List Endorses Santorum

Santorum scores a big-time pro-life endorsement from the Susan B. Anthony List:

The anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List plans to endorse Rick Santorum for president.

The group is announcing Friday it will back the former Pennsylvania senator over Mitt Romney and the other Republican hopefuls. It's the first time the group has endorsed in a presidential primary.

Jane Abraham, an anti-abortion activist in Michigan and chairman of the group's board, says none of the other candidates has the "record of consistent leadership" Santorum has shown on abortion.

Romney has struggled to win over social conservatives nervous about his previous support for abortion rights. Last year, Romney refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony List's anti-abortion pledge, saying it was too broad.

The group plans to organize activists, particularly in Michigan, before the state's Feb. 28 primary.

(emphasis added)

More on this major endorsement from LifeNews.com.

I wonder if any of the so-called "pro-life" activists and "pro-life" organizations (i.e. Republican first, pro-life second) who endorsed Dullard Flip Rino early on are now having second thoughts.

Santorum Only GOP Candidate Beating Obama, Rasmussen Daily Poll Finds

CNSNews reports that the latest Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll shows Santorum as the ONLY candidate beating Obama in a head-to-head matchup:

(CNSNews.com) – Just ahead of three more Republican nominating contests, a new poll -- a snapshot in time -- shows former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum leading President Barack Obama in a one-on-one matchup.

[...]

The same daily tracking poll finds Obama actually beating former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the GOP frontrunner, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Rep. Ron Paul. Neither Obama nor the other GOP candidates gets a majority in any of the hypothetical matchups.

[...]

Obama wins 47 percent of the vote against Romney’s 43 percent, according to the Rasmussen daily poll for Feb. 5. Obama and Romney have been virtually tied in most polls for months. Obama leads Paul, 45-42 percent. Gingrich does worse among GOP candidates, losing to Obama 49-41 percent.

[More]

Santorum performs 5 points better against Obama than Romney does.

So, again, I ask: What is the justification for supporting "Mr. Electable", Dullard Flip Rino? From the perspective of BOTH conservatism AND electability, Santorum is a MUCH better choice.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Who's "Electable"?

New Rasmussen Poll Shows Santorum Polling as Well as Romney Against Obama

Irony: Group Pushing for Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell Warns GOP Leadership to Stay Away from Social Issues

Same-sex-issues-obsessed group calling itself GOP Proud wants to use the federal government to push its social agenda while telling the Republican leadership to avoid social issues.

Not surprisingly, some of the more libertarian (libertine) elements of the Tea Party movement have joined them.

Jim DeMint: “You Can’t Be a Fiscal Conservative and Not Be a Social Conservative” [UPDATED]

Damn straight!

Not surprisingly, the God-hating, same-sex "marriage" advocating, pro-abort libertarian over at HotAir doesn't like it one bit.


UPDATE
At The American Catholic, my friend Paul Zummo echoes Sen. DeMint's and my acknowledgement that "conservatism" can't be compartmentalized and still be "conservative":

Naturally this bothers AllahPundit and some of the other shrieking libertarians at Hot Air, but DeMint is of course right.

First of all, anyone who has paid any amount of attention to politics over the past couple of decades should recognize that the people who label themselves fiscally conservative and socially moderate or liberal – let’s call them cafeteria conservatives – are the first people to betray the cause of limited government on economic issues. A prime example of this is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger...

[...]

John Hawkins did a bit of analysis that shows a fairly strong correlation between fiscal and social conservatism. Though the measuring device is a bit crude, it shows that when it comes to economic issues, social conservatives are the most reliable votes in favor of fiscal conservatism.

Second, it is simply illogical to divorce economic and social issues. As I’ve said in the past a conservatism that disregards social conservatism simply isn’t conservatism. If one approaches conservatism more as a general political philosophy rather than a political ideology, one realizes that social and cultural issues are the central core of conservatism. Conservatism is at root a belief in tradition, among other general beliefs... for the most part conservatism is about preserving the social order. If you eliminate social issues from the conservative creed, you’re left with nothing of substance.

Finally, I think that there is great misunderstanding as to what social conservatism entails, especially as it relates to the concept of limited government. The notion that social conservatives want the heavy had of government involved in all personal matters is a bit of a strawman caricature.

