Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Matthew on October 28, 2008, 02:56:21 PM

Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Matthew on October 28, 2008, 02:56:21 PM
Download it here!
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: MaterDominici on February 03, 2016, 08:45:47 PM
BUMP!

A couple of excerpts:

Quote
For a Catholic, there can be no doubt that the issues that take the
highest priority must be the moral issues, and not personal or economic
issues.


Quote
It is not obligatory to vote for a lesser evil, but simply prudent
and permissible.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: AnonymousCatholic on February 03, 2016, 09:01:33 PM
I have a feeling that Pope Pius XII couldn't even imagine what the lesser of two evils would mean in 2016.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: JPM on February 04, 2016, 09:38:07 AM
Quote from: AnonymousCatholic
I have a feeling that Pope Pius XII couldn't even imagine what the lesser of two evils would mean in 2016.


That might be true, but, as Catholics, we do have a pretty bright red line; if you are a candidate that wants to save babies you are better than a candidate who wants to continue killing them.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: AnonymousCatholic on February 05, 2016, 12:56:38 AM
Quote from: JPM
Quote from: AnonymousCatholic
I have a feeling that Pope Pius XII couldn't even imagine what the lesser of two evils would mean in 2016.


That might be true, but, as Catholics, we do have a pretty bright red line; if you are a candidate that wants to save babies you are better than a candidate who wants to continue killing them.



Of course that is true, but when have Republicans ever pushed an effective means to end abortion? I have yet to see anything effective from them other than the occasional mentioning of a pro-life stance. Not to mention the Republican party have been huge supporters of Israel and the genocide of the middle east.

I'm no Democrat but at least the Democrat doesn't use the name of God to justify horrendous acts.


There's be a list which a Catholic should use to determine whether or not to support a candidate. If the candidate does at least half of the following then you can use the "lesser of two evils argument". Otherwise they're just as evil as the next.


The list consists of (but is not limited to): Are they pro-life (and actually act upon it)? Are they against Israel and it's corrupt war? Are they against sodomy? Are they against the free flow of pornography and similar items found on the media? Do they support the preservation of the constitution and the founding principles of this nation? Do they support the idea of family (this includes denouncing remarrying several times with the ex still breathing)?...


I could go on for hours making a 100 page list but these are the most basic of Catholic principles and are essential for any nation to survive without destroying it's soul and branding itself an enemy to Christ.


We as Catholics must realize that there is nothing popular that holds true to the laws of Christ. If it's popular, it's popular for a reason and that's the reality of it. We are the minority of all minorities and we don't have a say anymore. Minorities only are allowed to speak when promoting the ideas of the liberal agenda, a list we are incompatible with (fortunately). Instead of voting this year spend that time praying for a quick return of our Lord because prayer is the only vote that matters anymore.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: cassini on February 05, 2016, 05:31:55 AM
Quote from: JPM
Quote from: AnonymousCatholic
I have a feeling that Pope Pius XII couldn't even imagine what the lesser of two evils would mean in 2016.


That might be true, but, as Catholics, we do have a pretty bright red line; if you are a candidate that wants to save babies you are better than a candidate who wants to continue killing them.


The problem as to how Catholics must vote was one never intended by God. He set up kings to rule, popes to advise kings how to rule and God had laid down the rules for the popes to instruct the kings.

Satan did away with Christian kingdoms (only one ruling king was present in the kings seats at Vatican I, Portugal, after which Our Lady appeared at Fatima) and replaced God's rulers with corrupt man-decided rules. As happened in Ireland recently, 33% of the people decided Ireland was to follow Sodom and Gomorrah laws that pretended homosexuals and lesbians could 'marry.' Why even our ex-president, 'theologian' Mary MacAleese, who advises all how to be a Catholic, outed her son as a homo and canvassed the people to vote for their 'right' to marry.

We in Ireland have a government election in 4 weeks. Not one politician opposed the homo-marriage change to our constitution even though 700,000 voted against it to no avail, nor one who has opposed the oncoming abortion legislation. Indeed the Labour Party and all the left are canvassing for election on the basis that they will bring in abortion quicker, take over 'Catholic' schools quicker and all that stuff.

As an example of what we in Ireland are up to now, a friend whose children go to a 'Catholic' school received a phone call the other day from the school. My friends had left them in no doubt that their kids were not to have sex lessons or anything like that at school, that she would decide these matters. This call told them the kids (about 14-16) were having HOMOSEXUAL SEX INSTRUCTIONS in their school so as she could remove her kids.

 In other words Catholics who put their faith and morals before 'its the economy stupid' have no one to vote for in modern 'Catholic' Ireland where 90% or so ticked Catholic in the census box last time.

As far as my wife and I and I hope my kids, are concerned, there is no lesser evil, no lesser principle to vote for. So here are two, hopefully seven, who have no one to vote for in this DEMOCRACY of ours.  
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 05, 2016, 10:59:57 AM
Quote
Indeed the Labour Party and all the left are canvassing for election on the basis that they will bring in abortion quicker, take over 'Catholic' schools quicker and all that stuff.

It seems to me the liberals in Ireland are more honest than the liberals in America.

