Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Anonymous Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Kolar on May 13, 2019, 06:31:39 AM

Title: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Kolar on May 13, 2019, 06:31:39 AM
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 (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 (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.”



Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: X on May 13, 2019, 06:49:28 AM
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 (http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/catholic_principles_for_voting.htm)
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Last Tradhican on May 13, 2019, 10:29:35 AM
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.




(https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-immodesty-down-under/10/?action=reporttm;msg=653065)

Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Anonymous on May 13, 2019, 01:32:04 PM
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
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2019, 01:36:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: 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.  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.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Anonymous on May 13, 2019, 02:25:10 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Mithrandylan on May 13, 2019, 02:29:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: claudel on May 13, 2019, 02:31:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2019, 02:39:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: claudel on May 13, 2019, 02:47:27 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.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: claudel 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.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Mithrandylan on May 13, 2019, 02:52:57 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.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Anonymous 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.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2019, 03:00:01 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.

This was mine.  Confounded "Not Anonymous" box.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2019, 03:06:16 PM
St. Alphonsus (per McHugh and Callan) taught that a preplexed conscience which cannot delay a decision must select the lesser of two evils.

You'll need to cite the full context of this.  I bet that what he's saying is that one must decide on the option that is less likely or less probably evil ... when the conscience is not certain.  It's Catholic Theology 101 that one cannot do any positive evil ... even to prevent a greater one.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Mithrandylan on May 13, 2019, 03:11:16 PM
You'll need to cite the full context of this.  I bet that what he's saying is that one must decide on the option that is less likely or less probably evil ... when the conscience is not certain.  It's Catholic Theology 101 that one cannot do any positive evil ... even to prevent a greater one.
.
Yes, I already gave the context (a perplexed conscience).  But that suffices to overcome the idea that there is something inherently anti-Catholic about the very concept of choosing the lesser of two evils.
.
I agree with a lot of what you said viz. the utilitarian ethos of how this idea is usually put out, and also join you in disagreeing with Fr. Tauok for basically the same reasons.  It seemed like the conversation was turning to talk about the concept of lesser evils as a concept and I would have to side with Claudel against your claim of them being inherently anti-Catholic.  Their role in giving the morally perplexed license to act is proof against that thesis.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 13, 2019, 03:51:56 PM
Quote
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.
We don't live in a catholic country, nor a moral one.  There is no such thing as a perfect candidate.  In our present day, ususally the option is for a lessor of 2 evils, but when the choice is openly-evil vs neutrally good, you have to vote AGAINST the openly-evil man every time.  That's a moral duty.

.
Quote
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.
I disagree because the way our system is setup, since this is a democracy, laws get passed by majority.  Therefore, if you view each candidate in some super-strict catholic sense, you'd never vote for anyone.  On the other hand, if you vote for a bunch of "best available" candidates, and if they have the majority, then good laws can come about, even if the candidates themselves are lacking.
.
Case in point, Alabama and Kentucky's abortion bans were recently struck down by liberal judges.  But Alabama's law came first, and Kentucky piggy-backed off the idea.  Other states are following their lead, even though the judges will halt the implementation.  Why does this matter?  Because the more states involved, the more power they have when the case goes to the Supreme Court.  If catholics of these states didn't vote, then the state laws wouldn't have passed to begin with, giving the NATION AS A WHOLE no option (through the Supreme Court) to have Roe v Wade overturned.
.
Democracy does not work in isolation.  One group of conservative politicians (who may have many flaws) can jump-start a movement of catholic principles because politicians, by nature, follow the people.  The more politicians think they have support, the more they change to "go with the flow".  So the more that catholics support the BEST candidate, even if flawed, the better our country is. 
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: trad123 on May 13, 2019, 11:37:36 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.

Text can be found here:

MORAL THEOLOGY: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities BY JOHN A. MCHUGH, O.P. AND CHARLES J. CALLAN, O.P.

https://ia800302.us.archive.org/29/items/moraltheologyaco35354gut/35354-8.txt


Quote
612. St. Alphonsus gives the following directions to assist one who is perplexed in conscience:

(a) If without serious inconvenience decision can be delayed, reliable advice should be obtained (e.g., from the confessor).

(b) If decision cannot be delayed, the alternative that seems the lesser evil should be chosen. Example: The natural law requires that Titus should not expose his life to danger unnecessarily. The positive law of the Church requires that he go to Mass on Sunday. It is a less evil to omit what is required by the law of the Church than to omit what is required by the law of God. Hence, Titus should decide that he is not obliged in his circumstances to go to church.

(c) If decision cannot be delayed and the party cannot decide where the lesser evil lies, he is free to choose either; for he is not bound to the impossible.


Quote
1502. Is it lawful to advise another to commit a less evil in preference to a greater evil?

(a) If the other has not made up his mind to commit either evil, it is not lawful to advise that he do either. Thus, to counsel another to steal, and to make his victims the rich rather than the poor, is a species of seduction.

