Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Saint Alphonsus Liguori: “No Sin Justifies Any End, Not Even to Save the World”  (Read 2703 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46855
  • Reputation: +27722/-5146
  • Gender: Male
There seems to be some questionable moral theology on this thread.
I'm no moralist, so I'm always hesitant to enter such controversies.
However, we've seen what Fr Peter Scott had to say on the subject back in 2007:
https://www.cathinfo.com/politics-and-world-leaders/voting-and-catholic-morality-fr-peter-scott-2007/msg957847/?topicseen#msg957847
it is still permissible to vote in such a case, provided that one can be sure that there truly is a lesser evil, and that there is a grave reason to do so (e.g., to avoid abortion on demand, or promotion of unnatural methods of birth control), and one has the good intention of providing for the good of society as best one can. This is called material cooperation. However, it can never be obligatory.
If we look at the comparisons cited in this thread, abortion and lying, there is an obvious difference: abortion is always a sin in itself, lying is always a sin in itself, voting is not a sin in itself.
Your vote is the ordering of candidates standing for election to produce an outcome on the life of the nation. By voting, you have an effect on that life. By abstaining from voting you have an effect on that life.
Take an example: Candidate A will legislate to permit abortion in the first trimester in cases of rape and danger to the mother's life but will otherwise look like a Catholic ruler on all moral questions and even favour the Catholic religion. Candidate B will legislate to make satanism the cult of the state and make it compulsory in all schools, allowing child sacrifice etc etc...
Now if all the traditional Catholics and all the good people in society abstain from voting guided by the principle laid down by many on this forum that it is never permissible to vote for the lesser evil, then candidate B will certainly be elected and we will end up with a satanic state.
My common sense tells me that there is something amiss here. If I abstained in this vote, my conscience would be troubled that I had committed a sin of omission if we ended up with a satanic state.
By voting for candidate A you are not endorsing their policy of first trimester abortion, but rather, ordering candidates A and B in such a way as to prevent a multitude of sins, to defend God's honour and to save countless souls from Hell.
This is an extereme example, obviously, but it is the principle that some good Catholics, like Archbishop Vigano, are evoking to produce what they see as the best outcome in this election.
Like I say, I'm no theologian, but given what we hear from Archbishop Vigano and Fr Scott, and using my Catholic sense, it looks Catholic to me to reason in this way.
This is not what St Alphonsus is talking about is it?...

No, no, no.

Only difference between lying and voting is that lying is always a sin (with some question about what constitutes lying) and voting is not ALWAYS (aka intrinsically) a sin.  But voting for a specific candidate CAN BE a sin ... and that's precisely the question that needs to be addressed.  If someone can demonstrate that it's not a sin to vote for Trump, then it's licit to vote for Trump.  If, however, a vote for Trump would be sinful, one CANNOT vote for Trump without sin REGARDLESS of how much WORSE the other candidate is.  By way of analogy, sɛҳuąƖ relations between a man and a woman are not inherently sinful.  Does that mean it's permitted for people to fornicate or commit adultery?  Clearly not.  Given, then, the sinfulness of fornication, you cannot do it for some other good end (whatever that might be).  Similarly, in many of the examples about "lesser evil" and "end justifies the means", they use the case of taking a life.  Taking a life is in fact not inherently sinful ... since it would then never be permitted (whether for capital punishment, self defense, or defense of an innocent person against an aggressor).  But taking a life without adequate reason or justification is in fact a grave sin.  Once THAT is established, then you CANNOT do it for any end.  So in terms of application to the principle that end doesn't justify the means, it matters nothing whether the act was intrinsically sinful or extrinsically sinful (i.e. not intrinsically).  Regardless of how it's sinful, one nevertheless CANNOT do it even to prevent some greater evil.

So you're making a completely false distinction here that is irrelevant to the principle of lesser evil.

Offline NishantXavier

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 621
  • Reputation: +209/-531
  • Gender: Male
@PapalTiara: Incorrect. Voting for a president who appointed 3 justices that overturned roe v wade is not evil. It is done so on the hope that he will continue to appoint similar pro life justices in future. Why are you trying to prevent the nomination of pro life judges?


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46855
  • Reputation: +27722/-5146
  • Gender: Male
@PapalTiara: Incorrect. Voting for a president who appointed 3 justices that overturned roe v wade is not evil. It is done so on the hope that he will continue to appoint similar pro life justices in future. Why are you trying to prevent the nomination of pro life judges?