If those were Americans "canvassing for election" they would be saying they're for change.  That's the end of the description:  "change."  They keep it vague so that it can mean whatever the listener wants it to mean.

Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Ladislaus on February 05, 2016, 01:46:10 PM
It is neither "prudent" nor "permissible" to vote for a lesser evil.  Sorry.  That's false ends-justifies-the-means moral reasoning.  It is NOT Catholic.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Ladislaus on February 05, 2016, 01:49:02 PM
And toss in a dose of moral relativism for good measure:

Quote
Everything depends upon a hierarchy of the most important values and
issues taking priority over lesser ones.

Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Ladislaus on February 05, 2016, 01:50:26 PM
Lesser-evil can only apply within the context of two "worthy" candidates, those who do not hold anything that's contrary to Catholic faith or morals or natural law.

By voting for a candidate, we FORMALLY (not only materially) cooperate in whatever evil actions that the candidate would perpetrate upon assuming office.  Just because you "don't agree" doesn't make you a MATERIAL accomplice.

Who wrote this crap anyway?
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Ladislaus on February 05, 2016, 01:55:44 PM
Now the only CATHOLIC argument one might make would be based on the principle of double effect.  "Lesser evil" thinking is abhorrent to Catholic moral theology.  You can NEVER do evil in order to prevent a greater evil.  Period.

Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Ladislaus on February 05, 2016, 02:00:02 PM
How much has all this voting for "Pro Life" candidates accomplished?  At least a couple of these "Pro Life" presidents appointed Supreme Court Justices that have set back the Pro Life cause.  It's all a fraud.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: B from A on February 05, 2016, 02:11:14 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Now the only CATHOLIC argument one might make would be based on the principle of double effect.  "Lesser evil" thinking is abhorrent to Catholic moral theology.  You can NEVER do evil in order to prevent a greater evil.  Period.


I was thinking of posting an article, but I couldn't remember that term, "principle of double effect".  Thank you!  Now that you reminded me of it, I was able to find the article.  It is about this topic, about the so-called "lesser of two evils" in voting, vs. the principle of double effect.  

Quote
The Lesser of Two Evils (http://catholicism.org/lesser-of-two-evils.html)

Forming Character
In the movie “Master and Commander,” Rear Admiral Sir John Aubrey (played by Russell Crowe) pretends to ask one of his officers a difficult question. He inquires which of two weevils that have appeared on the ship’s table would be the proper weevil to choose. When the befuddled seaman points to the larger of the two, Admiral Aubrey corrects him, asserting confidently that he ought to have chosen “the lesser of two weevils.”

Aubrey’s joke is, of course, a pun off the moral principle which states that, when forced, one is permitted to choose “the lesser of two evils.” The phrase is used most often in electoral politics. For that reason, we are virtually guaranteed to hear much more of it during what is shaping up to be a particularly gory election year.

A False Principle

It is a serious problem that this “principle,” now apparently part of our national lexicon of political ethics, is being mouthed by Catholics. If the relevant Wikipedia article is correct, the origin of the principle is found in U.S. foreign policy statecraft of the Cold-War era. Whatever its source, the dictum is anything but Catholic.

This may come as a revelation to political pragmatists, but Catholics may not choose any evil. None — period. There is a principle in Moral Theology — the principle of double effect — which, under certain clearly defined conditions, permits us to perform an act that has both a good and an evil effect, but there is no allowance whatsoever in the Catholic system for directly choosing an evil.

A True Principle

The principle of double effect can be outlined briefly as follows. Sometimes the same act causes both a good result and an evil result at the same time. Can such an act be performed? The answer is that it can be, provided that all the following four conditions are met : First, the act itself must be good or indifferent. Second, the good effect must not be caused by the evil effect. Third, the good effect and not the evil effect must be directly intended by the agent. Forth, there must be a proportionality between the good and evil result (i.e., the good must outweigh the evil).1

The principle is applied across the whole spectrum of Catholic morals, but notably in the areas of just war doctrine and medical ethics. Ectopic pregnancy , a medical complication which touches upon the abortion debate, is something of a textbook case in double effect. (The pro-aborts simply lie when they say that an ectopic pregnancy is a case where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. In no case is the murder of her child necessary to save a mother.)

But let’s get back to politics. A fundamental question is this: What constitutes a moral evil in electoral politics? Or, conversely, what is a moral good in exercising our citizen’s right to vote?

To answer these questions, we must back up a bit to see the larger picture.

Politics as “Normal” vs. Politics as Usual

We are speaking of politics. Like economics, politics was classically part of the science of ethics. The Greeks approached it this way, and their tradition was continued by the Scholastic thinkers. Politics is the art and science of governing a society. It is a “normative” science inasmuch as it seeks to govern society well and rightly . Normative sciences, such as logic and aesthetics, seek to establish the right way of doing things.2 We can contrast these with the “descriptive sciences,” which study the way things actually are. An illustration will help: The normative science of ethics tells us how people ought to act, while the descriptive sciences of behavioral psychology or criminology study how people do act — and that is often badly!

