Author Topic: Catholic Voting Guide (Read 6668 times)

Graham · « **Reply #60 on:** February 08, 2016, 09:45:33 PM »

Anyways, I don't have time to waste on this fellow. The docuмent is there for all to read and decide for themselves. "Anonymous Catholic" can abstain from voting if he wishes. It's a perfectly respectable decision.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #61 on:** February 08, 2016, 10:01:52 PM »

Quote from: Graham

"Anonymous Catholic" can abstain from voting if he wishes. It's a perfectly respectable decision.

He has to. He's not old enough to vote.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #62 on:** February 09, 2016, 08:35:49 AM »

Quote from: Graham

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

You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Double-effect does not mean voting "to prevent a worse candidate". What you articulate is NOT double-effect but lesser evil.

That's like saying that it's OK to remove a baby in an ectopic pregnancy in order to prevent the greater evil of having both the mother and the baby die. That is NOT CATHOLIC. You are performing an operation in order to save the life of the mother (note, you are not killing a baby), the unintended consequence of which would be the death of the baby. It must be an unintended SIDE-EFFECT of something that's a good (saving the life of the mother), which outweighs the harm of the double-effect.

In double-effect ...

1) the action itself must be good -- I am saving the life of the mother

2) you must only intend the good part (and not the secondary effect) -- I am not intending to kill the baby

3) the good effect cannot arise from the bad effect (must be the other way around) -- I am not directly killing the baby but removing a damaged organ (there are ways that this procedure can be done and ways it cannot be done in order to comply with this)

4) the bad effect cannot be disproportionate with the bad effect -- (I cannot remove the organ simply to help the mother's mental state for example)

So let's apply this to voting.

I am voting for a candidate who promises to appoint Pro Life justices to the Supreme Court (assuming you can believe any of these liars). But this candidate wants to attack some country unjustly, resulting in the deaths of many innocents. By voting for this candidate, I intend to help put into power someone who might change the plight of the unborn and not someone who would attacks innocents in an unjust war. In that case, the latter would be an unintended secondary effect (the double effect). Here one can argue regarding the proportionality (the question of whether such a person's appointments will in fact make any difference vs. the probability that this person would kill innocents in an unjust war).

But to vote for a candidate to prevent a worse candidate from arising is "lesser evil" thinking and is not Catholic. And I vehemently disagree with those theologians who claim otherwise. So the candidate you vote for must in fact be a good. You cannot vote for a bad candidate in order to prevent a worse candidate.

So let's apply that to the case I cited earlier, where you have one candidate who's for abortion in the first trimester and another who's for abortion on demand throughout the pregnancy (even to the point of partial birth). You cannot vote for the first trimester guy based on double-effect, because he's not a good candidate. You cannot do it even in order to prevent a worse guy from getting into office. You're doing a BAD in order to prevent a GREATER BAD. And here's the difference that most of you fail to understand. According to "lesser evil" thinking, then yes you could vote for the first trimester guy. But according to Catholic double effect, you cannot. Now, if the first trimester guy stated that he intended to work for making abortion illegal after the first trimester, then you COULD vote for the guy ... based on the good of his wanting to make abortion illegal under those conditions. But there MUST BE SOMETHING GOOD in the candidate that you are intending to vote for (without the relativism of comparing him to another candidate).

In the case I just mentioned,

1) you are intending a positive good (wanting abortion illegal after the first trimester)
2) do not intend the bad (wanting to keep it legal in the first trimester)
3) the bad part doesn't come directly from the good part
4) and the bad is not out of proportion with the good

Ladislaus · « **Reply #63 on:** February 09, 2016, 08:37:05 AM »

It's rather moot anyway, though, since US elections are clearly rigged and our votes mean nothing. It's only important in so far as it might pollute Catholic moral reasoning (on this and other issues). We must absolutely discard lesser evil thinking.

Graham · « **Reply #64 on:** February 09, 2016, 09:48:47 AM »

Lad, thanks for your explanation of how double effect applies.