(b) If the person has made up his mind to commit the greater evil and the lesser evil is virtually contained in the greater, it is lawful to advise that he omit the former for the latter. For in thus acting one prevents the greater evil and does not cause the lesser evil, since it is virtually contained in the greater evil which the other person had already decided on. Thus, if Titus is bent on stealing $100, Balbus is not guilty of seduction, if he persuades Titus to take only $10. We are supposing, of course, that Titus is so determined to steal that it is out of the question to deter him from taking at least a small amount.

(c) If the person in question has decided on the greater sin and the lesser is not virtually contained in the greater, it is not lawful to recommend that he commit the smaller instead of the greater sin. For,if one does this, one does not save the other from the internal guilt of the greater sin intended, while one does add the malice of the lesser sin which was not intended. Thus, if Titus plans to kill Caius,it is not lawful to advise that he rob him instead, or that he kill Claudius instead, for robbery is a specifically distinct sin from murder, and Claudius is a different person from Caius. But, if Titus planned to kill Caius in order to rob him, it would not be unlawful to point out that the robbery could be carried out without murder and to advise accordingly.

1503. Not all theologians accept the last solution just given.

(a) Some reject it, and hold that, even when the lesser evil is not virtually contained in the greater, it is lawful to advise the lesser. They argue that what one does thereby is not to commit the lesser evil, to induce it or approve it, but only to permit it in order to lessen the harm that will be done, and they confirm their argument from scripture(Gen., xix. 8 ). According to this opinion, then, which has some good authorities in its favor, it would be lawful to advise robbery in order to dissuade another from the greater evil of murder.

(b) Others modify the solution given in the previous paragraph, and hold that it is lawful to propose the lesser evil or mention it, provided one does not attempt to induce the other person to carry it into effect.



St. Alphonsus Liguori. Moral Theology Book 1 (Theologia Moralis) Translated by Ryan Grant

Quote
Chapter 1: What is Conscience, how manifold is it, and what must be followed?

10.—Let us proceed to argue the other species of conscience. A perplexed conscience is one in which someone that has been placed in the middle of two precepts believes he sins no matter which side he chooses, e.g. if someone could save the life of the defendant in a trial by perjury, and on the one hand he is distressed by the precept of religion to not commit perjury, while on the other (deduced from an error) by the precept of charity towards his neighbor, and he cannot resolve himself to do one or the other. Thus it is a question of what he ought to do in this case. We respond: If he can suspend an action, he is bound to postpone it until he consults a learned man: but if he cannot suspend it, he is held to choose a lesser evil by avoiding a greater transgression of natural law than of human or divine positive law. Moreover, if he cannot discern what is the lesser evil, and he were to choose either part, he would not sin because in a case of this sort he would lack the freedom necessary for formal sin.


St. Alphonsus Liguori. Moral Theology Books 2-3 (Theologia Moralis) Translated by Ryan Grant

Book 2

DUBIUM V: On Gluttony

ARTICLE II: What is Drunkenness?

77.  Whether it is always a mortal sin to make another drunk?

Quote
77.—4. It is a mortal sin to cause another man to be drunk, or to challenge him to a drinking contest with the intention of getting drunk, or with the knowledge that drunkenness is going to follow in him or in the other man. Lessius, loc. cit.

5. If for a just cause, e.g. a great evil could be otherwise impeded if the author of it is drunk, it is lawful to induce him to drunkenness, which at least is not voluntary, viz. apart from intention, and therefore he is inculpably drunk; e.g. a very strong wine, or toasting with a medicated drink, when the other man is deceived, not knowing its strength. Wherefore, one can so make others drunk, who otherwise would betray the city or abduct him. (Lessius, loc. cit., and Sanchez, l. 2, de matr. d. 11). But in this case, would it be permitted to induce someone to drunkenness if it were a voluntary act? There is a doubt. Lessius (l. 4, c. 3, d. 4, n. 32), affirms; because, he says, one may persuade and induce to a lesser evil that prevents a greater one. Laymann, (lib. 3, sect. 4, n. 6) more rightly denies it, because in no case may one induce someone to sin.

Quaeritur: Whether it is licit to induce someone to get drunk, to impede him from a more serious evil, say from committing a sacrilege or a homicide?

There are three opinions.

The first upholds it, and Lessius (l. 4, c. 3, d. 4, n. 53) holds it as probable, and Medina, Gob., Diana and others cited by Croix (l. 2, n. 224) think it is probable. The reason is because one may be prapred to commit a greater evil to induce someone to carry out a lesser one.

The second opinion, which Laymann (l. 3, sect. 4, n. 6), Bonacina (tom. 2, d. ult. de praec. eccl., q. 1, p. 1, n. 3), Palaus (t. 7, tr. 50, d. 3, p. 5) and the Salamancans (tr. 25, c. 2, p. 4, n. 51) hold it, saying it is licit to induce another to material drunkenness, i.e. when he would otherwise make himself drunk without sin, say by placing a very strong wine in front of him, or one that is medicated; because then on his side he would not sin, and on the other the damage of drunkenness is permitted to avoid even graver damage to others. But it is not licit to say one can induce formal drunkenness, namely when it is by his own sin, since this is intrinsically evil and therefore never permitted. Nor is it opposed (as they say) the reason of Lessius, for they respond that this avails when a lesser evil is included in a greater evil, precisely when you lead one that wishes to kill his enemy to only strike him; but not when the evil is disparate.