Since politics is a subdivision of ethics, its principles must fit coherently with the entirety of right behavior. All this established, we can answer our above questions very simply: It is a moral evil to support a candidate whose platform runs contrary to the natural law. Conversely, it is a moral good to support one who works to uphold the natural law. For Catholics, to do the latter is, in part, to advance the social reign of Our Lord .

Some Practical Considerations

Without saying who my favorite candidate is, I will give some practical pointers on what, from this ethical point of view, constitutes a good candidate in today’s milieu. A good candidate would:

1. Oppose abortion by some practical means, not merely paying the pro-life cause lip service in order to garner the often naive support of well-meaning pro-lifers.

2. Protect the rights of parents in the matter of begetting and educating children. This is to protect the family, which is the building block of the state. The state is a “perfect society” (one having at its disposal all the means to achieve its ends), but the family is a more important and more fundamental society. Attack the family and you attack the state, all social order, and even God Himself, who gave us the family.

3. Protect the patria (the fatherland) by securing its defenses. This is a divine obligation upon rulers of nations.

4. Cease the prosecution of unjust wars. (By this, I do not mean we ought to vote for a pacifist . Pacifism is not Christian.) The just war doctrine is more than an academic “theory.” It is one part of Catholic doctrine that has penetrated into the very consciences of the nations which constitute former Christendom. When those nations act Christian, they do not prosecute unjust wars.

5. Uphold the rule of law. While it is not a “Catholic document” (some of its principles are clearly Lockean), the United States Constitution provides the positive-legal protection for the Church’s freedoms in this country. Note, the Church is free because God made her free , not because the state gives her rights. But a just society will respect this freedom the Church has by her very nature. Pope Leo XIII happily acknowledged that the rule of law protected the Church in this country. In these days of creeping statism, globalism, and governmental usurpation of the prerogatives of the Church, Catholics — who have always upheld the rule of law — should do what we can to uphold the law of the land. (For an illustration of the modern megastate’s anti-Catholic hubris, read this .)

This little catalog is by no means exhaustive, but it is a short list of issues that leave absolutely no room for debate among Catholics. It should be noted that number five on this list — something few candidates are at all interested in — includes numerous moral goods and rejects many more evils.

Casting My Vote

Being a citizen of New Hampshire, it was recently my civic duty to vote in the Granite State’s Primary. When I selected a candidate on my ballot (a paper one , by the way) the above Catholic moral-theological principles were my guides. I did not vote for a “lesser evil,” a “lesser weevil ,” or a “lesser weasel ,” for that matter. Whatever in the platform or political thinking of my candidate of choice is evil — and there are a few things I could point to — I voted for him because the principle of double effect clearly allowed for it, and by a wide margin, as the good vastly outweighed the evil.

And what if the principle of double effect would not allow me to vote for someone on the ballot, either in a primary or in the national election in November? I would write in someone who is a good candidate. To some, that may constitute “throwing away” my vote, but such a pragmatic conception of politics as merely “the art of the possible” I reject utterly as being unethical. It represents the kind of moral cowardice that safeguards the status quo: the near complete marginalization of Catholic moral principles in the governing of our nation. In short, it leaves us prey to such intellectual perversity as “it’s OK to choose the lesser of two evils.”


* * * * * * * * * * * *

1 I am unaware of a full explanation of double effect in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. However, the principle is invoked in a citation from the Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas in the CCC’s treatment of self defense:

“2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. ‘The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…. the one is intended, the other is not.’65 [65 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 64, 7, corp. art.] (Emphasis mine.)

2 The three basic normative sciences — logic, ethics, and aesthetics — roughly correspond to the transcendental values: the true, the good, and the beautiful.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: B from A on February 05, 2016, 02:14:55 PM
Quote from: AnonymousCatholic
Quote from: JPM
That might be true, but, as Catholics, we do have a pretty bright red line; if you are a candidate that wants to save babies you are better than a candidate who wants to continue killing them.


Of course that is true, but when have Republicans ever pushed an effective means to end abortion? I have yet to see anything effective from them other than the occasional mentioning of a pro-life stance. Not to mention the Republican party have been huge supporters of Israel and the genocide of the middle east.


Quote from: Ladislaus
How much has all this voting for "Pro Life" candidates accomplished?  At least a couple of these "Pro Life" presidents appointed Supreme Court Justices that have set back the Pro Life cause.  It's all a fraud.


Exactly.  
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Ladislaus on February 05, 2016, 02:20:49 PM
Thanks, B from A.

Yes, the very language of "lesser evil" should be absolutely repugnant to Catholics and yet we find it in an Angelus article.  Nor is one absolved from formal cooperation (i.e. a mere material co-operator) simply because one internally "disagrees" with the evil being cooperated with.

If a priest wrote this article, he needs to return to Moral Theology 101 class.  That's why I referred to it as crap.  It's crap and pernicious crap at that.  It instills concepts like "lesser evil" in Catholic minds and implies that not "agreeing" with some evil renders one a mere material cooperator.  Shame on them!

Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Ladislaus on February 05, 2016, 02:25:13 PM
LOL, it takes an ignorant "Feeneyite" (Brother Andre Marie) to get this right.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: HiddenServant on February 05, 2016, 02:49:43 PM
  What about Brother Andre Marie. I used to be friend with him on Facebook.
He was good but not sure totally how traditional he is and may still be. :detective:
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: MaterDominici on February 05, 2016, 05:35:20 PM
I appreciate the accurate explanation, but it didn't seem to me to have much effect on the overall conclusion.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: McCork on February 05, 2016, 05:55:35 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus
It is neither "prudent" nor "permissible" to vote for a lesser evil.  Sorry.  That's false ends-justifies-the-means moral reasoning.  It is NOT Catholic.


The principle is that if one ONLY has two choices of evil, he must choose the lesser evil. But "voting" really isn't that....because you can choose NOT TO VOTE, or to vote for a WRITE IN CANDIDATE....at least in the U.S.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Ladislaus on February 05, 2016, 08:18:22 PM
Quote from: MaterDominici
I appreciate the accurate explanation, but it didn't seem to me to have much effect on the overall conclusion.


No, no, no.  Principles matter, Mater.  Two people can do the exact same action, materially speaking, but it could be a sin for one but a virtue for the other depending upon their formal intent, and it's the reasoning and principles applied that will determine the formal morality of the action.  This is absolutely crucial and cannot be blown off as mere pedantic or academic splitting of hairs.

"Lesser evil" thinking is morally repugnant and must be repudiated by all Catholics.  Period.

And there can in fact be radically different material outcomes of applying double effect vs. lesser evil.

So, no, it's absolutely NOT just hair-splitting.

Let us imagine a presidential election in which one candidate favors abortion but only in the first trimester while the other candidate wants no limits up to and including partial birth abortion.  So can you vote for the first-trimester abortion proponent as a "lesser evil"?
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: MaterDominici on February 05, 2016, 08:37:04 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus

Let us imagine a presidential election in which one candidate favors abortion but only in the first trimester while the other candidate wants no limits up to and including partial birth abortion.  So can you vote for the first-trimester abortion proponent as a "lesser evil"?


I'm teeter-tottering on the edge of quite confused. : )

No real Catholic would say they're voting for him because "he's for 1st trimester abortion" (an evil) but rather, "because he's against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion" (a good). Presuming no one else is against abortion at all, wouldn't it be permissible to vote for the only candidate who is against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion?
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: B from A on February 05, 2016, 08:53:50 PM
Quote from: MaterDominici
Quote from: Ladislaus

Let us imagine a presidential election in which one candidate favors abortion but only in the first trimester while the other candidate wants no limits up to and including partial birth abortion.  So can you vote for the first-trimester abortion proponent as a "lesser evil"?


I'm teeter-tottering on the edge of quite confused. : )

No real Catholic would say they're voting for him because "he's for 1st trimester abortion" (an evil) but rather, "because he's against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion" (a good). Presuming no one else is against abortion at all, wouldn't it be permissible to vote for the only candidate who is against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion?


No.

I'll let Ladislaus or others comment more on the principles, but I'll just say, imagine if the only 2 candidates were Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung, would you vote for Stalin since he'll kill fewer people?  Hopefully that example helps illustrate it.  
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: B from A on February 05, 2016, 09:00:28 PM
"It is a moral evil to support a candidate whose platform runs contrary to the natural law. "

Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: B from A on February 05, 2016, 09:09:23 PM
Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Ladislaus
It is neither "prudent" nor "permissible" to vote for a lesser evil.  Sorry.  That's false ends-justifies-the-means moral reasoning.  It is NOT Catholic.


The principle is that if one ONLY has two choices of evil, he must choose the lesser evil. But "voting" really isn't that....because you can choose NOT TO VOTE, or to vote for a WRITE IN CANDIDATE....at least in the U.S.


Just so I understand what you're saying:

People are arguing that there are only 2 choices:

1. vote for evil candidate X
2. vote for evil candidate Y, who is supposedly slightly less evil than candidate X (because it's only way to keep out supposedly even worse candidate X)

 Whereas you are saying that is incorrect, in that we have more choices,

1. vote for evil candidate X
2. vote for evil candidate Y, who is supposedly slightly less evil than candidate X
3. don't vote at all because both X & Y are evil (and our voting system is a complete fraud anyway)
4. write someone else in

i.e. It's not like someone is putting a gun to our head, saying "you must vote for evil candidate X or Y."

Is that what you're saying above?  
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: MaterDominici on February 05, 2016, 10:14:49 PM
Quote from:  B from A
Quote from: MaterDominici
Quote from: Ladislaus

Let us imagine a presidential election in which one candidate favors abortion but only in the first trimester while the other candidate wants no limits up to and including partial birth abortion.  So can you vote for the first-trimester abortion proponent as a "lesser evil"?


I'm teeter-tottering on the edge of quite confused. : )

No real Catholic would say they're voting for him because "he's for 1st trimester abortion" (an evil) but rather, "because he's against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion" (a good). Presuming no one else is against abortion at all, wouldn't it be permissible to vote for the only candidate who is against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion?


No.

I'll let Ladislaus or others comment more on the principles, but I'll just say, imagine if the only 2 candidates were Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung, would you vote for Stalin since he'll kill fewer people?  Hopefully that example helps illustrate it.  


