Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Fr Taouk on voting  (Read 1709 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kolar

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Reputation: +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
Fr Taouk on voting
« on: May 13, 2019, 06:31:39 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • In the Parish bulletin for the 2nd Sunday after Easter Fr. Taouk said there is a grave obligation to vote. It is a mortal sin not to vote. https://sspx.com.au/sites/sspx/files/media/second-sunday-after-easter-oxley.pdf He tells us that we cannot vote for Labor by name.
    On the 3rd Sunday after Easter Fr. Taouk backtracks saying that the duty to vote may be light matter. https://sspx.com.au/sites/sspx/files/media/third-sunday-after-easter-oxley.pdf Without naming Liberal he tells us we must vote for this evil party because it is a lesser evil. We should not vote for a good candidate who has no chance of winning. Our vote must be a negative vote against the more evil party.

    Fr. Taouk essentially says do evil that good may come of it. In this case the good is uncertain. The Liberals brought in “gay marriage.”




    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #1 on: May 13, 2019, 06:38:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What does Fr. Taouk have to say about the fake "left vs. right" paradigm for voters?





    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 517
    • Reputation: +562/-48
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #2 on: May 13, 2019, 06:49:28 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • In that case, Fr. Taouk would stand condemned by these old SSPX.org articles regarding Catholic principles on voting (the very first sentence of which would indict him as a liberal and modernist):

    http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/catholic_principles_for_voting.htm

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2766
    • Reputation: +1518/-883
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #3 on: May 13, 2019, 10:29:35 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I repeat here what I wrote a few days ago on another thread about Fr. Taouk:


    Quote
    Years ago while he was a seminarian (or a just newly ordained priest), Fr. Taouk was chosen by the SSPX to write an article defending the notion of salvation of the non-baptized peoples, which the SSPX published in the Angelus as their "icon of doctrine".  

    It is no surprise to me that he would say modesty had "nothing to do with what we wear", it is just another outward manifestation that he is a blind guide.

    All I can say to priests like that is: Thanks for the warning. I say it all the time about "Pope" Frank.





    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #4 on: May 13, 2019, 01:32:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You know how some people still attend the SSPX, and they tell us "he preaches good sermons", "he still criticizes Vatican II", or "he's one of the good ones"?

    Fr. Taouk is one of the bad ones. Rabidly pro-accord with Modern Rome, smears the Resistance, etc. He puts his emotions into it too.

    Matthew


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17141
    • Reputation: +9530/-4109
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #5 on: May 13, 2019, 01:36:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Voting in local and national elections can only be considered a moral obligation when the candidates propose a solidly Catholic, non-liberal platform that truly promotes the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not obligatory to vote for a lesser evil, but simply prudent and permissible.

    ... from the aforementioned SSPX article.

    They truly need to discard "lesser evil" language.  It's inherently anti-Catholic.  One of the core tenets of Catholic morality ... which sets it aside from all others ... is that the end never justifies the means.  You cannot ever do an evil in order to prevent another evil (even if the second one is much greater).

    There are principles of "double effect" which might come into play, but they needed to be articulated properly without undermining all of Catholic moral theology in adopting "lesser evil" language.

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3434
    • Reputation: +4079/-248
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #6 on: May 13, 2019, 02:00:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There's not a blanket grave moral obligation to vote.  That's not really how positive precepts typically work.  That said, I think that sometimes there is.  Fr. Stephen Webber, one of my favorite priests and one who I'm sure everyone (who's met him) knows is of the Williamsonite formation and by no means a laxist or one who strives for human respect, convinced me that there was a moral obligation to vote against homosexual marriage (this is consistent with the material quoted just above from Ladislaus).

    Now that of course supposes the system actually works (i.e. that your votes are counted and so on).  If that weren't the case then there wouldn't even be a moral obligation to vote against something like gay marriage, I don't think.  So any obligation of course presupposes that the system works the way it says it does.  

    In terms of a moral obligation to (say) vote for Mitt Romney against Obama, I'm incredulous.  When it's a "lesser of two evils" decision, I think that the idea of selecting the lesser is conditioned on there only actually being two options; but there's at least one other option: don't vote!  Or vote for Christ the King, or whomever.  And voting for the lesser of two evils isn't analogous to voting for the sanctity of marriage, since voting for the sanctity of marriage is an intrinsic good, while voting for a neocon isn't.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #7 on: May 13, 2019, 02:25:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    There's not a blanket grave moral obligation to vote.  
    This is only true if your vote is only affecting politics.  Nowadays, politics and sin are intertwined (i.e. abortion) so you do have a moral imperative to vote.

    Quote
    In terms of a moral obligation to (say) vote for Mitt Romney against Obama, I'm incredulous.
    Many politicians are clearly pro-abortion, so the obligation would be to vote against all openly pro-sin candidates. 


