Author Topic: Fr Taouk on voting (Read 7150 times)

claudel · « **Reply #10 on:** May 13, 2019, 02:47:27 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan on May 13, 2019, 02:00:46 PM

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.

claudel · « **Reply #11 on:** May 13, 2019, 02:49:31 PM »

You flatter me, Laddy boy. I could never hope to be as gratuitous as you regularly are.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #12 on:** May 13, 2019, 02:52:43 PM »

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.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #13 on:** May 13, 2019, 02:52:57 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on May 13, 2019, 02:52:43 PM

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.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #14 on:** May 13, 2019, 02:59:26 PM »

Not to mention that the Utilitarian principles behind this position lead to completely muddled thinking.

On the one hand, Father says that one cannot vote for a candidate if they hold morally-objectionable principles, and yet on the other he states that it's an obligation to vote for the candidate who is "more likely to promote the common good". So do you vote based on the principles to which the candidate adheres or on the likelihood that he would act upon them. It's a murky blur of principle and pragmatism. It's no wonder why Catholics are so confused about this matter.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Fr Taouk on voting (Read 7150 times)

claudel

Re: Fr Taouk on voting

claudel

Re: Fr Taouk on voting

Änσnymσus

Re: Fr Taouk on voting

Mithrandylan

Re: Fr Taouk on voting

Änσnymσus

Re: Fr Taouk on voting