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
For All You Atheist Libertarian Types ...

HotAir's Strange Assessment of the Virginia GOP Electoral Juggernaut [UPDATED]

Pot ... Kettle

The Catholic Vote and What Really Matters [UPDATED]

CatholicVote.org has a new video out in time for the elections:



Also just in time for the elections, Rich Leonardi links to Pope Benedict's ad limina address to the Brazilian Bishops and wonders "what is it about Brazil that brings out the best in Benedict?":

"First, the duty of direct action to ensure a just ordering of society falls to the lay faithful who, as free and responsible citizens, strive to contribute to the just configuration of social life, while respecting legitimate autonomy and natural moral law", the Holy Father explained. "Your duty as bishops, together with your clergy, is indirect because you must contribute to the purification of reason, and to the moral awakening of the forces necessary to build a just and fraternal society. Nonetheless, when required by the fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls, pastors have the binding duty to emit moral judgments, even on political themes".

"When forming these judgements, pastors must bear in mind the absolute value of those ... precepts which make it morally unacceptable to chose a particular action which is intrinsically evil and incompatible with human dignity. This decision cannot be justified by the merit of some specific goal, intention, consequence or circumstance, Thus it would be completely false and illusory to defend, political, economic or social rights which do not comprehend a vigorous defence of the right to life from conception to natural end. When it comes to defending the weakest, who is more defenceless than an unborn child or a patient in a vegetative or comatose state?"

"When political projects openly or covertly contemplate the depenalisation of abortion or euthanasia, the democratic ideal (which is truly democratic when it recognises and protects the dignity of all human beings) is betrayed at its very foundations. For this reason, dear brothers in the episcopate, when defending life we must not fear hostility or unpopularity, rejecting all compromise and ambiguity which would conform us to the mentality of this world".

In order to help lay people live their Christian, social and political commitments in a unified and coherent fashion it is necessary, said the Holy Father, to ensure appropriate "social catechesis and an adequate formulation of Church Social Doctrine. ... This also means that on some occasions, pastors must reminds all citizens of the right, which is also a duty, freely to use their vote to promote the common good".

(Hat tip: Don McClarey at The American Catholic)


UPDATE
From Creative Minority Report comes this story about Catholic voters turning to the GOP:

Are Catholics finally turning their back on the party of death? As we all know, a majority of self identified Catholics voted for Barack Obama for President.

But this past week a number of polls have shown a stunning turnaround; an exodus of sorts from the Democrat Party. The Telegraph reports:

The Democrats' 10-point lead among Catholic voters has been reversed into a 24-point Republican advantage.

That's pretty startling.

[Read the whole thing]

UPDATE #2
Michael Voris speaks out on "murky" electoral messages coming from Bishops:

“I Would Argue That More People Would Support My Catholic Faith Than His Marxist Beliefs”

The appropriate response to the left's disdain for the presence of people of strong faith in the public square.

More here.


UPDATE
Patrick Archbold has more at National Catholic Register with "The Catholic Or The Commie?".

Matt Archbold on the "Twin Relics of Barbarism"

An excellent post at Creative Minority Report:

When the Republican Party held their first convention in 1856 the delegates adopted a platform stating "It is the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery."

What I find most amazing about that is how consistent the problems this country faces are. Over 150 years laters we're facing the same crises now.

[...]

While there have been outrages and sins by the party there is little doubt that the party is the pro-life pro-traditional marriage party.

If the party adopts an agenda of some kind of truce on social issues it will cease to be a party many feel comfortable standing with. The moment the Republican Party accepts the twin relics of barbarism as negotiable it will be time for a new party and a new convention.

[Read the whole thing]

For All You Atheist Libertarian Types ...

... who are lamenting over the notion that social conservatives have allegedly "hijacked" what you see as "your" Tea Party movement, let's just get a couple of things straight:

(1) Social conservatives (of which I am one) were part of the Tea Party movement (of which I am not) from the very beginning, providing much, if not most, of the energy behind the movement (social conservatives don't tend to compartmentalize their conservatism as do, say, so-called "fiscally conservative/socially liberal" types - in fact, social conservatives tend to be more consistently fiscally conservative than the self-described fiscal conservatives).