    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3434
    • Reputation: +4079/-248
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #8 on: May 13, 2019, 02:29:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is only true if your vote is only affecting politics.  Nowadays, politics and sin are intertwined (i.e. abortion) so you do have a moral imperative to vote.
    Many politicians are clearly pro-abortion, so the obligation would be to vote against all openly pro-sin candidates.
    .
    Well I would grant that in a case where a politician is actually anti-abortion.  But many "conservative" politicians wouldn't move to outlaw abortion, only to redefine its acceptability (but they do so short of saying it is never acceptable).  I don't have a moral obligation to vote for a man who is OK killing a thousand babies when the opposition is OK killing ten thousand.
    .
    That isn't to say that it might not be prudentially wise to vote for a candidate who (say) wants to supremely limit abortions (even if not outlaw them) if they're up against someone who wants to completely open up the abortion industry.  I'm only talking about the existence (or lackthereof) of a moral obligation, and that doesn't exist for any politician who would not vote to outlaw abortion entirely.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1056
    • Reputation: +800/-61
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #9 on: May 13, 2019, 02:31:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • There is nothing "inherently anti-Catholic" about the concept of the lesser evil nor about the language in which the concept is expressed, certainly not in the cited context. One needs to be pretty dense—or else very malicious—to assert that the concept is equatable with an inversion of the moral order. Moreover, anyone who thinks that distinctions of moral gravity cannot or should not be made either resides in the cradle or ought to return there forthwith.

    For all I know, Father Taouk may indeed be the monster of depravity that this site's resident Caiaphases would have us believe. Yet from a reading of the instructions in the two Sunday bulletins, it is impossible to conclude anything so morally definitive. Clearly the second instruction backs away somewhat from certain implications in the first—properly and sensibly so, in my opinion, given the unfortunate absence nowadays of truly Catholic intellectual formation among laity and priests alike. Taken together, the two instructions may lack the comprehensiveness and lucidity possessed by the 2007 Angelus article, but as that is the worst that can be said about the instructions, Father Taouk's detractors might well be asked why they aren't content to stick with genuinely hard evidence that he subverts Catholic truth.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17141
    • Reputation: +9530/-4109
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #10 on: May 13, 2019, 02:39:45 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • There is nothing "inherently anti-Catholic" about the concept of the lesser evil nor about the language in which the concept is expressed, certainly not in the cited context.

    Oh, there most certainly is, claudel.  For all your pseudo-intellectual blustering, you have no idea what you're talking about.

    You have absolutely no substantial argument to make but resort to a cheap ad hominem -- "One needs to be pretty dense—or else very malicious—to assert that the concept is equatable with an inversion of the moral order. "

    People usually resort to this when it's all they've got.  I'll rebut this with my equally gratuitous assertion, but in much less flowery language:  You're an idiot.


    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1056
    • Reputation: +800/-61
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #11 on: May 13, 2019, 02:47:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • There's not a blanket grave moral obligation to vote. That's not really how positive precepts typically work. … So any obligation of course presupposes that the system works the way it says it does.
    This is a thoroughly laudable comment, and I thank Mithrandylan for making it. I completely agree with its thesis, as expressed in the quoted portion, and have only marginal differences with some of the specifics in the remainder.

    Inasmuch as the franchise is a crucial component of the inherent fraud of "democratic" governance in the United States and elsewhere, it is well beyond arguable that to exercise the "right" to vote is to give tangible support to our rulers, the perennial enemies of Christ.

    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1056
    • Reputation: +800/-61
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #12 on: May 13, 2019, 02:49:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • You flatter me, Laddy boy. I could never hope to be as gratuitous as you regularly are.

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #13 on: May 13, 2019, 02:52:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well if we're going to talk about the inherent value of choosing a "lesser evil" (divorced from the context of Fr. Tauok) it does have some place in moral theology.  St. Alphonsus (per McHugh and Callan) taught that a preplexed conscience which cannot delay a decision must select the lesser of two evils.  That goes for individual, private morality.  In the public realm, the state is certainly allowed to tolerate lesser evils in the pursuit of staving off a greater one (this of course is a different situation, only bringing it up under the heading of lesser evils in general and their place in Catholic moral theology).  So it isn't right to say that it has no place at all, even if it has no place in the current context of there being a moral obligation to vote.

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3434
    • Reputation: +4079/-248
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #14 on: May 13, 2019, 02:52:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well if we're going to talk about the inherent value of choosing a "lesser evil" (divorced from the context of Fr. Tauok) it does have some place in moral theology.  St. Alphonsus (per McHugh and Callan) taught that a preplexed conscience which cannot delay a decision must select the lesser of two evils.  That goes for individual, private morality.  In the public realm, the state is certainly allowed to tolerate lesser evils in the pursuit of staving off a greater one (this of course is a different situation, only bringing it up under the heading of lesser evils in general and their place in Catholic moral theology).  So it isn't right to say that it has no place at all, even if it has no place in the current context of there being a moral obligation to vote.
    .
    Sorry, thought I checked the box.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16