The third opinion, at length, which the Continuator of Tournely upholds (loc. cit., Unde 9), and Holzman (tom. 1 p. 155, 735), along with Arsdek., says it is not permitted to induce anyone to drunkenness whether formal or material, on account of fleeing both evils, because (and in this they speak rightly), an evil, even if it is material, against the natural law is truly an evil, which is why one may never cooperate with it. Still, these not withstanding, the first opinion seems sufficiently probable to me, and other learned men that I have consulted, whether the drunkenness were material or formal, on account of the reasoning that has been provided, because it is licit to induce another to a lesser evil so that he would be impeded from a greater one, according to what we will say in book 3, number 57. Nor is what the Salamancans say (loc. cit., against Lessius) opposed, for, although the evil of drunkenness does not seem included in that greater evil of sacrilege or murder, since they are per se disparate evils; nevertheless, really, virtually it is already included in that greater spiritual evil, since every spiritual evil includes, nay more exceeds, every temporal evil, so much that anyone is held more to suffer every temporal evil to avoid even the lest spiritual evil. Nor does it impede us to say that it is not lawful to persuade a lesser evil to be imposed on a third, because then the one persuading would be the direct cause of damage of the third, because it would not happen to him unless he would persuade, for this occurs when an evil is imposed on a third innocent man, who is not held to suffer the damage, to avoid the spiritual evil of another; but not in our case, where he who is induced to drunkenness, is indeed held to tolerate (as we said above) every temporal evil to put to flight a greater spiritual evil.



St. Alphonsus Liguori. Moral Theology Books 2-3 (Theologia Moralis) Translated by Ryan Grant

Book 3

DUBIUM V: On Scandal

ARTICLE II Whether, and when, passive scandal can be permitted or on account of it avoiding something it ought to be omitted?

57.   Whether it is lawful to persuade to a lesser evil to avoid a greater?

Quote
57.—Whether it is lawful to persuade or permit a lesser evil to avoid a greater one?

The first opinion rejects this, according to what Laymann (de char. c. 12, n. 7) holds, with Azor and others. The reason is, because the comparative does not abolish the positive; for this reason, one who persuades a lesser evil, truly persuades an evil. Laymann and Azor place the limitation, unless the evil would be virtually included in the other greater act. So, if you could persuade a man prepared to kill someone that he should only cut off his hand, nevertheless it is the same thing, but not planned by the other. So also for one wishing to commit adultery if you could persuade him to commit fornication with someone that was free in general, but not in particular. The Salamancans admit this (loc. cit. § 1, n. 58 ) provided he would decide to carry out both evils. (with Navarre, etc.) But Laymann instinctively says (as well as Sanchez with the second opinion, as will soon be said), that he expressly rejects this limitation because (as he says) then a lesser evil is proposed, not that he would perpetrate another, but that he would withdraw from the greater.

The Second opinion is more probable and holds it is licit to persuade a lesser evil if the other is determined to carry out a greater evil. The reason is because the one persuading does not seek an evil, but a good, namely the choice of a lesser evil. (Sanchez, de matrim. lib. 7, d. 11, n. 15, with de Soto, Molina, Navarre, Medina, Sylvest. and many others, and the Salamancans loc. cit. with Cajetan, Soto, Palaus, Bonacina, etc; Croix thinks it is probable, lib. 2, n. 223, moreover, Sanchez teaches the same thing in n. 19, with Cajetan, de Soto, Vocar, Valent.). It is licit to persuade a man prepared to kill someone that he should steal from someone instead, or that he should fornicate. And the defenders of this opinion argue it from St. Augustine (in c. Si quod verius, caus. 33, q. 2) where he says: “If he is going to do something that is not lawful, now he might commit adultery and not murder, and while his wife is living he marries another, and does not shed human blood.” From such words, “now he might commit adultery,” Sanchez proves (dict. n. 15), with de Soto, Molina, Navarre, Abb., etc., that the Holy Doctor spoke not only about permitting, but even persuading. And Sanchez adds this (n. 23) with Salon, it is not only lawful for individuals, but even for confessors, parents, and others, to whom the duty is incumbent to impede the sins of subordinates.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Anonymous on May 14, 2019, 06:16:20 AM
Say in 2024, both candidates are women. Or pro-abortion. Do we abstain from voting then, when there is no lesser of two evils?
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Ladislaus on May 14, 2019, 08:18:38 AM
St. Alphonsus was talking about a scenario where there is no alternative, non datur tertium.

So, for instance, if someone is holding a gun to my family members and telling me I have to rob a bank or else they'll kill them.  If there's no way out of that situation, then robbing the bank is permitted since the greater evil would be the murder of my family.  This is absolutely not permitted except in a situation where there is no alternative, no third choice.  In other words, there is NO MORAL FREEDOM to do anything other than something OBJECTIVE wrong.  That is not actually a moral choice, an act of the will; as there's no free choice of evil.  In other words, in that scenario, while it would be objectively/materially wrong, it would not be formally immoral.  That has absolutely nothing to do with voting ... or with absolutely any other scenario in which one is FREE to do something that is not evil.