(2) Thousands of social conservative activists getting together in church basements around the country to organize in support of families, marriage, decent schools, and the right to life - THAT's a "movement". You and a couple of your stoner buddies getting together in your mom's basement to smoke pot, view porn, and bitch about the government - NOT a "movement".

"True Believers" Unwelcome in GOP

Pat Archbold writes at National Catholic Register:

... As it turns out, the Republicans wanted the base to get involved—just not so much. What they really wanted is for real conservatives to turn out to vote but certainly not run. Newly involved fiscal conservatives are finding out that the Republican party wants their votes, just not them.

Welcome to the club.

This is the position that culture-of-life conservatives, like me, have found ourselves in for a generation. I know that many culture-of-life conservatives feel that the Republican party has expected us to get out and vote for candidates of their choosing in return for the privilege of lip service to the life issues we care most about. But many of us COL conservatives have come to the conclusion that much of the Republican leadership does not really care about these issues, at least not enough to really do anything about it.

Now fiscal conservatives find themselves in the same situation...

[...]

That is the problem, the Republican party has never been very comfortable with true believers. Culture-of-life conservatives know this from experience...

[More]

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
The Archbold Boys Go Off on the GOP [UPDATED]

Matt Archbold: Vote Your Conscience [UPDATED]

Matthew Archbold writes at National Catholic Register:

... I’m just a voter and I’m done trying to be smart. I mean it. I’m done. I’m done playing the angles and reading the polls. I’m voting my conscience. Every time. And it drives me crazy to hear people telling me to vote with my head and not my heart. It drives me crazy to be told to “be smart.” Smart gave Republicans Arlen Specter.

And we’re even being told to “be smart” in who we vote for in the primary because pro-lifers may vote for a candidate who can win a primary but not a general election. Are they kidding? Republicans have had that kind of majority before. How’d that work out?

We’re being told to ignore our conscience during the primaries and choose candidates who we’re told can in the general election. But why the heck shouldn’t I vote my conscience in a primary? If a majority of Republicans vote for a candidate they don’t really like what you’ll likely get is a candidate that nobody likes.

Their way gave us the disastrous Republican majority we had during the last decade. Their way gave us John McCain. I’m tired of their way.

I’m voting my conscience. Stop telling me to be a strategist. I’m just a voter who’s horrified at the number of unborn children being killed. I’m just a voter who worries about the collapsing American family...

[More]

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)

My sentiments exactly.

And we're seeing this a lot lately with people who generally tell us that we shouldn't vote for that pro-abort Democrat under any circumstances suddenly finding no qualms about supporting the pro-abort, pro-ESCR Catholic Republican Mike Castle over his pro-life opponent in the Delaware GOP primary election for U.S. Senate.

They keep telling us what a flawed candidate the pro-lifer is, but they seem to ignore just how deeply flawed Mike Castle is from a pro-life Catholic perspective.

They keep telling us that the pro-lifer can't win in blue Delaware, but that the pro-abort Mike Castle CAN win, as if just electing someone with an "R" next to his name is all this should be about for pro-life Catholic voters.

One blogger for whom I have a great deal of respect but with whom I couldn't possibly disagree more on this issue has actually gone so far as to argue that voting for Mike Castle - one of the most vocal and most active pro-abort and pro-ESCR Catholics in Congress - over his pro-life opponent will "limit the damage to the pro-life movement".

It all sounds so familiar (see, e.g., Toomey, Pat vs. Specter, Arlen, and the political wranglings of Santorum, Rick to get the latter elected).

Look, I can understand why someone identifying as a Republican might want to support Castle for purposes of achieving power. In order to gain power, you need an "R" next to the name. But I absolutely draw the line and call BS on any attempt to justify voting for one of the most egregious anti-life Catholics in Congress as being "more pro-life" than voting for his ... you know ... ACTUAL pro-life opponent. To try to justify such a vote as "limiting the damage to the pro-life movement" is a rendering of the words so as make them absolutely meaningless.

The chances of a Castle win being THE seat that puts the Senate in GOP hands is VERY speculative, at best. But the chances of Castle being a pro-abortion, left-wing thorn in the side of the Senate GOP (not to mention a scandal to the Catholic faithful as a high-profile, vocal pro-abort Catholic in the pro-life party) is 100%. Castle can do SERIOUS damage to the pro-life cause as the "bipartisan" go-to guy that Democrats will seek out for cover on issues like ESCR, abortion legislation, federal judges, etc.