OK, I was thinking how some chip away at abortion rather than attempt to take on the entire immoral practice, but even those sort would never say they are "for" 1st trimester abortion.

So does it follow that anyone who says they're "against abortion except in cases of A, B, C" would likewise be not an option for a Catholic?
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Nadir on February 06, 2016, 01:05:26 AM
Quote from: MaterDominici
Quote from: Ladislaus

Let us imagine a presidential election in which one candidate favors abortion but only in the first trimester while the other candidate wants no limits up to and including partial birth abortion.  So can you vote for the first-trimester abortion proponent as a "lesser evil"?


I'm teeter-tottering on the edge of quite confused. : )

No real Catholic would say they're voting for him because "he's for 1st trimester abortion" (an evil) but rather, "because he's against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion" (a good). Presuming no one else is against abortion at all, wouldn't it be permissible to vote for the only candidate who is against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion?


Mater, put it this way:
A candidate says:
Quote
I believe it is OK to kill 1 yr old children, but I think killing a 2 or 3 yr old is going too far.


Does that make the issue less confused. He is not against abortion per se. He against aborting older babies, and, I would presume, he is for it in difficult circumstances, in the case of rape, young girls, women endangered, disabled child, etc.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: MaterDominici on February 06, 2016, 01:46:24 AM
Quote from: Nadir
Quote from: MaterDominici
Quote from: Ladislaus

Let us imagine a presidential election in which one candidate favors abortion but only in the first trimester while the other candidate wants no limits up to and including partial birth abortion.  So can you vote for the first-trimester abortion proponent as a "lesser evil"?


I'm teeter-tottering on the edge of quite confused. : )

No real Catholic would say they're voting for him because "he's for 1st trimester abortion" (an evil) but rather, "because he's against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion" (a good). Presuming no one else is against abortion at all, wouldn't it be permissible to vote for the only candidate who is against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion?


Mater, put it this way:
A candidate says:
Quote
I believe it is OK to kill 1 yr old children, but I think killing a 2 or 3 yr old is going too far.


Does that make the issue less confused. He is not against abortion per se. He against aborting older babies, and, I would presume, he is for it in difficult circumstances, in the case of rape, young girls, women endangered, disabled child, etc.


So likewise, you wouldn't support someone who is only in favor of killing disabled children or children who were the result of rape.

So, my next question is whether or not there is any amount of good positions in line with the natural law a candidate could have which would be sufficient to override the evil of being in favor of any sort of abortion?
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: clare on February 06, 2016, 02:10:19 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: MaterDominici
I appreciate the accurate explanation, but it didn't seem to me to have much effect on the overall conclusion.


No, no, no.  Principles matter, Mater.  Two people can do the exact same action, materially speaking, but it could be a sin for one but a virtue for the other depending upon their formal intent, and it's the reasoning and principles applied that will determine the formal morality of the action.  This is absolutely crucial and cannot be blown off as mere pedantic or academic splitting of hairs.

"Lesser evil" thinking is morally repugnant and must be repudiated by all Catholics.  Period.

And there can in fact be radically different material outcomes of applying double effect vs. lesser evil.

So, no, it's absolutely NOT just hair-splitting.

Let us imagine a presidential election in which one candidate favors abortion but only in the first trimester while the other candidate wants no limits up to and including partial birth abortion.  So can you vote for the first-trimester abortion proponent as a "lesser evil"?

What if you see it as a matter of not voting for the lesser evil, but voting against the greater evil?
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Nadir on February 06, 2016, 03:07:10 AM
MaterDomenici said:
Quote
So likewise, you wouldn't support someone who is only in favor of killing disabled children or children who were the result of rape.



In answer to your first question, Mater. I would never vote for a candidate who supports any abortion whatsoever.

What is this only the disabled and only the child conceived in rape?
Is (being in favour of) the killing of a disabled child or a child of rape any less heinous than (being in favour of) killing a presumedly healthy child or a child conceived within marriage?

Quote
So, my next question is whether or not there is any amount of good positions in line with the natural law a candidate could have which would be sufficient to override the evil of being in favor of any sort of abortion?


No.  "Any amount of good positions in line with the natural law" could not overide the evil of supporting abortion in any circumstance. Isn't abortion the killing of the innocent child that God Himself decreed should live on this earth? How could such a person who is willing to support abortion represent us, our needs and our beliefs etc? He is not fit to do so. No Catholic ought to vote for him.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: McCork on February 06, 2016, 07:39:55 AM
Quote from:  B from A
Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Ladislaus
It is neither "prudent" nor "permissible" to vote for a lesser evil.  Sorry.  That's false ends-justifies-the-means moral reasoning.  It is NOT Catholic.


The principle is that if one ONLY has two choices of evil, he must choose the lesser evil. But "voting" really isn't that....because you can choose NOT TO VOTE, or to vote for a WRITE IN CANDIDATE....at least in the U.S.