This has absolutely no applicability to voting.  Unless there were someone forcing you to pick a candidate under pain of death, you are free not to choose either candidate, to vote for a Third Party candidate, or even write someone in.



Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Anonymous on May 14, 2019, 09:44:59 AM
Unless there were someone forcing you to pick a candidate under pain of death, you are free not to choose either candidate, to vote for a Third Party candidate, or even write someone in.
Exactly. 
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Mithrandylan on May 14, 2019, 10:03:35 AM
St. Alphonsus was talking about a scenario where there is no alternative, non datur tertium.

So, for instance, if someone is holding a gun to my family members and telling me I have to rob a bank or else they'll kill them.  If there's no way out of that situation, then robbing the bank is permitted since the greater evil would be the murder of my family.  This is absolutely not permitted except in a situation where there is no alternative, no third choice.  In other words, there is NO MORAL FREEDOM to do anything other than something OBJECTIVE wrong.  That is not actually a moral choice, an act of the will; as there's no free choice of evil.  In other words, in that scenario, while it would be objectively/materially wrong, it would not be formally immoral.  That has absolutely nothing to do with voting ... or with absolutely any other scenario in which one is FREE to do something that is not evil.

This has absolutely no applicability to voting.  Unless there were someone forcing you to pick a candidate under pain of death, you are free not to choose either candidate, to vote for a Third Party candidate, or even write someone in.
.
I agree about the limited applicability and brought that up earlier.  The point is that there is nevertheless an applicability, contrary to your statement that the concept itself was inherently anti-Catholic.  That's all.  We agree that voting is not one of those areas.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 14, 2019, 10:09:43 AM
We're changing the debate here.  The original debate was over a 2 party alternative: Evil politician vs neutral/moderately good politician.  Mith says he's not obliged to vote, morally.  I disagree.
.
Obviously, if there is a 3rd party candidate who is "better" than the neutral/moderate candidate above, then you should vote for him.  But you're still voting for an imperfect candidate, which is what Mith objected to originally. 
.
If you avoid voting, then I say you are committing a sin of ommission. 
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Ladislaus on May 14, 2019, 10:59:02 AM
We're changing the debate here.  The original debate was over a 2 party alternative: Evil politician vs neutral/moderately good politician.  Mith says he's not obliged to vote, morally.  I disagree.

So, according to your principles, do I meet my obligation to vote if I write in a non-viable candidate?
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 14, 2019, 11:16:02 AM
There's no such thing as a "non viable" candidate, unless you listen to the media, which uses psychology and fake polls to make people think that "so and so" doesn't have a chance.  If people voted for the best candidate instead of who has the best chance of winning, America would be better off.  Yes, if you vote for the best candidate, regardless of polls, you fulfill your obligation. 
.
Another factor which people forget:  Typically, only the major races (president, congress, governor) are covered by the media with much effort.  Certainly these races are important, but there's usually only 2 candidates which have a chance here.  The major opportunity to change america is at the local/state level.  The races where no one knows the candidates too well and they are often forgotten (i.e. a state's secretary of state, or state auditor, state senate).  If people concentrated as much on these races as they do on the governor or US Congress, each state could be changed for the better, very rapidly.  This would have an effect on DC, as state's Attorney Generals and Governors are affected by the state congress and can affect the US Congress through legislation and lawsuits.
.
My whole point is that if you get into this mindset where you only have to vote when a candidate "has a chance", or you don't have to vote if there's no good candidate, then you are probably going to avoid voting/caring on the local races, since you don't vote/care about the bigger ones.  Not following the local/state races is a major lost opportunity that America's middle class has squandered for the last 50 years.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Anonymous on May 14, 2019, 11:21:46 AM
As of last night, Trump is strongly considering sending 120,000 American troops to the Persian Gulf area to wage war against Iran.
That's what voting does for America, it keeps the War Machine going.
Candidate Trump ran on "stop being the policemen of the world, and focus on the America"
Now, Trump is Israel's little orange bich.
Trump's Jew whore daughter and his Jew son-in-law make sure Netanyahu's commands are carried out by Trump.
Trump can never say "no" to his Jew whore daughter. Whatever she demands, Trump fights to make it happen. She's also behind Trump's global campaign to decriminalize sodomy.

What has Trump actually done to perpetuate, much less expand, America's military presence around the world?

ZERO.

Don't fall for the misinformation and misdirection that Trump has to use to throw off the Deep State and the Mainstream Media. Remember "I have a bigger nuke button than Kim Jong Un" and the Media went wild? But what actually *happened*? Trump has been secretly working out peace with many countries, using old-fashioned means that can't be spied on like physical snail-mail letters.

When it comes to actual deeds, and results, Trump is doing a great job. The best we can hope for at this point, at the stage we're in.

He has done everything he can in TWO MEASLY YEARS to roll back the American Empire, deep state, global police action and interference, of the US, etc. He needs more than a couple years to roll back 80+ years of pure corruption.

He has been quoted as saying he wants no more "endless wars". So far, he has only waged peace, not more wars. Why would he end several wars, only to start 1 or 2 more?