There is absolutely NO pro-life argument in favor of Mike Castle. Because of his horrific record on the unborn, and because his identification as a Catholic makes his record doubly scandalous, I would NEVER vote for him under ANY circumstances, regardless of the shortcomings of his opponent.

In the end, I'm a socially conservative Catholic voter; I'm NOT a Republican. So I have absolutely no problem with seeing the U.S. Senate seat from Delaware stay Dem rather than having an outspokenly pro-abort, pro-ESCR Catholic sitting in the seat and undermining the pro-lifers within his own party and the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Like Matthew Archbold, if I were a voter in the Delaware GOP primary, I'd be voting my conscience.


UPDATE
For those of you who see voting for Castle as part of an overall GOP "strategery" for retaking the Senate, Ed Morrissey puts that strategic gamesmanship into perspective:

... This seat matters strategically in one narrow set of circumstances, and one only: if the GOP picks up a net of exactly nine other seats. If the GOP nets eight or fewer Senate seats besides Delaware, then this election wouldn’t give them control of the Senate anyway. If the GOP picks up ten or more seats without Delaware, then this seat again doesn’t matter much either in terms of controlling the agenda. Netting enough seats to win the Senate is a long shot in any case, probably in the range of a 5-1 against, with or without Delaware...

(emphasis added)

Basically the same thing I said above regarding the speculative nature of the Delaware seat being THE seat that puts the Senate back in GOP hands, only Ed says it better than I did.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Mike Castle and the "Deadly Dozen"

Most Un-Self-Aware Quote of the Day

Prof. Bainbridge Takes On So-Called "Holier-Than-Thou Right"

CatholicVote: The Dream 2010 [UPDATED]

From CatholicVote.org:



A tad jingoistic for my tastes, but overall it's a good well-produced [ED.: see comments] ad. I can only imagine how the usual suspects will react to the blatant "americanism" on full display in this video.


UPDATE
The man in the black hat offers his take: "Memo to CatholicVote.org: Dream On!"

U.S. Political Season Begins: "Morally Coherent" Catholics Can Change this Nation

Deacon Keith Fournier writes at CatholicOnline:

WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - Along with the hint of fall in the air, the days after the American celebration of Labor Day mark the beginning of the election season. This midterm election in the United States of America could bring a massive sea change in governance. Political pundits troll the media making their prognostications. Polls are becoming as common as commercials in the political media landscape.

Given their numbers, U.S. Catholics could determine the outcome of this election. That is if they learn how to be, in the words of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "morally coherent". That phrase was used in an instruction released in 2002 entitled a "Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life". It was directed to "the Bishops of the Catholic Church and, in a particular way, to Catholic politicians and all lay members of the faithful called to participate in the political life of democratic societies."

The teaching in the instruction informs the "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" sections pertaining to the political participation of Catholics. (See, e.g. #565-574) Anyone who thinks the teachers of the Church are not clear on the duty to vote in a manner which is morally coherent have not read Catholic teaching.

[...]

Sunday, September 12, 2010 will mark the fiftieth anniversary of John F Kennedy's address to the Houston Ministerial alliance. In that speech he opened the door to moral incoherence by "privatizing" the truths informed by faith and failing to acknowledge the existence of a Natural Law which can be known by all men and women through the exercise of reason. In the wake of his catastrophic mistake too many Catholics in public life, like Esau of the Old Testament, have sold their birthrights for a bowl of porridge and helped to construct the current culture of death. Morally coherent Catholics are the ones who must now expose their errors and replace them in office.

[...]

Catholics are not one more "interest group" which can be polled, pandered to and bought. Our social obligation is to promote the true common good, not just use the slogan to sound "catholic" as happened in the last political cycle. We need to promote the truth as taught by the Church no matter what it is labeled in the political parlance of the hour. Our political participation must be committed to human life and dignity, marriage and the family, authentic human freedom, and solidarity directed by the application of the principle of subsidiarity. The U.S. Political Season has begun in earnest. 'Morally Coherent' Catholics can change this Nation.

Read the whole thing.