Graham · « **Reply #65 on:** February 09, 2016, 09:58:14 AM »

You overlooked however that the act of voting is good in itself. This is where double effect comes into play, according to the theologians.

AnonymousCatholic · « **Reply #66 on:** February 09, 2016, 10:15:18 AM »

Quote from: Graham

You overlooked however that the act of voting is good in itself. This is where double effect comes into play, according to the theologians.

Theologians from 1950, speaking about the politics of the ever changing America.

Graham · « **Reply #67 on:** February 09, 2016, 10:32:00 AM »

Quote from: AnonymousCatholic

Quote from: Graham
You overlooked however that the act of voting is good in itself. This is where double effect comes into play, according to the theologians.

Theologians from 1950, speaking about the politics of the ever changing America.

Voting has not stopped being intrinsically good. And I think this is what's fundamentally in dispute. Some trads, a past self of mine included, have the attitude that voting is intrinsically neutral, or maybe evil and revolutionary. Not so.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #68 on:** February 09, 2016, 10:43:08 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

It's rather moot anyway, though, since US elections are clearly rigged and our votes mean nothing. It's only important in so far as it might pollute Catholic moral reasoning (on this and other issues). We must absolutely discard lesser evil thinking.

Very interesting, the double effect vs. voting for the lesser evil. Though, I agree, US elections are clearly rigged and our votes mean nothing.

B from A · « **Reply #69 on:** February 09, 2016, 10:55:51 AM »

Quote from: Graham

Voting has not stopped being intrinsically good. And I think this is what's fundamentally in dispute. Some trads, a past self of mine included, have the attitude that voting is intrinsically neutral, or maybe evil and revolutionary.

Who said that? Can you quote someone in the thread who said so?

Just as an example, here is what Lad said:

Quote from: Ladislaus

Last candidate that I could vote for was Ron Paul. Before that it was Pat Buchanan. I've voted "Constitution Party" a couple times. But apart from that I cannot and will not vote for any of these scuм.

Doesn't sound like he's saying voting is evil.

Besides, even in the article you posted, the author said:

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: Pacelli
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.

What's fundamentally in dispute is whether one can vote for an evil candidate, just to supposedly keep an even more evil candidate from winning. Especially when there are decent candidates in other parties, and also especially when our voting system is so rigged anyway. The points against doing so had nothing to do with whether voting in itself is intrinsically good or evil.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #70 on:** February 09, 2016, 12:39:05 PM »

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: AnonymousCatholic
Quote from: Graham
You overlooked however that the act of voting is good in itself. This is where double effect comes into play, according to the theologians.

Theologians from 1950, speaking about the politics of the ever changing America.

Voting has not stopped being intrinsically good. And I think this is what's fundamentally in dispute. Some trads, a past self of mine included, have the attitude that voting is intrinsically neutral, or maybe evil and revolutionary. Not so.

Voting was used in the early Church. It's of Apostolic Tradition. So it can't be "evil."

The Holy Ghost works through casting of ballots. But that's not to say that every election is an act of God.

OHCA · « **Reply #71 on:** February 09, 2016, 12:39:34 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

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

You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Double-effect does not mean voting "to prevent a worse candidate". What you articulate is NOT double-effect but lesser evil.

That's like saying that it's OK to remove a baby in an ectopic pregnancy in order to prevent the greater evil of having both the mother and the baby die. That is NOT CATHOLIC. You are performing an operation in order to save the life of the mother (note, you are not killing a baby), the unintended consequence of which would be the death of the baby. It must be an unintended SIDE-EFFECT of something that's a good (saving the life of the mother), which outweighs the harm of the double-effect.

In double-effect ...

1) the action itself must be good -- I am saving the life of the mother

2) you must only intend the good part (and not the secondary effect) -- I am not intending to kill the baby

3) the good effect cannot arise from the bad effect (must be the other way around) -- I am not directly killing the baby but removing a damaged organ (there are ways that this procedure can be done and ways it cannot be done in order to comply with this)

4) the bad effect cannot be disproportionate with the bad effect -- (I cannot remove the organ simply to help the mother's mental state for example)

So let's apply this to voting.

