s

Quote from: Nadir

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: Nadir

MaterDomenici asked:

Quote

Now, is there any other issue in which it could also be said that no amount of good would compensate for the evil inherent in supporting the position?

I would say, yes, there other issues which are crucial.

I would absolutely deny my vote to those persons who support the reign of terror which Israel exerts over the Palestinians and other nations, those who support and enforce compulsory vaccination, and would deny the right of parents to educate their own children, or enforce sex education thus defiling the innocence of children, whose parents are unable to educate their own.

Those few issues are off the top of my head; I guess there must be others.

I think that tightening immigration, regulating the financial sector, limiting foreign wars, and keeping jobs in your country are of more immediate concern than most of those issues, except the right to homeschool. Which is not to denigrate your issues at all, I believe in them as well, I just think the ones I listed must be solved immediately throughout the West, because we are all one stop from the end of the line and saving Palestinians just isn't issue #1. But Americans I think have a candidate this time who is relatively good on a majority of both sets of issues and is also proving electable.

Yes, all those issues you mention, Graham, were at the back of my mind, but like MD I think that moral issues are too important to put lower than economic ones.

If by moral issues you mean abortion, then I agree. But you were talking about "other issues [besides abortion] which are crucial," and I think the ones you identified are just not as crucial as the ones I did.

Besides, the issues I mentioned are moral issues. Sending people to kill and die in the Middle East is a moral issue. Undercutting American wages and off-shoring jobs, preventing fathers from being able to provide, are moral issues. Letting dangerous foreigners into the country is a moral issue.

Quote

Why did you write "Pacelli said"?  I mean is Pacelli a poster here? or a poster on Bellarmine Forums? Or is he Pope Piu XII? because it's pretty obvious he is not the writer of that passage you quoted. Can you clarify, please.

Just to credit the poster from whom I got the passage.

Also the shrinking middle class and the inability of decent men to provide for their families should be blamed on large business outsourcing to foreign nations and Uncle Sam giving the keys to the country to these corporations.

This is clearly an area of Catholic theology that has been underdeveloped.  Some distinctions are not properly explored.

Let's look at a candidate who's running for county dog catcher.  He happens to be Pro Abortion.  Is it permitted to vote for such a person because you think he'd be the best dog catcher of all the candidates on the ballot?  While I had written about the principle of double effect, voting for this ProAbort dog catcher would have zero practical effect vis-a-vis abortion itself, since this person would not have the authority to further any of his perverse beliefs in his capacity as dog catcher.  Yet one of the Catholic theologians cited stated that one can never vote for a candidate of bad principles.  One what grounds?  Due to scandal?  Well, nobody has to know who we voted for.

Let's look at the Presidential race.  Let's say that one candidate is Pro Life, the other Pro Abortion.  One could very safely conclude that NEITHER of these candidates will do anything practical one way or the other regarding the issue of abortion.  So what if on this basis you ignore the abortion issue and vote based on other issues where you conclude that the candidate may actually have some power?

So the interplay between principles and anticipated PRACTICAL effect of one's vote can be rather complex.  Catholic theologians need to explore this more in depth.

Then there's "waste your vote" thinking.  Let's say that there are three candidates, two from the major parties and a third party candidate.  Let's say the third party candidate is a "worthy" candidate but the other two are not.  But this third party candidate is polling in the single digits and has no shot to win.  Are you obliged to vote for this third party candidate?  Or would you say that by "wasting" your vote you would be enabling the less worthy candidate to succeed?

All of this goes back to an understanding of what "voting" actually means.  Voting is more than just a pragmatic exercise.  I will never vote for an unworthy candidate due to pragmatic thinking.  Voting involves an endorsement and in a sense a material empowerment of the candidate.  And it all goes back to the nature of "authority".  By voting we materially designate the holders of authority, whereas the authority itself formally comes from God.  No holder of authority should ever be someone who's positively offensive to God, because in holding authority they represent God in society.  Consequently, it's a direct insult to God to vote for such a one, even a Pro Abortion dog catcher or mayor or city councilman.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Let's look at a candidate who's running for county dog catcher.  He happens to be Pro Abortion.  Is it permitted to vote for such a person because you think he'd be the best dog catcher of all the candidates on the ballot?  While I had written about the principle of double effect, voting for this ProAbort dog catcher would have zero practical effect vis-a-vis abortion itself, since this person would not have the authority to further any of his perverse beliefs in his capacity as dog catcher.  Yet one of the Catholic theologians cited stated that one can never vote for a candidate of bad principles.  One what grounds?  Due to scandal? Well, nobody has to know who we voted for.

The theologian in fact stated "that it is never allowed to vote absolutely for a man of evil principles, but [hypothetically] it may be allowed if the election is between men of evil principles."

He never explained why.  And if it's allowed under some circuмstances, then why?  There's no explanation of the principles involved.

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: Ladislaus

Let's look at a candidate who's running for county dog catcher.  He happens to be Pro Abortion.  Is it permitted to vote for such a person because you think he'd be the best dog catcher of all the candidates on the ballot?  While I had written about the principle of double effect, voting for this ProAbort dog catcher would have zero practical effect vis-a-vis abortion itself, since this person would not have the authority to further any of his perverse beliefs in his capacity as dog catcher.  Yet one of the Catholic theologians cited stated that one can never vote for a candidate of bad principles.  One what grounds?  Due to scandal? Well, nobody has to know who we voted for.

The theologian in fact stated "that it is never allowed to vote absolutely for a man of evil principles, but [hypothetically] it may be allowed if the election is between men of evil principles."

He never explained why.  And if it's allowed under some circuмstances, then why?  There's no explanation of the principles involved.

Explanation:

Quote from: Pacelli

The following is an exact reproduction of chapter II, 4 of The Moral Obligation of Voting, Rev. Titus Cranny, The Catholic University of America Press, 1952, pgs 93-96.

4. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ONE MAY VOTE FOR UNWORTHY CANDIDATES

. . .

. . . 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 . . . (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]

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: Ladislaus

Let's look at a candidate who's running for county dog catcher.  He happens to be Pro Abortion.  Is it permitted to vote for such a person because you think he'd be the best dog catcher of all the candidates on the ballot?  While I had written about the principle of double effect, voting for this ProAbort dog catcher would have zero practical effect vis-a-vis abortion itself, since this person would not have the authority to further any of his perverse beliefs in his capacity as dog catcher.  Yet one of the Catholic theologians cited stated that one can never vote for a candidate of bad principles.  One what grounds?  Due to scandal? Well, nobody has to know who we voted for.

The theologian in fact stated "that it is never allowed to vote absolutely for a man of evil principles, but [hypothetically] it may be allowed if the election is between men of evil principles."

He never explained why.  And if it's allowed under some circuмstances, then why?  There's no explanation of the principles involved.

Explanation:

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: Pacelli

The following is an exact reproduction of chapter II, 4 of The Moral Obligation of Voting, Rev. Titus Cranny, The Catholic University of America Press, 1952, pgs 93-96.

4. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ONE MAY VOTE FOR UNWORTHY CANDIDATES

. . .

. . . 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 . . . (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]

These docuмents aren't timeless and they aren't dogma. You can't honestly use a docuмent from the 1950's to discuss voting in 2016. It's outdated and obsolete. Politics change rapidly and if the docuмent doesn't change to address the rapidly evolving politics of the world then it becomes useless.

The principles they used still apply and still make sense today. And it might not be dogma, but it has more way authority than you and Lad.

Quote from: AnonymousCatholic

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: Ladislaus

Let's look at a candidate who's running for county dog catcher.  He happens to be Pro Abortion.  Is it permitted to vote for such a person because you think he'd be the best dog catcher of all the candidates on the ballot?  While I had written about the principle of double effect, voting for this ProAbort dog catcher would have zero practical effect vis-a-vis abortion itself, since this person would not have the authority to further any of his perverse beliefs in his capacity as dog catcher.  Yet one of the Catholic theologians cited stated that one can never vote for a candidate of bad principles.  One what grounds?  Due to scandal? Well, nobody has to know who we voted for.

