(His church has a very good sacred music program.)

Thanks to our forum's own @matthewj

Is politics really appropriate for this website?

I wish that I could access it.
Unfortunately, I seem unable to view the sorts of things that Geremia has posted above about the Pheonix cathedral. I can imagine, though, its bent and likely affirm it enthusiastically. But, there is more to this, and it isn't pretty -

Madorganist's final quip is, if lacking in politesse, spot on. This is no ordinary election, nor are these ordinary times. This country is sick, not ill, but sick, clinically sick - and, quite likely terminally so. There can be no greater evidence than that our choices for a new president are between a very rich, very ignorant, very boorish, idiot, and a lying woman who feels entitled to high office because she is a woman, who is an absolute moral negative who sees no wrong in the murder of even more unborn children, and whose motto is 'well, it wasn't illegal'.

Neither of these persons is fit for public office of any sort. One of them will lead us into greater moral depravity with a decided feministic twist, and the other, a red neck's dream, will wreck the very alliances and assurances that protect us and our friends from certain mayhem from our dread enemies and give them pause - indeed, seems even to admire one of our dread enemies. I cannot in conscience vote for either one of them. I must say, though, that the thought of accelerated abortions and the likelihood of two or three supreme court appointments is enough to frighten anyone away from a certain one. Who would wish to have voted for that?

But, Madorganist is spot off about the appropriateness of 'politics' from the pulpit. No, we can't be told for whom to vote, but we certainly should want to be apprised of the moral issues and consequences involved as they relate to the Catholic faith. We have every right and moral duty to be involved in politics, and should be wise (as foxes) about the matters that are at stake. Let none be subject to any illusions: this is not just another election for just another president. The choices are preposterous. The outcome an utter, absolute, and objective negative whichever way it goes.

(I can't see how this relates to music and liturgy, and rather think that the answer to Mr Cordova's question is 'no'. Yet, we can't bury our heads in the sand - for if we do there will be no music or liturgy. One of PM Anthony Blair's cabinet ministers famously said a few years ago that 'we don't do God'. Well, there are many and powerful people in this land who 'don't do God', and it would really 'make their day' if we were silent. In fact, given the opportunity, they would legislate us and police us into silence!)

As far as bhcordova's question goes, I suppose it depends on whether a reasonable discussion of this homily could go down.

But as for me and my house (which constitutes, uh, me and my mom and dad's dog when they're out of town), I don't want priests or bishops to, explicitly or implicitly, endorse or oppose one party or the other, whether at the pulpit, on social media, or anywhere else. I want them to simply lay out full Catholic principles for voting, full stop, and stay above the political sludge, especially in a year like this where everyone is terrible.

Why not? Do they not have First Amendment rights? Do they not have the Right to be Wrong?

Of course they do. That's not in question. But they should be spiritual leaders first. Spouting off on political candidates, especially if they're factually wrong or uncharitable (both of which happen), detracts from their ministry.

Well, if abortion is not a subject for 'spiritual leadership,' then what is?

Regrettably, your post clearly implied that. Whether you like it or not, 'spouting off on political candidates' has meaning. ONE of them is a committed baby-killer and has been so for nearly her entire political life.

The other, perhaps, has converted. Both are Statists, of course, and both are dangers to the Republic, as MJO has observed.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, included the following in a memorandum to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick:

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

If you would like to review or need a tutorial on the topic of cooperation with evil, see the following attachment:

I don't vote; and never have I been more happy about that.

I'm happy to see this thread and am grateful for the opportunity to air my religious and political views on this forum and am convinced that thoughtful dialogue among Catholics is always of great benefit.

This election cycle, I believe, has been a sometimes painful but necessary evolution for freedom-loving, God-fearing, hard-working Americans who have long felt trapped by the two-party American political system. When Donald Trump announced his presidency last summer, I was very intrigued by the potential for his campaign since I have followed his political development for a long time and considered much of his commentary in 2003 and 2008 to be spot-on, particularly in regards to nation-building in the Middle East.