Matthew
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Matthew on May 14, 2019, 11:25:09 AM
Remember when Trump pretended to believe the lies that Assad was a butcher and dictator? He launched several cruise missiles, and the MSM went wild? Even I was upset with him at first.

Then the truth came out.

Those missiles were all aimed at ISIS, and the proof was that Assad's forces were poised and ready to follow up the gains started by the missiles to take over more ISIS land. If they had been aimed at Assad's forces, it would have been the other way around.

Under Obama, ISIS took over most of Syria. With Russia's help, Assad is finally back in control of Syria.

Note that Trump is working with Russia (in a good way) too -- he's not drumbeating for WW3 nuclear war with Russia like Hillary and many Dems are.

Putin is pro-Russia and Trump is pro-America. They have one thing in common: nationalism, and they both have no use for the Deep State. They both want what is best for their respective countries. PROTIP: Nuclear war with a major nuclear power isn't good for one's country.

Trump has my support and my vote!

If you want more years to prepare for (inevitable?) WW3, or you want WW3 to be averted or at least delayed, every Catholic who loves his family should vote for Trump. He's our ONLY HUMAN HOPE.

Matthew
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Anonymous on May 14, 2019, 11:29:03 AM
I don't care if Trump is pro-Israel. I'll take what I can get: a president that actually loves America.

I'm sure presidents have been pro-Israel for many decades. Trump is still rolling back the clock countless decades -- he'll be nice to Israel, but not at the expense of America like so many presidents in recent years. 

Trump wouldn't go along with a 9/11 false flag attack like Bush did, even if it greatly benefited Israel. That's where Trump draws the line.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Ladislaus on May 14, 2019, 12:33:15 PM
There's no such thing as a "non viable" candidate, unless you listen to the media, which uses psychology and fake polls to make people think that "so and so" doesn't have a chance.  If people voted for the best candidate instead of who has the best chance of winning, America would be better off.  Yes, if you vote for the best candidate, regardless of polls, you fulfill your obligation.
.
Another factor which people forget:  Typically, only the major races (president, congress, governor) are covered by the media with much effort.  Certainly these races are important, but there's usually only 2 candidates which have a chance here.  The major opportunity to change america is at the local/state level.  The races where no one knows the candidates too well and they are often forgotten (i.e. a state's secretary of state, or state auditor, state senate).  If people concentrated as much on these races as they do on the governor or US Congress, each state could be changed for the better, very rapidly.  This would have an effect on DC, as state's Attorney Generals and Governors are affected by the state congress and can affect the US Congress through legislation and lawsuits.
.
My whole point is that if you get into this mindset where you only have to vote when a candidate "has a chance", or you don't have to vote if there's no good candidate, then you are probably going to avoid voting/caring on the local races, since you don't vote/care about the bigger ones.  Not following the local/state races is a major lost opportunity that America's middle class has squandered for the last 50 years.

Yes, i understand this notion of trying to force the two-party system and marginalizing the other candidates.

I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.  Let's say I write in my uncle for President.  Clearly non-viable.  ZERO chance of winning.  He didn't even declare as a candidate.  Would that be a sin, in your opinion, or would it satisfy the obligation of voting?

This is tricky.  If someone says there's a grave obligation to vote, why is that?  If it's merely a theoretical moral principle, then I satisfied my obligation by voting for my uncle.  But if it's wrong not to vote because that would help enabled a bad candidate to win who might do grave harm to the nation and to the laws of God, then it would be just as wrong for me to vote for my uncle as it would be not to vote.

See how the theoretical and the practical are hopelessly muddled when it comes to the "theology of voting"?
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Ladislaus on May 14, 2019, 12:36:40 PM
I voted for Trump, but now I regret my decision.  I highly suspected that he was a Jewish-controlled agent out of the gate, and now this has been confirmed.  I should have gone with my gut instinct.  In any case, Trump did appoint a less-evil Supreme Court Justice than Hillary would have, and may have the chance again if the death of Ginsburg ever sees the light of day.  PS -- if Ginsburg magically and suddenly "dies" shortly after a Democrat is elected in 2020, you could be sure that had been on ice for months or years before then.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 14, 2019, 12:50:30 PM
Quote
In any case, Trump did appoint a less-evil Supreme Court Justice than Hillary would have, and may have the chance again if the death of Ginsburg ever sees the light of day.
Exactly.  There are so many issues at play.  So many ways that a candidate can affect good laws indirectly.  I did not vote Trump, mainly because I thought he was a neo-con.  2 years in, I'd say I was partially wrong.  He's less of a neo-con than Bush Jr, by far, and I voted for Bush Jr. 