Not sure how many times it needs to be beaten into your thick skull that whatever Trump did IN THE PAST has nothing to do with whether you can vote for him now.  In 2016 and 2020, when Trump's public position at least was solidly Pro Life, a case could legitimately be made to have voted for him by double effect.  This is 2024 and your stupid time machine is absolutely irrelevant.  I'm sure that Judas did some good things before he betrayed Our Lord as well.  Trump now enthusiastically supports 94% of abortions as well as the genocide of innocent individuals in Gaza.  That ABSOLUTELY and COMPLETELY changes the equation when evaluating whether one can vote for him.

But you've already decided to vote for Trump, regardless of whether it's a grave sin for you to do so, because your bad will prevents you from applying Catholic moral principles to the situation ... as you continue to appeal to non-Catholic moral relativism and utilitarianism to justify something you've already decided you're going to do, come hell or high water, regardless of whether it's a grave sin ... which it most certainly is.

Offline NishantXavier

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 621
  • Reputation: +209/-531
  • Gender: Male
That's your opinion. Stop trying to act like a Pope as if your opinion is binding on others.

Of course past performance matters. That's like going to an interview and trying to scream at your interviewers that your past performance and past record allegedly do not matter. Past performance and past record is perhaps the #1 thing that matters, not just your rhetoric or words immediately before the interview. 3 pro life supreme court justices, some 250+ pro life federal judges, the record is very clear, and it is very pro life. You will not bully me into silence, Ladislaus. Seek the Truth in humility, and strive to be marked by charity, humility, patience, benignity and other fruits and gifts of the Holy Ghost rather than to be hostile or belligerent all the time. And regardless if you are or not, I will keep speaking the Truth in love. Truth is, Trump had a pro life record and that record most certainly matters whether you admit it or not, and whether you like it or not, and whether you downthumb it or not, and regardless of such things.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46855
  • Reputation: +27722/-5146
  • Gender: Male
That's your opinion. Stop trying to act like a Pope as if your opinion is binding on others.

Typical moronic response.  I obviously have no authority.  I'm just telling you the truth ... that you're committing grave sin not only by voting for the Pro Abortionist Pro Genocidal Jew Puppet, but even worse by promoting / encouraging others to join you in your sin.  You'll answer to God for it ... though you're obviously free to ignore me (as you have been).  Of course, you have zero actual refutation of my points ... but just come up with reasons like this absurd nonsense about my being a Pope.  If I were Pope, I'd have excommunicated you a long time ago ... but, alas, I'm not, so carry on.

Enjoy the blood on your hands as your man Trump funds IVF and then encourages the Jews to even more genocide.  In an X post / Tweet reposted by Brother Andre Marie, the Jews have now destroyed 40,000 homes and wiped out 37 villages in southern Lebanon.  At this time, many Maronite Catholics have been slaughtered.

Their blood and the blood of future Jew victims will be on your hands.  Enjoy.

https://x.com/sahouraxo/status/1853817295207862568

But then I guess this Trump who encourages Bibi to "finish the job [of genocide]" represents a "victory for life" ... just don't tell that to the tens of thousands of innocent children (and women and men) whom the Jews have slaughtered.


Offline NishantXavier

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 621
  • Reputation: +209/-531
  • Gender: Male
Good that you know that. Now, kindly act like it. Also, try to treat other traditional Catholics as your brothers and sisters in Christ, with edifying charity, rather than calling them "heretic", schismatic" "moron" "baboon"" etc all the time with prideful hate or spite or what seems like it.

If we disagree, we disagree, it's fine. I won't keep pressing the point. Election is over anyway, so there's no point. As for blood, first and foremost, my conscience is clear that I did and have done everything possible to stop the killing of innocent unborn children. Next, I don't see the Gaza situation that way at all, I already shared a link where Trump ordered Israeli officials to end the aggression and told them he expects it to stop once he gets into office. Recall Netanyahu preferred Biden to Trump, that's because he knew he could control Biden, but was almost certain he would never be able to control Trump. So I see that differently. But lets see how it goes once all results arein.


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46855
  • Reputation: +27722/-5146
  • Gender: Male
Good that you know that. Now, kindly act like it. Also, try to treat other traditional Catholics as your brothers and sisters in Christ, ...

No ... you're a complete degenerate promoting evil, and I'll continue to call you out for it.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46855
  • Reputation: +27722/-5146
  • Gender: Male
 As for blood, first and foremost, my conscience is clear ...

Your hands are covered in the blood of the innocents who will be slaughtered with Trump's encouragement and funding ... whether the unborn with IVF or those murdered in the Jew genocide.  Sleep well.


