r/TrueCatholicPolitics

View Poll

I'm interested in converting to Catholicism, but I hear about a "duty to vote". American politics is so evil and I honestly think most of them are pedophiles (at least on the federal level). Would I be sinning if I just refused to participate?

No,i do not believe that we should murder poor people,but I support the idea of Herbert Spencer.

Competition is a natural process of all societies, and free markets or deregulation is the most efficient way for economy to prosper -- anyone who's a true right winger understands that, and it's in part because it's the best way to sort out the most skilled. It's a natural hierarchy. Kind of like bubble-sort in C, but applied to people, it filters people from best to worst. You just apply that sort of thinking to wider society, with practices that ensure only people who are "fit", both morally and biologically can reproduce. Spencer is the one who coined the term "survival of the fittest", and his writings led to the rise of so called "Social Darwinism", as a philosophy, but it was not really applied in the way Spencer envisioned or wrote about. It's mainly the idea that societies can evolve, metaphorically, as organisms do. Learning and adapting to situations to suit their interests in an organic society, which can be understood as when the recognized power and the actual power are the same. Otherwise, you will confuse yourself applying this theory, because societies that don't align the two (democracies) do incredibly dumb stuff and learn nothing, consistently. Most rightist libertarians are social darwinists in some sense, really.

"How is this compatible with Catholic Social Teaching?"

It's charity. I believe it's a highly immoral to ignore anyone who is struggling. Charity exists to make up for life's unpredictability. I'm anti-welfare, I don't believe in coddling or extreme dependency on a social level. Charity gives people a chance to live well, even if they don't evolve, and that's fine. Competition is a means to make life better. It's a means to "evolve" on a wider scale. Voluntarily providing for someone who legitimately cannot work for health reasons, is fine. It doesn't hinder anyone else unjustly, it's not parasitic. Jesus said that it's "the sick who need a doctor" when he dined with sinners to try and redeem them. He didn't approve of what they did, he called it a sickness, he wanted to help. Charity is the same thing. If they are truly unable to help themselves then the charity will result in them back where they started from their own actions, and they'll be judged for how they lived. Ignoring anyone poor would be like a company denying you a promotion forever because you got struck by lightning and had to take time off work to recover.

30. In the first place the Church's mission of education is in wonderful agreement with that of the family, for both proceed from God, and in a remarkably similar manner. God directly communicates to the family, in the natural order, fecundity, which is the principle of life, and hence also the principle of education to life, together with authority, the principle of order.

31. The Angelic Doctor with his wonted clearness of thought and precision of style, says: "The father according to the flesh has in a particular way a share in that principle which in a manner universal is found in God.... The father is the principle of generation, of education and discipline and of everything that bears upon the perfecting of human life."[20]

32. The family therefore holds directly from the Creator the mission and hence the right to educate the offspring, a right inalienable because inseparably joined to the strict obligation, a right anterior to any right whatever of civil society and of the State, and therefore inviolable on the part of any power on earth.

33. That this right is inviolable St. Thomas proves as follows:The child is naturally something of the father . . . so by natural right the child, before reaching the use of reason, is under the father's care. Hence it would be contrary to natural justice if the child, before the use of reason, were removed from the care of its parents, or if any disposition were made concerning him against the will of the parents.[21]
    And as this duty on the part of the parents continues up to the time when the child is in a position to provide for itself, this same inviolable parental right of education also endures. "Nature intends not merely the generation of the offspring, but also its development and advance to the perfection of man considered as man, that is, to the state of virtue"[22] says the same St. Thomas.

34. The wisdom of the Church in this matter is expressed with precision and clearness in the Codex of Canon Law, can. 1113: "Parents are under a grave obligation to see to the religious and moral education of their children, as well as to their physical and civic training, as far as they can, and moreover to provide for their temporal well-being."[23]

35. On this point the common sense of mankind is in such complete accord, that they would be in open contradiction with it who dared maintain that the children belong to the State before they belong to the family, and that the State has an absolute right over their education. Untenable is the reason they adduce, namely that man is born a citizen and hence belongs primarily to the State, not bearing in mind that before being a citizen man must exist; and existence does not come from the State, but from the parents, as Leo XIII wisely declared: "The children are something of the father, and as it were an extension of the person of the father; and, to be perfectly accurate, they enter into and become part of civil society, not directly by themselves, but through the family in which they were born."[24] "And therefore," says the same Leo XIII, "the father's power is of such a nature that it cannot be destroyed or absorbed by the State; for it has the same origin as human life itself."[25] It does not however follow from this that the parents' right to educate their children is absolute and despotic; for it is necessarily subordinated to the last end and to natural and divine law, as Leo XIII declares in another memorable encyclical, where He thus sums up the rights and duties of parents: "By nature parents have a right to the training of their children, but with this added duty that the education and instruction of the child be in accord with the end for which by God's blessing it was begotten. Therefore it is the duty of parents to make every effort to prevent any invasion of their rights in this matter, and to make absolutely sure that the education of their children remain under their own control in keeping with their Christian duty, and above all to refuse to send them to those schools in which there is danger of imbibing the deadly poison of impiety."[26]

View Poll

Mount Cristo Rey is a mountain along the southern border with Mexico. It has served as a pilgrimage site topped by a 29-foot-tall limestone statue of Jesus Christ since 1940. Each year, thousands of people from both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border make a pilgrimage up the mountain to the cross.

The diocese has raised concerns about the government's action, stating that religious freedom will be violated if the wall is constructed.