Quote
Would that be a sin, in your opinion, (to vote for a random person) or would it satisfy the obligation of voting?
I think it depends on the circumstances.  Do I think that every person has an obligation to vote?  Yes.  Is that obligation always a GRAVE obligation?  No, it depends on the circumstances.  In my state, Trump was going to win, so I voted for a 3rd party candidate, on principle.  If it was a close race, i'd have voted for him, since it was a vote against Hillary, who was gravely evil.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 14, 2019, 01:35:06 PM
Here's the other practical test, related to voting and possible sins of omission/laziness:  How much effort does it cost one to vote?  How much potential evil could happen if you DON'T vote?  The cost/benefits are amazing.  
.
You search the internet to find one of the many, free family/pro-life organizations that provide you a FREE voting guide.  You print it off, you drive to the voting place and you vote.  The cost of voting is literally a few hours every 2 years. 
.
The benefit is you avoid all kinds of moral and non-moral evils.  From abortion, to contraception included in insurance, to police state policies, to voting fraud, to forced vaccinations, to welfare $ to illegal immigrants, etc, etc.  Sure, if you want to make a moral argument that you don't have to vote, fine.  Will you face the consequences of having a bad country and a police state?  Yes.
.
You can make a moral argument that you don't have to exercise or eat healthy too.  Will you face the consequences later in life?  Yes.  I think this type of thing falls under the old saying in moral theology:  Just because something can be done (i.e. avoid voting) doesn't mean it should be.  The letter of the law kills.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Ladislaus on May 14, 2019, 01:44:13 PM
See, here's the thing.  You never directly addressed my question.

If it's OK to vote for "my uncle" in an election, then it should be equally OK not to vote at all ... since voting for my uncle will have no more effect on the outcome than not voting at all.

So what's the principle requiring me to vote?  Do you get the problem here?

To me, if voting for my uncle is permitted, then not voting at all is also permitted ... because it has the same effect, at the end of the day.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Anonymous on May 14, 2019, 02:08:07 PM
Quote
To me, if voting for my uncle is permitted, then not voting at all is also permitted ... because it has the same effect, at the end of the day.
It depends.  Usually when you go to vote, you have many, many races to vote on.  If you voted for your Uncle in a race that had 2 mediocre/bad candidates, this is understandable.  If you voted for your uncle when there was a legitimately good candidate, that's wrong.  If you voted for your uncle in every race, I agree, you might as well have stayed at home. 
.
But voting is more than just one race.  Voting is much more than just governor or president or US congress.  Judges, sheriffs, local city officials - these have NOTHING to do with abortion or national issues.  But they do affect your local city and one has an obligation, both of charity and justice, to 1) help their neighbor by taking care of one's city, 2) to elect officials that will uphold and enforce (and pass good) laws.
.
The Constitution might give you the "freedom" to not participate in voting, but I think Catholic principles says you have an obligation to be responsible and a leader in local government (at least).  Voting for a few hrs every 2 years is the bare minimum of "civic duty".  If you don't take part in it, and you don't think anyone else has to take part in it, then a person has NO RIGHT to complain about ANY law that goes into effect. 
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Anonymous on May 14, 2019, 02:23:41 PM
If voting had any meaning the Jews wouldn't allow it.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 14, 2019, 02:51:14 PM

Quote
If voting had any meaning the Jews wouldn't allow it.
This is true for some races but not all.  Don’t overestimate the power of the devil or his minions.  Don’t underestimate the power of prayer, hard work and Divine intervention.  We are the “Church Militant” and we have to keep fighting.  If the joos were as in control as you think, we’d have had WW3 by now and we’d all be incinerated by nukes or in concentration camps.  
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Matthew on May 14, 2019, 03:06:44 PM

ISIS used US missile strike to launch new offensive near Palmyra, Homs governor tells RT

https://www.rt.com/news/383826-isis-used-us-airstrike-syria/


ISIL takes advantage of US attack on government to storm western Palmyra

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isil-takes-advantage-us-attack-government-storm-western-palmyra/


Maillot Jaune

1. Even if we are to trust those questionable sources, they only had a couple sentences each! And all they said was an offensive was launched by ISIS. Guess what? They weren't successful -- at all! It was a TRAP. It was a trap to draw them out and get them excited and over-confident.

It's been a couple years, but I remember that now. ISIS was watching the MSM like everyone else and they fell for it. They really thought Trump was entering the war on their side (against the Syrian gov't) -- but they were fooled. Did they gain a single foot of territory? No, actually they lost ground and had their butts handed to them. The proof is in the pudding, boys and girls.

2. We don't know what the "Syrian base" in question actually was.

3. The facts speak for themselves. This news was 2 years ago. Did ISIS succeed with any of its new "offensives"? Did Trump follow up with ANY military activity whatsoever afterwards? Is the United States a very powerful country, among other countries in the world? Does the USA have the military power to do more than fire 59 missiles at Syria?

4. If the USA was still on the side of the "rebels"/ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State, they would still be in control of Syria like they were before Trump showed up. The actions of the last 2 years speak for themselves.