Offline NishantXavier

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 621
  • Reputation: +209/-531
  • Gender: Male
Oh ok, then. 2 can play that game. You're a bad willed lazy do-nothing-er. Thank God your EVIL and indifferentist agenda of doing nothing while babies are killed in abortion-killing looks to be almost completely defeated by now. It certainly was in Florida, thanks to Pro Life Catholic Ron DeSantis and Pro Life Catholic Lila Rose. It likely will be all across America thanks to Pro Life Christian Donald Trump and Pro Life Catholic James David Vance.

Offline Plenus Venter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1566
  • Reputation: +1282/-100
  • Gender: Male
No, no, no.

Only difference between lying and voting is that lying is always a sin (with some question about what constitutes lying) and voting is not ALWAYS (aka intrinsically) a sin.  But voting for a specific candidate CAN BE a sin ... and that's precisely the question that needs to be addressed.  If someone can demonstrate that it's not a sin to vote for Trump, then it's licit to vote for Trump.  If, however, a vote for Trump would be sinful, one CANNOT vote for Trump without sin REGARDLESS of how much WORSE the other candidate is.  By way of analogy, sɛҳuąƖ relations between a man and a woman are not inherently sinful.  Does that mean it's permitted for people to fornicate or commit adultery?  Clearly not.  Given, then, the sinfulness of fornication, you cannot do it for some other good end (whatever that might be).  Similarly, in many of the examples about "lesser evil" and "end justifies the means", they use the case of taking a life.  Taking a life is in fact not inherently sinful ... since it would then never be permitted (whether for capital punishment, self defense, or defense of an innocent person against an aggressor).  But taking a life without adequate reason or justification is in fact a grave sin.  Once THAT is established, then you CANNOT do it for any end.  So in terms of application to the principle that end doesn't justify the means, it matters nothing whether the act was intrinsically sinful or extrinsically sinful (i.e. not intrinsically).  Regardless of how it's sinful, one nevertheless CANNOT do it even to prevent some greater evil.

So you're making a completely false distinction here that is irrelevant to the principle of lesser evil.
Like I say, I'm no moral theologian.
Years ago I used to vote 'informal' i.e. for no one (it's compulsory voting here, so you need to go through the process but invalidate your vote somehow).
Maybe it was after I read Fr Scott that I changed.
But you would be saying, Lad, that Fr Scott and Archbishop Vigano don't know their moral theology?
Until I see a better argument from a moralist, I'm not convinced by what you say.
As to Michelle's question, I don't know if and what would be the certain advantage of voting for Trump, since I don't follow the politics in the USA closely enough. But there are obviously many trads who seem to see one... I'll let one of the locals answer that question. Perhaps it is something as simple as Traditional Catholics being allowed to home school their children for another 4 years.
I don't see voting as necessarily endorsing what any particular candidate stands for, but a process by which you (in this day and age) limit the evils brought upon society by evil men and maximise the good, since it is certain that one of the candidates will rule regardless.
Is it not possible that abstaining from voting could be a sin of omission in the example that I gave? It is all the good people abstaining who are responsible for bringing to power a satanist regime. An extreme example, obviously, to illustrate a point.
Perhaps only the Supreme Authority in the Church can solve this one for us in better times.
Does anyone else have a study from a theologian/bishop/priest other than Fr Scott explaining how the principles of moral theology apply to voting?

Offline Plenus Venter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1566
  • Reputation: +1282/-100
  • Gender: Male
Getting back to the OP.
St Alphonsus is telling us what we all know: the end does not justify the means. One may never use an evil means to bring about a good end.
Fr Scott knows that. Archbishop Vigano knows that.
That is precisely the point. Voting is not endorsing what a particular candidate stands for, but rather, in our modern 'democratic' system, a process we use to put in power the ruler most agreeable to God. It is not sinful to place numbers on a piece of paper if that is the outcome?
That is not equivalent to fornication in the example given above by Ladislaus?
But it may be sinful not to put numbers on a ballot paper if it leads to a ruler assuming power whom you know will be reponsible for greater evils?
I think if it is not certain, we should leave people free to act according to their conscience in this matter and as guided by their spiritual director. That is ultimately my point. Archbishop Vigano and Fr Scott should not be so readily dismissed, especially since we can not find any higher authority to the contrary.
But if anyone can cite other Church authorities, please do so.