"The erection of a border wall through or along this holy site could irreparably damage its religious and cultural sanctity, obstruct pilgrimage routes, and transfer sacred space into a symbol of division," the Diocese of Las Cruces said in the legal documents. "Any federal action to seize this land, construct physical barriers, or impede access to Mount Cristo Rey would constitute a significant infringement on religious freedom and the rights of worship."

It really pains me that the state of major Catholic universities is in. Having pro LGBT/choice groups on campus, celebrating Pride Month instead of the Sacred Heart, having non-Catholic professors that enforce this behavior, most students are not Catholic, and the ones that are don't practice, selling contraceptives on campus, having a party/hookup scene, and treating faithful Catholics as a disease. I used to be a long-time defender of Notre Dame. Still, I can’t do it anymore; I find myself wishing they would act like AMU, FUS, or Christendom, rather than do whatever they want and watch them for the football team. I've gotten into heated arguments with alumni about church teachings, and despite them wanting to preach “tolerance and acceptance,” that goes out the window when you bring up being a faithful Catholic. But I question why the church disregards this? Why don't we cut them off and focus more on faithful schools or demand change?

I know we can look at Jesus the apostles and the other saints going out into a world of people that would torment persecute and even martyr them, but it's hard when it's going into something that's supposed to be catholic

Before judging me, I ask that you please read my reasoning and understand how I arrived at this idea, If I am wrong, I am willing to learn.

I started thinking this way after seeing countless politicians who call themselves Christians (including Catholics) using religion for political gain, many of them mix Christianity with chauvinistic, prejudiced, and divisive rhetoric.

Over time, I came to the conclusion that allowing religious propagation within politics often ends up being harmful, both to the people who suffer from these chauvinistc rethorics and to Christians themselves, many people begin associating these attitudes with the religion itself, as if Christianity were naturally intolerant or chauvinistic. In fact, several of my friends distanced themselves from the Church precisely because of this type of behavior coming from religious politicians. I do not think I need to explain how damaging this is to the Christian faith, additionally, my country is officially secular, yet I still constantly see religious symbols associated with intolerant and extremist politicians, this made me lose part of my trust in the current concept of secularism, because I rarely see a truly clear separation between religion and politics

I want to make it clear that I do not support historical “atheist states” that persecuted religions. What I support is a state completely separated from religion in its political and educational institutions, while at the same time guaranteeing absolute religious freedom and prohibiting any form of religious persecution, in this model, every person would have the right to freely follow their faith, but religion itself would be treated by the state as an individual and private matter, similar to personal preferences or other aspects of private life.

why is it always the Jesuit schools? almost every single one of these schools are Jesuit Georgetown, Gonzaga, the University of San Francisco, Boston College, College of the Holy Cross, Fordham, Fairfield University, Marquette, Xavier, Seattle University, Saint Louis University, Loyola Marymount, Santa Clara University, St. John's, Albertus Magnus College, St. Mary's College of California, Regis University, Siena Heights University, St. Thomas University and Our Lady of the Lake University.

I know a lot of people give a lot of crap to the university of call them compromised or woke but you don’t see things like this happening there and if there is something of that nature there is major pushback from student students, faculty, and alumni. I could attest to I could attest to that, like when they wanted to appoint a pro abortion Prof to a position leadership and students, faculty, priests, seminarians, alumni and several bishops were enraged by this and they dropped it

Donald Trump has attacked politicians, prosecutors, judges, journalists, and institutions. But Pope Leo XIV may be different. Brian Daitzman speaks with Christopher Hale, publisher of Letters from Leo, about why the first U.S.-born pope is breaking through with secular Americans, why Trump’s attacks on the Pope reveal something deeper about MAGA’s hunger for power, and how Catholic social teaching challenges the cruelty, corruption, war-making, and authoritarianism of this moment.

They also discuss J.D. Vance, the “King David” myth around Trump, wealth and salvation, the Epstein class, money in Congress, and why Democrats may need a bigger moral language to defeat MAGA.

Chapters:
00:00 Introduction to History of the Present
01:20 What is Letters from Leo?
04:13 What It Means to Be Catholic in 2026
10:36 Why Pope Leo XIV Is Breaking Through in America
15:56 Trump’s One-Sided Fight With the Pope
20:09 Faith, Works, and the Republican Party
22:21 The “American Heresy” Explained
24:19 Trump as a “Divine Figure”
26:40 The King David Argument Around Trump
28:08 Why Trump Can’t Touch Pope Leo’s Power
29:04 How to Be Good Without Being Perfect
33:03 Is Love Justice in Action?
35:28 J.D. Vance and Catholic Theology
39:13 Trump Says He May Not Get Into Heaven
42:20 Wealth, Salvation, and the Prosperity Gospel
45:46 Epstein, Power, and Moral Responsibility
48:21 Why Congress Is Built Around Money
50:59 Sacrifice, Courage, and Political Power
52:22 Fox News, Influence, and Judgment
55:57 The 2026 Election and Catholic Voters
01:00:24 Why Democrats Need a Bigger Tent
01:06:06 What Christopher Hale Is Building
01:08:41 Closing Thoughts

So here’s something I’ve always wondered about - with the hanta virus about, thought I’d ask. Why did Trump disparage medical professionals when he was part of operation warp speed supposedly? Imo if he’d had our backs it would have gone much better than it did. And yes it was as bad as the news reported in most areas, most people just didn’t care enough (from a front line worker standpoint).

View Poll