Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Fr Taouk on voting  (Read 1809 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17256
  • Reputation: +9589/-4144
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fr Taouk on voting
« Reply #45 on: May 14, 2019, 01:44:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #46 on: May 14, 2019, 02:08:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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. 


    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #47 on: May 14, 2019, 02:23:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If voting had any meaning the Jews wouldn't allow it.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4183
    • Reputation: +2598/-1194
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #48 on: May 14, 2019, 02:51:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • 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.  

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 22875
    • Reputation: +20025/-233
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #49 on: May 14, 2019, 03:06:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • 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.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #50 on: May 14, 2019, 03:10:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #51 on: May 14, 2019, 03:16:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #52 on: May 14, 2019, 03:42:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4183
    • Reputation: +2598/-1194
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #53 on: May 14, 2019, 03:54:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #54 on: May 14, 2019, 04:06:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sean Johnson has my vote!  

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #55 on: May 15, 2019, 01:28:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From the Moral Obligation of Voting, 1952.

    Link:  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.


    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5756
    • Reputation: +3168/-179
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #56 on: May 15, 2019, 01:42:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • last comment by Maillot Jaune
    Do you know you can tick the box "Post with your username (not anonymous)?"

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #57 on: May 15, 2019, 06:52:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • 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:

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #58 on: May 15, 2019, 06:52:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4183
    • Reputation: +2598/-1194
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Taouk on voting
    « Reply #59 on: May 15, 2019, 07:55:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

     

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