Offline NishantXavier

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 621
  • Reputation: +209/-531
  • Gender: Male
Quote from: Plenus Venter 06/11/2024, 13:02:53
Getting back to the OP.
St Alphonsus is telling us what we all know: the end does not justify the means. One may never use an evil means to bring about a good end.
Fr Scott knows that. Archbishop Vigano knows that.
That is precisely the point. Voting is not endorsing what a particular candidate stands for, but rather, in our modern 'democratic' system, a process we use to put in power the ruler most agreeable to God. It is not sinful to place numbers on a piece of paper if that is the outcome?
That is not equivalent to fornication in the example given above by Ladislaus?
But it may be sinful not to put numbers on a ballot paper if it leads to a ruler assuming power whom you know will be reponsible for greater evils?
I think if it is not certain, we should leave people free to act according to their conscience in this matter and as guided by their spiritual director. That is ultimately my point. Archbishop Vigano and Fr Scott should not be so readily dismissed, especially since we can not find any higher authority to the contrary.
But if anyone can cite other Church authorities, please do so.
Hi Plenus. To the bolded, sure. These Church authorities were cited in the other thread. Pope Pius XII and a pre-Vatican II traditional Cardinal addressing precisely the subject. The usual suspects raised a hue and cry about it, but the Pope and the Cardinal speak for themselves. Voting represents a power Catholics have, and with that power comes certain responsibilities to vote wisely and prudently for the most pro life and most Catholic candidate available.

The link for context and references: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm

"It is your right and duty to draw the attention of the faithful to the extraordinary importance of the coming elections and to the moral responsibility which follows from it for those who have the right to vote. In the present circuмstances it is strictly obligatory for whoever has the right, man or woman, to take part in the elections. He who abstains, particularly through indolence or cowardice, commits thereby a grave sin, a mortal offense. [12]" Pope Pius XII

Next: we have various traditional Cardinals and bishops address the point:

"In 1921 Cardinal Amette, Archbishop of Paris, addressed a pastoral to his flock on this duty. Later, in a joint letter to all French Catholics, the hierarchy gave this message:
It is a duty of conscience for all citizens honored with the right of suffrage to vote honestly and wisely with the sole aim of benefiting the country. The citizens are subject to divine law as is the Church. Of our votes, as of all our actions, God will demand an account. The duty of voting is so much the more binding upon conscience because of its good or evil exercise depends the gravest interests of the country and of religion.

It is your duty to vote. To neglect to do so would be a culpable abdication of duty on your part. It is your duty to vote honestly; that is to say, for men worthy of your esteem and trust. It is your duty to vote wisely; that is to say, in such a way as not to waste your votes. It would be better to cast them for candidates who, although 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 others whose program indeed may be more perfect, but whose almost certain defeat might open the door to the enemies of religion and of the social order. [76]"

Offline Plenus Venter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1566
  • Reputation: +1282/-100
  • Gender: Male
Thanks Mark.

This is interesting:
It would be better to cast them for candidates who, although 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 others whose program indeed may be more perfect, but whose almost certain defeat might open the door to the enemies of religion and of the social order. [76]"

Offline Jaynek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4170
  • Reputation: +2318/-1232
  • Gender: Female
But if anyone can cite other Church authorities, please do so.
We don't need Church authorities other than St. Alphonsus (although obviously there are some) because he himself clearly taught the principle of double effect.  That is the Catholic moral teaching that justifies voting for Trump.  It is a somewhat complex and nuanced teaching that is sometimes misunderstood as saying the end justifies the means. but is definitely distinct from it.  Otherwise St. Alphnsus would have been contradicting himself.  

No traditional Catholic would have voted for Trump in order that he enact his morally evil policies.  That is what would have been necessary for such a vote to be considered formal cooperation with evil (which is always wrong). Voting for Trump in spite of these policies in order to prevent the even greater evil represented by hαɾɾιs, is material cooperation which may be justified under some circuмstances.  Catholics make a prudential judgment about the specific cases facing them.  There is a very strong case that voting for Trump meets the conditions to be considered an application of the principle of double effect although doing so was not obligatory.  There is no good reason for the sort of condemnations that Ladislaus and others have been making of their fellow Catholics.

He makes a valid point that we should avoid the expression "choosing the lesser evil".  It is an imprecise and confusing way to speak of the principle of double effect.  It gives a wrong impression the Catholics may choose evil.  We may not.  But, strictly speaking, that is not what traditional Catholics who voted for Trump did.  They chose to oppose evil.

Personally, I am not a USAmerican and did not vote in the election.  But when I think of the thousands, if not millions, of babies' lives that are likely to be saved, I am happy about the results.  I live in a country in which there is no legal protection for unborn children at any point in the pregnancy and people are fined and imprisoned for silently praying in front of abortion clinics.  That is what awaited the US under a hαɾɾιs regime. I congratulate them for escaping this fate and thank God for it.

Offline Everlast22

  • Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 918
  • Reputation: +797/-214
  • Gender: Male
HONESTLY, I would not site ANYTHING from youtube AT all as credible.