I am voting for a candidate who promises to appoint Pro Life justices to the Supreme Court (assuming you can believe any of these liars). But this candidate wants to attack some country unjustly, resulting in the deaths of many innocents. By voting for this candidate, I intend to help put into power someone who might change the plight of the unborn and not someone who would attacks innocents in an unjust war. In that case, the latter would be an unintended secondary effect (the double effect). Here one can argue regarding the proportionality (the question of whether such a person's appointments will in fact make any difference vs. the probability that this person would kill innocents in an unjust war).

But to vote for a candidate to prevent a worse candidate from arising is "lesser evil" thinking and is not Catholic. And I vehemently disagree with those theologians who claim otherwise. So the candidate you vote for must in fact be a good. You cannot vote for a bad candidate in order to prevent a worse candidate.

So let's apply that to the case I cited earlier, where you have one candidate who's for abortion in the first trimester and another who's for abortion on demand throughout the pregnancy (even to the point of partial birth). You cannot vote for the first trimester guy based on double-effect, because he's not a good candidate. You cannot do it even in order to prevent a worse guy from getting into office. You're doing a BAD in order to prevent a GREATER BAD. And here's the difference that most of you fail to understand. According to "lesser evil" thinking, then yes you could vote for the first trimester guy. But according to Catholic double effect, you cannot. Now, if the first trimester guy stated that he intended to work for making abortion illegal after the first trimester, then you COULD vote for the guy ... based on the good of his wanting to make abortion illegal under those conditions. But there MUST BE SOMETHING GOOD in the candidate that you are intending to vote for (without the relativism of comparing him to another candidate).

In the case I just mentioned,

1) you are intending a positive good (wanting abortion illegal after the first trimester)
2) do not intend the bad (wanting to keep it legal in the first trimester)
3) the bad part doesn't come directly from the good part
4) and the bad is not out of proportion with the good

So if innocent people are currently being fed live through a meat grinder at the rate of 1,000 per day;

2 candidates are in the race;

one candidate wants to keep it at the current rate and would even be indifferent to an increase; and

the other candidate wants to scale it back to 100 per day.

You're going to abstain from voting?

That's equivalent to being physically capable of saving 9 people from drowning, but saying to hell with all of them because you can't save the tenth one.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #72 on:** February 09, 2016, 12:50:32 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

So if innocent people are currently being fed live through a meat grinder at the rate of 1,000 per day;

2 candidates are in the race;

one candidate wants to keep it at the current rate and would even be indifferent to an increase; and

the other candidate wants to scale it back to 100 per day.

You're going to abstain from voting?

That's equivalent to being physically capable of saving 9 people from drowning, but saying to hell with all of them because you can't save the tenth one.

That's Protestant lesser-evil thinking. You have 10 people on a lifeboat. It will sink unless you throw 2 people overboard. You're not going to save 8 people by refusing to throw 2 people overboard?

AnonymousCatholic · « **Reply #73 on:** February 09, 2016, 01:27:27 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Graham
Double effect, Lad. It is licit to vote for a bad candidate to prevent a worse candidate.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Double-effect does not mean voting "to prevent a worse candidate". What you articulate is NOT double-effect but lesser evil.

That's like saying that it's OK to remove a baby in an ectopic pregnancy in order to prevent the greater evil of having both the mother and the baby die. That is NOT CATHOLIC. You are performing an operation in order to save the life of the mother (note, you are not killing a baby), the unintended consequence of which would be the death of the baby. It must be an unintended SIDE-EFFECT of something that's a good (saving the life of the mother), which outweighs the harm of the double-effect.

In double-effect ...

1) the action itself must be good -- I am saving the life of the mother

2) you must only intend the good part (and not the secondary effect) -- I am not intending to kill the baby

3) the good effect cannot arise from the bad effect (must be the other way around) -- I am not directly killing the baby but removing a damaged organ (there are ways that this procedure can be done and ways it cannot be done in order to comply with this)

4) the bad effect cannot be disproportionate with the bad effect -- (I cannot remove the organ simply to help the mother's mental state for example)

So let's apply this to voting.