5. I never said there wasn't any confusion, noise, or fog of war. What I'm saying is that you have to look at the DEEDS and ACTIONS, not at the individual tweets or news stories. You have to use your brain and string it all together.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Anonymous on May 14, 2019, 03:10:08 PM
If voting had any meaning the Jews wouldn't allow it.
They have some power, yes, but they're not invincible or all-powerful.
In fact, they only have power insofar as the Gentiles are apostate from God.
Matthew
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Anonymous on May 14, 2019, 03:16:29 PM
If voting had any meaning the Jews wouldn't allow it.
No, other leaders wouldn't. Remember, the Constitution only limited presidents to two terms in the 1950s after FDR. If a president wanted to make himself dictator for life, he could've
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Anonymous on May 14, 2019, 03:42:59 PM
They have some power, yes, but they're not invincible or all-powerful.
In fact, they only have power insofar as the Gentiles are apostate from God.
Matthew
Yes, but today nearly all supposed Christians are either heretics or apostates or sexual perverts so the Jews have a lot of power. We elected Trump, sure and he is better than Hillary. But now that he is elected he seems to be doing more for the good of Israel than for the good of America. I am still waiting for the wall, the deportation of illegals, and for all those mass arrests of Democrats for pedophilia and ritual sacrifices that the patriots were promising.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 14, 2019, 03:54:13 PM
Quote
Yes, but today nearly all supposed Christians are either heretics or apostates
America is not a catholic country and never has been.  The best we can hope for is a country which supports the natural law and this is possible, even if God uses protestants.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Anonymous on May 14, 2019, 04:06:16 PM
Sean Johnson (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/sean-johnson-for-president!/msg654036/?topicseen#msg654036) has my vote!  
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Anonymous on May 15, 2019, 01:28:43 AM
From the Moral Obligation of Voting, 1952.

Link:  http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm#OBLIGATION (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm#OBLIGATION)

Quote
4. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ONE MAY VOTE FOR UNWORTHY CANDIDATES

By the term “unworthy candidates” we do not necessarily mean men whose private lives are morally reprehensible, but those who, if elected, would cause grave injury to the state or to religion, as for example, men of vacillating temperament who fear to make decisions.

In practical life it is often difficult to determine whether a particular candidate is worthy or unworthy because there seems little upon which to judge accurately, especially in local or municipal elections. It does not follow that every Catholic is necessarily the best man for office and that every non-Catholic is not; nor that every Catholic will promote the interests of the common good of the state of religion and that the non-Catholic will not. Even if a man is of sterling character in his private life, he will not by necessity prove competent in public office. Sometimes too, as St. Robert Bellarmine pointed out in his De laicis [175] the so-called evil rulers may do more good than harm, as Saul and Solomon. It is better for the state to have an evil ruler than no ruler at all, for where there is no ruler the state cannot long endure, as the wise Solomon observed: “Where there is no governor the people will fail.” [176]

When unworthy candidates are running for office, ordinarily a citizen does not have the obligation for voting for them. Indeed he would not be permitted to vote for them if there were any reasonable way of electing a worthy man, either by organizing another party, by using the “write in” method, or by any other lawful means. On the other hand, it would be licit to vote for an unworthy man if the choice were only between or among unworthy candidates; and it might even be necessary to vote for such an unworthy candidate (if the voting were limited to such personalities) and even for one who would render harm to the Church, provided the election were only a choice from among unworthy men and the voting for the less unworthy would prevent the election of another more unworthy.

Since the act of voting is good, it is lawful to vote for an unworthy candidate provided there is a proportionate cause for the evil done and the good lost. This consideration looks simply to the act of voting itself and does not consider other factors such as scandal, encouragement of unworthy men, and a bad influence upon other voters. Obviously, if any or all of these other factors are present, the excusing cause for voting for an unworthy candidate would have to be proportionally graver. [177]

Lehmkuhl says that it is never allowed to vote absolutely for a man of evil principles, but hypothetice it may be allowed if the election is between men of evil principles. Then one should vote for him who is less evil (1) if he makes known the reason for his choice; (2) if the election is necessary to exclude a worse candidate. [178] The same author in his Casus conscientiae lists the general argument, adding that there must be no approbation of the unworthy man or of his programme. [179]

Tanquerey declares that if the vote is between a socialist and another liberal, the citizen may vote for the less evil, but he should publicly declare why he is voting this way, to avoid any scandalum pusillorum. [180] Prümmer says the same. [181] Actually, however, in the United States and in other countries where the balloting is secret, there seems to be no need of declaring one’s manner of voting.

Several authors including Ubach, [181a] Merkelbach, [182] Iorio, [183] Piscetta-Gennaro, [184] and Sabetti-Barrett [185] allow for material cooperation in the election of an unworthy candidate when there are two unworthy men running for office. Ubach adds this point: (1) There must be no cooperation in the evil which the man brings upon society after assuming office; (2) The voting must not be taken as an approval of the candidate or of his unworthiness. Merkelbach asserts that such cooperation may be licit per accidens if there is no hope that good men will be elected without voting for the bad ones in the same election.

As a practical point it may be remarked that at times a citizen may have to vote for an unworthy man in order to vote for a worthy one, e.g., when people have to vote a straight party ticket, at least in a primary election when the “split ticket” is not permitted. However the good to be gained would have to outweigh the evil to be avoided, or at least be equal to it.

In his Casus Genicot, [186] sets up a case of an election between a liberal and a Communist. To avoid scandal the citizen should give reasons for voting for the liberal. One does not support the evil candidate but simply applies the principle of double effect. This author also says that a person may use a mental reservation in promising to vote for an unworthy man.