The theologian in fact stated "that it is never allowed to vote absolutely for a man of evil principles, but [hypothetically] it may be allowed if the election is between men of evil principles."

He never explained why.  And if it's allowed under some circuмstances, then why?  There's no explanation of the principles involved.

Explanation:

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: Pacelli

The following is an exact reproduction of chapter II, 4 of The Moral Obligation of Voting, Rev. Titus Cranny, The Catholic University of America Press, 1952, pgs 93-96.

4. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ONE MAY VOTE FOR UNWORTHY CANDIDATES

. . .

. . . 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 . . . (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]

These docuмents aren't timeless and they aren't dogma. You can't honestly use a docuмent from the 1950's to discuss voting in 2016. It's outdated and obsolete. Politics change rapidly and if the docuмent doesn't change to address the rapidly evolving politics of the world then it becomes useless.

The principles they used still apply and still make sense today. And it might not be dogma, but it has more way authority than you and Lad.

I'm not claiming to have authority, but merely pointing out that you're using a docuмent from 1950's to address the political landscape of 2016.


The issues of the 50's were rights for labor unions, cost of living increases etc. They were not choosing between marrying two men and slaughtering innocents to make the world safe for pagans. Ridiculous.

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Graham

The Catholic theologians don't agree with you. Sorry. You're free to abstain though, if your conscience so dictates.

Yeah, the same theologians who led us directly into Vatican II.

Most of the theologians cited healthily preceded Vatican II. Lehmkuhl, Prummer, and Tanqueray passed most of their lives in the 19th Century.

You're committing a fallacy called 'poisoning the well.' Are all theologians prior to VII positively suspect? Going back in time, at what point do they cease to be suspect? Really, to make any sense here you need to show that there's some positive reason to suspect the orthodoxy of these particular men.

Quote

When you vote for the "lesser evil" candidate you have on YOUR hands anything wicked the person does in office.  If you vote for a "Pro Life" candidate who then goes on to bomb innocent people in the Middle East or who aids/abets the slaughter of Palestinians by Israel, then those Palestinians' blood is decidedly on your hands.

Double effect, Lad. It is licit to vote for a bad candidate to prevent a worse candidate.

You aren't preventing a worse evil.

The country is in a horrible mess, no doubt.  But if it is so bad that there is no hope to accomplish anything whatsoever via the ballot box as you and Ladislaus apparently believe, then taking up arms is the only moral alternative.

Quote from: AnonymousCatholic

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Graham

The Catholic theologians don't agree with you. Sorry. You're free to abstain though, if your conscience so dictates.

Yeah, the same theologians who led us directly into Vatican II.

Most of the theologians cited healthily preceded Vatican II. Lehmkuhl, Prummer, and Tanqueray passed most of their lives in the 19th Century.

You're committing a fallacy called 'poisoning the well.' Are all theologians prior to VII positively suspect? Going back in time, at what point do they cease to be suspect? Really, to make any sense here you need to show that there's some positive reason to suspect the orthodoxy of these particular men.

Quote

When you vote for the "lesser evil" candidate you have on YOUR hands anything wicked the person does in office.  If you vote for a "Pro Life" candidate who then goes on to bomb innocent people in the Middle East or who aids/abets the slaughter of Palestinians by Israel, then those Palestinians' blood is decidedly on your hands.

Double effect, Lad. It is licit to vote for a bad candidate to prevent a worse candidate.

You aren't preventing a worse evil.

The country is in a horrible mess, no doubt.  But if it is so bad that there is no hope to accomplish anything whatsoever via the ballot box as you and Ladislaus apparently believe, then taking up arms is the only moral alternative.

 Not necessarily. Maybe if we all demanded candidates that were actually worthy of our votes rather than voting for the lesser of two evils we wouldn't be in this situation.