I am voting for a candidate who promises to appoint Pro Life justices to the Supreme Court (assuming you can believe any of these liars). But this candidate wants to attack some country unjustly, resulting in the deaths of many innocents. By voting for this candidate, I intend to help put into power someone who might change the plight of the unborn and not someone who would attacks innocents in an unjust war. In that case, the latter would be an unintended secondary effect (the double effect). Here one can argue regarding the proportionality (the question of whether such a person's appointments will in fact make any difference vs. the probability that this person would kill innocents in an unjust war).

But to vote for a candidate to prevent a worse candidate from arising is "lesser evil" thinking and is not Catholic. And I vehemently disagree with those theologians who claim otherwise. So the candidate you vote for must in fact be a good. You cannot vote for a bad candidate in order to prevent a worse candidate.

So let's apply that to the case I cited earlier, where you have one candidate who's for abortion in the first trimester and another who's for abortion on demand throughout the pregnancy (even to the point of partial birth). You cannot vote for the first trimester guy based on double-effect, because he's not a good candidate. You cannot do it even in order to prevent a worse guy from getting into office. You're doing a BAD in order to prevent a GREATER BAD. And here's the difference that most of you fail to understand. According to "lesser evil" thinking, then yes you could vote for the first trimester guy. But according to Catholic double effect, you cannot. Now, if the first trimester guy stated that he intended to work for making abortion illegal after the first trimester, then you COULD vote for the guy ... based on the good of his wanting to make abortion illegal under those conditions. But there MUST BE SOMETHING GOOD in the candidate that you are intending to vote for (without the relativism of comparing him to another candidate).

In the case I just mentioned,

1) you are intending a positive good (wanting abortion illegal after the first trimester)
2) do not intend the bad (wanting to keep it legal in the first trimester)
3) the bad part doesn't come directly from the good part
4) and the bad is not out of proportion with the good

So if innocent people are currently being fed live through a meat grinder at the rate of 1,000 per day;

2 candidates are in the race;

one candidate wants to keep it at the current rate and would even be indifferent to an increase; and

the other candidate wants to scale it back to 100 per day.

You're going to abstain from voting?

That's equivalent to being physically capable of saving 9 people from drowning, but saying to hell with all of them because you can't save the tenth one.

No, I would vote for the candidate in a lesser known party that's saying "lets stop throwing people into meat grinders all together". The question at hand is whether or not it is okay for a Traditional Catholic to vote for a Republican candidate because it's the lesser of two evils supposedly. But that isn't the case. Republicans commit the same amount of evil through the form of supporting Israel by carpet bombing cities because of suspected terrorist activity. They kill the same amount of innocent children if not more than the practice of abortion supported by the Democrats. Republicans are only pro life to the extent of American children. They care not about the children of the middle east and they show it by actively bombing them. I'm pretty sure the Church's stance on pro life extends to all life regardless of nationality.

So a better analogy would be:

You and 10 other people are on a raft but there isn't any food. You can save 5 of your people by eating the other 5. Is it the lesser of two evils to eat those 5 to save 5, rather than all 10 starving to death?

AnonymousCatholic · « **Reply #74 on:** February 09, 2016, 01:30:04 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Graham
Quote from: AnonymousCatholic
Quote from: Graham
You overlooked however that the act of voting is good in itself. This is where double effect comes into play, according to the theologians.

Theologians from 1950, speaking about the politics of the ever changing America.

Voting has not stopped being intrinsically good. And I think this is what's fundamentally in dispute. Some trads, a past self of mine included, have the attitude that voting is intrinsically neutral, or maybe evil and revolutionary. Not so.

Voting was used in the early Church. It's of Apostolic Tradition. So it can't be "evil."

The Holy Ghost works through casting of ballots. But that's not to say that every election is an act of God.

So your average American shares the same qualifications as the members of the early Church? The same American that either supports abortion vs carpet bombing children?