Cardinal Amette, Archbishop of Paris, implies the liceity of voting for an unworthy candidate when he writes of voting for a less worthy one. “It would be lawful to cast them,” he writes,” for candidates who though not giving complete satisfaction to all our legitimate demands, would lead us to expect from them a line of conduct useful to the country, rather than to keep your votes for those whose program would indeed be more perfect, but whose almost certain defeat might open the door to the enemies of religion and of the social order.” [187]

Thus we may say that it is permitted to vote for unworthy candidates (that is, give material cooperation) if these are the only type of men on the ballot lists; in order to exclude the more unworthy; in order to secure the election of one who is somewhat unworthy instead of voting for a good man whose defeat is certain; and when the list is mixed containing both worthy and unworthy men, so that a citizen can vote for the former only by voting for the latter at the same time.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Nadir on May 15, 2019, 01:42:57 AM
last comment by Maillot Jaune
Do you know you can tick the box "Post with your username (not anonymous)?"
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Anonymous on May 15, 2019, 06:52:10 AM

If innocent people died, including Syrian forces, as reported by numerous sources, it was an immoral act. It was murder. The Syrian forces were the good guys fighting ISIS. To kill (murder) them in order to flush out ISIS, who deserved to be annihilated, is an evil deed. Even children and other civilians died.
 

I don't compartmentalize murder. Those were real people with real families. Not a statistic.
:applause:
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Anonymous on May 15, 2019, 06:52:45 AM
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/57447294_1713074515504474_4046640722261049344_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=766537ebcebfb60b2996dbc78088a414&oe=5D6DF923)
Exactly.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 15, 2019, 07:55:47 AM
Quote
If innocent people died, including Syrian forces, as reported by numerous sources, it was an immoral act. It was murder. The Syrian forces were the good guys fighting ISIS. To kill (murder) them in order to flush out ISIS, who deserved to be annihilated, is an evil deed. Even children and other civilians died.
I agree with you that the US has almost no business in the Middle East.  However, Syria is a war-zone.  People dying from collateral damage during a war is not the same as direct murder.  Assuming that Trump is actually fighting against ISIS, had we not gotten involved, then ISIS would be spread all over Syria and they would be slaughtering thousands.  If some innocent people die during a military strike against an enemy, this is a tragedy, but it's not murder.  If you want to argue that it's not a "just war", then I agree.  But global politics has blurred a lot of lines as to what constitutes a "threat" to a particular country, even on the opposite side of the world.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 15, 2019, 08:51:57 AM
Quote
As I posted above, there were numerous reports that Syrian military personnel and civilians died because of the bombing. They weren't ISIS.
Who reported that civilians died?  The mainstream media?  The same media that ideologically supports ISIS so that Syria can be a powder-keg for WW3, which is desired by the deep state...the same deep state that controls the media and funded/started ISIS to begin with?

Quote
To attack an airbase that has nothing to do with ISIS, and the result is the death of people who have nothing to do with ISIS, as a tactic to draw out ISIS more in a hubris, is still murder.
You are correct, if the following assumptions are correct.  Assuming that the airbase was not related to ISIS.  Assuming that the "civilians" weren't foreign military who were secretly supporting ISIS.  Assuming that the true Syrian citizens hadn't left the area, since Trump and Assad had communicated previously about what was to be bombed.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Anonymous on May 15, 2019, 09:37:11 AM
It is illegal for the US to be fighting in Syria and anywhere else. Congress has declared no wars.
President Assad was popular in Syria before the US got involved. If the US wanted to go into Syria we should have had his invitation and supported him.
The same for Iraq and Libya. We should have supported Saddam and Gaddafi. Iraq and Libya were great places for Catholics to live when these men were in power. What they had in common is that they were not in debt to the world bank or the IMF. Now they are disaster areas. Catholics have lived in the territory now called Iraq since the Church began. Since the overthrow of Saddam they are practically wiped out.
The idea that any of these nations are or were threats to the USA is absurd. If the US had not gotten involved either there would have been no ISIS or Assad would have wiped out ISIS. Who do you think created and supplies ISIS?
"Collateral Damage" is a euphemism for killing innocent persons.
Venezuela is next. We should support the legitimate government not revolutionaries.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Kolar on May 15, 2019, 09:38:51 AM
I made that last post. I don't know why it says anon.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Kolar on May 15, 2019, 09:44:00 AM
FYI voting is mandatory in Australia. Citizens who do not vote are fined.
Title: Re: Fr Taouk on voting
Post by: Anonymous on May 19, 2019, 06:05:39 AM
I support Trump wiping out ISIS, but he attacked a Syrian airbase that belonged to the Syrian military fighting ISIS over a pretext that "Assad used chemical weapons." As I posted above, there were numerous reports that Syrian military personnel and civilians died because of the bombing. They weren't ISIS. They were fighting ISIS. To attack an airbase that has nothing to do with ISIS, and the result is the death of people who have nothing to do with ISIS, as a tactic to draw out ISIS more in a hubris, is still murder.
Hmmm! Come on......It is a widely known fact that the RUSSIANS wiped out ISIS from Syria and the US of A was/is actually adding all the terrorists ......!  :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: