CathInfo.com

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.

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.