At that time, I was disgusted with the pro-life/pro-war, big government, police state "conservatives" in the Republican party. It never made sense to me that fervent anti-abortion Catholic friends would be cheering the bombing and occupation of sovereign nations. It was disappointing to see them eagerly condone murderous sanctions against the Iraqi people and applaud politicians who vowed to "make the desert sand glow". It appalled me no end to see my Catholic, conservative, pro-life friends beside themselves with joy at the toppling of the government of Libya and the sadistic and horrific murder of Gaddhafi, who was no saint but who correctly prophesied that his demise would cause the Mediterranean to become "a sea of chaos".

My family and I listened with great sympathy to Trump's performance in the primary season and were tremendously impressed with his positions and his policy speeches on the economy, immigration and foreign policy. Most importantly, his promises to end federal funding of abortion, his stellar list of potential Supreme Court justices, the excellent people on his Catholic advisory board and the repeal of the Johnson Amendment are, arguably, far better than anything pro-life voters have been offered in the past.

In addition, his pro-family policies, i.e, tax reductions for the middle class and small businesses and child care deductions for stay-at-home moms (YEAH!) as well as the repeal and replacement of Obamacare, will a long way towards stabilizing families and working class Americans.

While I do not, of course, condone all of Trump's behavior in the past, I am mature enough to realize that we are not voting for the president of the Altar and Rosary Society and perhaps a tough-talking, savvy Queens businessman who has tremendous financial, industrial and employment expertise is just what is needed at the present moment.

While his conduct has not always been above reproach, I will venture to say that his policies are far more Catholic than anything I have seen in a long, long time. I would dare say Trump's policies are a combination of Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul, Jack Kemp and Pat Buchanan. I'll take my chances on that, given the alternative candidate who, I firmly believe, ought to be more appropriately sitting in the Hague being prosecuted for war crimes and in Congress for corruption, bribery and treason than running for public office.

From where I sit, the contrast could not be more clear. While I'd prefer that Trump was a shining example of moral righteousness, that just isn't possible at this time, and I am confident that he is honest, brave and yes, I believe, humble, enough to allow God to work with Him for the good of our country.

The thing is, like everyone in my family, we understand Mr. Trump. He's a familiar and recognizable New York type to us. He's just like our rich neighbor down the street who has a huge, pretentious house that sticks out like a sore thumb, a yacht and a fleet of cars and is on his third marriage. He's loud and worldly and crass as can be, but he's the first guy to help out when there's trouble, and you know he's got a heart of gold.

That's Trump, and I believe with all my heart that he will be a fine President and leader and will be proud to cast my vote for him on Nov. 8.

Again, thanks for the privilege of speaking my mind and giving my apologia for a candidate who is certainly not impeccable or infallible, but who represents the only way to preserve our freedoms and way of life.

CGZ: you can legitimately fear that Hillary will make the practice of Catholicism far more difficult, in the broad sense. That could easily extend to tax policy which will effectively reduce Church cash-flow, ergo compensation for Church staffers.

WHen you come right down to rubber/road, the Catholic Church is the principal obstacle for the Left, as are intact families.

I am a #NeverTrump guy, by the way, Both of these creatures are despicable, But HRC has a plan for free exercise; Trump doesn't.

For those that questioned the appropriateness of this post on this particular forum, I'll just post these other homilies by my boss about sacred music:

on the pipe organ:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5zVluJ1vtA

on sacred music I:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yiy3oDs6Us

on sacred music II:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czn0npg0aK4

on sacred music III:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo-VkkGkfsI

Obviously the production values of our televised Mass have changed rather dramatically between 2012 and 2016.

That being said, over the past several years I've heard homilies on topics that many priests would not dare preach on at Sunday Mass, let alone a televised/radio broadcast Mass viewed by/heard by 70,000+ each week - radical Islam, same sex attraction, adultery, the pride of place of Gregorian chant, how to best help the homeless who we see at just about every major intersection in Phoenix, etc. His homilies are always well prepared, well delivered, etc. Also since I sometimes hear them 2-3 times per weekend, I notice how he will edit it after the first delivery - perhaps to clarify something that was pointed out to him after Mass. He takes his vocation very seriously and tries interesting methods of bringing the lost back to church - or bringing someone to Catholicism for the first time.

Now back to the regularly scheduled thread...

My daughter is seven years old.

One day she may ask me if I voted for the man who says such atrociously demeaning things about women.

I will be proud to tell her that I did not.

CGZ: yes. And while the doctrines will not change, it will be excruciatingly difficult to maintain them under her reign. This regime's "Cake Prosecutions" are a good example.

"proportionate reasons"....

Yes, indeed, this would seem a handy fig-leaf and an attractive out. But it is the serpent's apple. This matter doesn't end with the abortions. There is the certainty of two or three more liberal supreme court appointments. Added to millions more child murders is the likelihood of decades of an increasingly and aggressively liberal supreme court. The consequences are beyond frightening.

Whilst 'the other candidate' is appalling and equally unqualified, I rather think that his supreme court nominees would be a badly needed corrective as regards the principles which seem recently to be dominant.

Yes, indeed, this would seem a handy fig-leaf and attractive out. But it is the serpent's apple.

To the contrary, I think Cardinal Ratzinger put that in there for a very good reason. He understood, quite correctly, that there could be scenarios under which a pro-abortion candidate would do less harm. He presumes we will take care to do our best to take all issues seriously and with the mind of the Church. It's not an excuse to just vote for the one guy you wanted to vote for anyway.

Those who say one single issue doesn't eclipse abortion are probably right; at least, I can't think of one issue that would do so.

But those who say all issues put together don't eclipse abortion will find themselves being forced to defend the absurd. "Sure, he's racist, sexist, vulgar, a fraud in business who regularly cheats workers, a frequent and unrepentant liar, and a thin-skinned bully who has incited violence at his rallies, but at least he promised pro-life Supreme Court judges despite a lifetime of being pro-abortion." I'm sorry, but I can't go along with that.

Your reasoning, Tim, is quite good. I only sought to cast some caution into your argument. Do contemplate seriously the effect on our legal system and rights for decades to come of the sort of persons whom the lady would appoint. This is a double-edged sword. I cannot see myself having the conscience to vote for either of these persons, but were I to change my mind, your 'proportionate reasons' would lead me in a direction opposite to yours. Do we really want to suffer under twenty or thirty years of a supreme court majority appointed by the Clintons? Especially when we have been warned in advance that they will be abortionists! This only compounds the abortion issue.

Ben - can you make these multiple duplicate entries disappear?
It's either that or dots.
And I do hate to waste dots.

We don't have two candidates. We have at least four, and more in many states. And you always have the write-in option. Protest votes matter, my friends.

When Cardinal Ratzinger used the term "proportionate reasons," he was citing church teaching, not simply offering his personal opinion.

My "single issue" is, which candidate will do the least harm to the country in the next 4-8 years. One clearly will do more harm in what is sure to be 8 years, while the other will basically be a lame duck for only 4. Maybe that's a bit simplistic, but there you are.

I'm sorry, but if you just pick out the majority of your reasoning against him, and make it look like this

And that's fine. Obviously, I disagree, but I certainly will not deny you're trying to think with the mind of the Church. I hope you'll grant that I am trying to do so as well.

The choice between the lewd huckster and the abortion witch is no choice at all. Liberalism (in the broad sense that includes both Left and Right) is at its core a lie. It was only a rip-roaring success for the past centuries because it wrote checks against a treasury of Christian manners and mores. If this election is anything, it is a wake up call that the treasury has run dry and it is time to stop bidding in this dollar auction.

But I tend to agree that this isn't really a topic for the chant forum, so if anyone wants to discuss the point, come to Zippy Catholic's blog: https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/

Democracy is a two headed monster (overly simplified, one party against another) [a house divided against itself will not stand] which shares the same godless heart, the desire and the will to excersize power devoid of God's power and His rules, which only comes from His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This election epitomizes this fact, and our candidates who wish to ascend the seat of rule and power neither deserve nor are worthy of the position.

The separation of Church and state was like the removal of the kingpin that kept in place the mechanism of checks and balances. And now the state will dictate it's religion... Modernism. God is giving us over to what we deserve since we did not hold to his magisterium, the ultimate rule and power. "So you want a king? Well, choose your King."

I have more to add but not at the moment.

no, it's not necessarily. That's grass is greener on the other side cognitive bias.