Just so I understand what you're saying:

People are arguing that there are only 2 choices:

1. vote for evil candidate X
2. vote for evil candidate Y, who is supposedly slightly less evil than candidate X (because it's only way to keep out supposedly even worse candidate X)

 Whereas you are saying that is incorrect, in that we have more choices,

1. vote for evil candidate X
2. vote for evil candidate Y, who is supposedly slightly less evil than candidate X
3. don't vote at all because both X & Y are evil (and our voting system is a complete fraud anyway)
4. write someone else in

i.e. It's not like someone is putting a gun to our head, saying "you must vote for evil candidate X or Y."

Is that what you're saying above?  


Yes. We can vote for an evil when we have no other choice but to vote for an evil, and if that time comes, we would be forced to choose the lesser evil. But we DO have a choice to refrain from voting, or to write in a candidate. Until people realize this, evil will forever be voted in, and the degradation of society will continue.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: ClarkSmith on February 06, 2016, 11:01:58 AM
Voting gives the American public a false illusion of choice. Nearly all the candidates are identical. The difference between Democrats and Republicans grows smaller every year .  People have said jokingly that it's only a matter of time before Republicans  are saying gay marriage was always  a conservative value.  We have already reached that stage.  Voting is a rigged game and it won't change anytime soon.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: B from A on February 06, 2016, 02:40:27 PM
Quote from: McCork
But we DO have a choice to refrain from voting, or to write in a candidate. Until people realize this, evil will forever be voted in, and the degradation of society will continue.


Right.  Not to mention there have sometimes been good or decent candidates in other parties, actually on the ballot, for whom one can vote in good conscience.  So to pretend the supposedly "lesser of 2 evils" candidate of one of the 2 mainstream parties is the only option is false.  But the powers that be have [I am trying really hard to refrain from using the word "brainwashed"] convinced the "conservatives" that they must vote for these rotten "lesser of 2 evils" candidates because it's supposedly the only way to keep out the apparently greater evil, it's become the biggest self-fulfilling prophecy ever.  Because of this, as you said well, "Until people realize this, evil will forever be voted in, and the degradation of society will continue."

Not to mention that

Quote from: ClarkSmith
Voting gives the American public a false illusion of choice. Nearly all the candidates are identical. The difference between Democrats and Republicans grows smaller every year .  People have said jokingly that it's only a matter of time before Republicans  are saying gay marriage was always  a conservative value.  We have already reached that stage.  Voting is a rigged game and it won't change anytime soon.


It is truly rigged.  Another reason not to vote for an evil candidate.  
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: MaterDominici on February 06, 2016, 08:53:44 PM
Quote from: Nadir
MaterDomenici said:
Quote
So likewise, you wouldn't support someone who is only in favor of killing disabled children or children who were the result of rape.



In answer to your first question, Mater. I would never vote for a candidate who supports any abortion whatsoever.

What is this only the disabled and only the child conceived in rape?
Is (being in favour of) the killing of a disabled child or a child of rape any less heinous than (being in favour of) killing a presumedly healthy child or a child conceived within marriage?


I said "only" to point out how ridiculous it would be to vote for someone with abortion "exceptions" if this is indeed the correct application of the double effect principle. I hear people on this forum talk every four years about how none of us should vote for anyone (and some arguing the opposite), but seldom do they reference a principle and apply it to the situation. It's most commonly just one guy's opinion vs. another.

Quote
Quote
So, my next question is whether or not there is any amount of good positions in line with the natural law a candidate could have which would be sufficient to override the evil of being in favor of any sort of abortion?


No.  "Any amount of good positions in line with the natural law" could not overide the evil of supporting abortion in any circumstance. Isn't abortion the killing of the innocent child that God Himself decreed should live on this earth? How could such a person who is willing to support abortion represent us, our needs and our beliefs etc? He is not fit to do so. No Catholic ought to vote for him.


Alright. (... and I'd like to hear if anyone disagrees with any of this.)

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?
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: MaterDominici on February 06, 2016, 08:55:27 PM
Quote from:  B from A

Quote from: ClarkSmith
Voting gives the American public a false illusion of choice. Nearly all the candidates are identical. The difference between Democrats and Republicans grows smaller every year .  People have said jokingly that it's only a matter of time before Republicans  are saying gay marriage was always  a conservative value.  We have already reached that stage.  Voting is a rigged game and it won't change anytime soon.


It is truly rigged.  Another reason not to vote for an evil candidate.  


I think the higher up you go, the greater chance of this being the case, but I don't think it's true of every election, everywhere.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: B from A on February 06, 2016, 09:24:42 PM
Quote from: MaterDominici
Quote
It is truly rigged.


I think the higher up you go, the greater chance of this being the case, but I don't think it's true of every election, everywhere.


Yes; I am speaking mainly of presidential elections here.  I don't know about local elections etc.  As you said, it's probably more & more so the higher up you go.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Nadir on February 06, 2016, 09:41:24 PM
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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Graham on February 07, 2016, 10:19:09 AM
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

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.

175. c. 4, p. 7.
176. Prov. 11:14
177. “Omnes fere moderni theologi concedunt electionem mali deputati non esse quid intrinsecum malum, ac proinde aliquando per accidens licere ad avertenda majora mala.” Prümmer, op. Cit., 2, 604.
178. Compendium 343.
179. Op. cit., 1, 729.
180. Op. cit., 3, 981.
181. Op. cit., 2, 604.
181a Op. cit., 1, 115.
182. Op. cit., 1, 786.
183. Op. cit., 2, 161.
184. Op. cit., 4, 26, 4.
185. Op. cit., 262.
186. Op. cit., 138.
187. Ryan-Boland, 207-208.

Above text taken from the Bellarmine Forums, found here:
sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=846

Full book scanned online here:
www.novusordowatch.org/cranny.pdf
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: MyrnaM on February 07, 2016, 10:46:45 AM
Quote from: JPM
Quote from: AnonymousCatholic
I have a feeling that Pope Pius XII couldn't even imagine what the lesser of two evils would mean in 2016.


That might be true, but, as Catholics, we do have a pretty bright red line; if you are a candidate that wants to save babies you are better than a candidate who wants to continue killing them.


Worth Repeating!

 :applause:
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Graham on February 07, 2016, 11:03:58 AM
Quote from: MaterDominici
Quote from: Nadir
Quote
So, my next question is whether or not there is any amount of good positions in line with the natural law a candidate could have which would be sufficient to override the evil of being in favor of any sort of abortion?


No.  "Any amount of good positions in line with the natural law" could not overide the evil of supporting abortion in any circumstance. Isn't abortion the killing of the innocent child that God Himself decreed should live on this earth? How could such a person who is willing to support abortion represent us, our needs and our beliefs etc? He is not fit to do so. No Catholic ought to vote for him.


Alright. (... and I'd like to hear if anyone disagrees with any of this.)

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?


Perhaps I could agree that no Catholic ought to vote for him ("ought" denoting a positive moral obligation), nor support his position on abortion, but what is indisputable is that a Catholic can vote for him if double effect applies.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: OHCA on February 07, 2016, 11:15:15 AM
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

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.

175. c. 4, p. 7.
176. Prov. 11:14
177. “Omnes fere moderni theologi concedunt electionem mali deputati non esse quid intrinsecum malum, ac proinde aliquando per accidens licere ad avertenda majora mala.” Prümmer, op. Cit., 2, 604.
178. Compendium 343.
179. Op. cit., 1, 729.
180. Op. cit., 3, 981.
181. Op. cit., 2, 604.
181a Op. cit., 1, 115.
182. Op. cit., 1, 786.
183. Op. cit., 2, 161.
184. Op. cit., 4, 26, 4.
185. Op. cit., 262.
186. Op. cit., 138.
187. Ryan-Boland, 207-208.

Above text taken from the Bellarmine Forums, found here:
sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=846

Full book scanned online here:
www.novusordowatch.org/cranny.pdf


Finally a Catholic voice instead of a bunch of protestantesque individual hypothesizing and speculating.  Thanks for posting this Graham.  Everybody else seems to have been lead astray by the simpleton masses erroneously spewing "lesser of evils" who have no idea what it means.  "Lesser of evils," in it's purest sense, is a misnomer in the context of voting--voting is NOT an evil act.  Yet we have got all of these high-minded dissertations about "lesser of evils" that completely miss the point.  They sound like they have traded all of their commonsense for just enough book-learning to be dangerous.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Graham on February 07, 2016, 11:25:07 AM
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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: MaterDominici on February 07, 2016, 01:50:54 PM
Thank you, Graham, for the article.

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.


While all of those things are good in themselves, I think moral issues severely outweigh economic and foreign issues. I think it far easier to save souls in a poor country flooded with migrants than in one where sodomy and abortion are considered normal.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Nadir on February 07, 2016, 02:38:05 PM
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.

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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Graham on February 07, 2016, 02:57:29 PM
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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: AnonymousCatholic on February 07, 2016, 05:33:19 PM
Quote from: Graham
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.





I am personally more scared of a feral pack of American Treyvon Martins than I am of a bunch of illegally immigrated Mexicans. See I know the Mexicans are going to do their best to avoid unwanted attention lest they be deported. But the black supremacist types that are empowered by Uncle Sam are American and a far bigger economic and moral issue.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: AnonymousCatholic on February 07, 2016, 05:39:14 PM
Quote from: Graham
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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Nadir on February 07, 2016, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: Graham


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.


I agree with all you say here.
Thanks for clearing up the Pacelli question.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Ladislaus on February 07, 2016, 07:41:01 PM
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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Graham on February 08, 2016, 07:09:53 PM
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."

Quote
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.


Yes, I'd like them to look into that too. It seems like the sort of interplay that would be too contingent to deal with in a book, but we could see at least some recognition of it.

Quote
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?


The work I quoted does cover this:

Quote
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.


Quote from: Ladislaus
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.


The Catholic theologians don't agree with you. Sorry. You're free to abstain though, if your conscience so dictates.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Ladislaus on February 08, 2016, 07:22:07 PM
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 circumstances, then why?  There's no explanation of the principles involved.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Ladislaus on February 08, 2016, 07:23:39 PM
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.  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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: OHCA on February 08, 2016, 07:36:16 PM
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 circumstances, 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]
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: AnonymousCatholic on February 08, 2016, 07:47:45 PM
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 circumstances, 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 documents aren't timeless and they aren't dogma. You can't honestly use a document from the 1950's to discuss voting in 2016. It's outdated and obsolete. Politics change rapidly and if the document doesn't change to address the rapidly evolving politics of the world then it becomes useless.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Graham on February 08, 2016, 07:53:24 PM
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 circumstances, 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 documents aren't timeless and they aren't dogma. You can't honestly use a document from the 1950's to discuss voting in 2016. It's outdated and obsolete. Politics change rapidly and if the document 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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Graham on February 08, 2016, 08:05:48 PM
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.

Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: AnonymousCatholic on February 08, 2016, 08:46:00 PM
Quote from: Graham
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 circumstances, 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 documents aren't timeless and they aren't dogma. You can't honestly use a document from the 1950's to discuss voting in 2016. It's outdated and obsolete. Politics change rapidly and if the document 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 document 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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: AnonymousCatholic on February 08, 2016, 08:54:05 PM
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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: OHCA on February 08, 2016, 09:10:15 PM
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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Charlemagne on February 08, 2016, 09:22:53 PM
The only presidential candidate that I have been proud to vote for was Patrick J. Buchanan.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: AnonymousCatholic on February 08, 2016, 09:24:59 PM
Quote from: OHCA
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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Graham on February 08, 2016, 09:45:33 PM
Anyways, I don't have time to waste on this fellow. The document 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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: MaterDominici 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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Ladislaus 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.


 :facepalm:

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

Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Ladislaus 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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Graham on February 09, 2016, 09:48:47 AM
Lad, thanks for your explanation of how double effect applies.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Graham 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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: AnonymousCatholic 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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Graham 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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Last Tradhican 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.

Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: B from A 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 scum.


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.    
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Neil Obstat 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.

Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: OHCA 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.


 :facepalm:

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.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Ladislaus 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?
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: AnonymousCatholic 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.


 :facepalm:

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?
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: AnonymousCatholic 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?
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: OHCA on February 09, 2016, 01:40:24 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus
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?


Throwing people off the boat is different from my analogy.  My analogy is closer to the abortion situation than throwing people off a boat is.  You're not choosing to kill to save others--you are simply saving some but not all.  Others are going to die anyway.  In your analogy, you are directly contributing to the death of some.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Ladislaus on February 09, 2016, 01:55:29 PM
Quote from: OHCA
Throwing people off the boat is different from my analogy.  My analogy is closer to the abortion situation than throwing people off a boat is.  You're not choosing to kill to save others--you are simply saving some but not all.  Others are going to die anyway.  In your analogy, you are directly contributing to the death of some.


No, it reduces to absolutely the same thing.  That's what most "lesser evil" voters refuse to understand.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: OHCA on February 09, 2016, 01:58:39 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: OHCA
Throwing people off the boat is different from my analogy.  My analogy is closer to the abortion situation than throwing people off a boat is.  You're not choosing to kill to save others--you are simply saving some but not all.  Others are going to die anyway.  In your analogy, you are directly contributing to the death of some.


No, it reduces to absolutely the same thing.  That's what most "lesser evil" voters refuse to understand.


Affirmatively saving some but not others is completely different than affirmatively killing some so others may live.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: OHCA on February 09, 2016, 02:06:21 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: OHCA
Throwing people off the boat is different from my analogy.  My analogy is closer to the abortion situation than throwing people off a boat is.  You're not choosing to kill to save others--you are simply saving some but not all.  Others are going to die anyway.  In your analogy, you are directly contributing to the death of some.


No, it reduces to absolutely the same thing.  That's what most "lesser evil" voters refuse to understand.


Group A has 20 people.

Group B has 40 people.

I would even agree that one could not morally pick that Group A to be affirmatively killed to spare Group B.  But given only two choices that killing will be halted at a lower number or a greater number without picking who or which group will be killed, it is moral to pick the lower number.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: AnonymousCatholic on February 09, 2016, 02:25:49 PM
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: OHCA
Throwing people off the boat is different from my analogy.  My analogy is closer to the abortion situation than throwing people off a boat is.  You're not choosing to kill to save others--you are simply saving some but not all.  Others are going to die anyway.  In your analogy, you are directly contributing to the death of some.


No, it reduces to absolutely the same thing.  That's what most "lesser evil" voters refuse to understand.


Affirmatively saving some but not others is completely different than affirmatively killing some so others may live.
 



But Republicans don't do that. They carpet bomb children for Israel and then claim to be pro life because they support limited abortion.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: CWA on February 09, 2016, 03:42:12 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus
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?
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: OHCA
Throwing people off the boat is different from my analogy.  My analogy is closer to the abortion situation than throwing people off a boat is.  You're not choosing to kill to save others--you are simply saving some but not all.  Others are going to die anyway.  In your analogy, you are directly contributing to the death of some.

No, it reduces to absolutely the same thing.  That's what most "lesser evil" voters refuse to understand.


Group A has 20 people.

Group B has 40 people.

I would even agree that one could not morally pick that Group A to be affirmatively killed to spare Group B.  But given only two choices that killing will be halted at a lower number or a greater number without picking who or which group will be killed, it is moral to pick the lower number.


This reminds me of the analogy someone used earlier in the thread of Stalin vs. Mao as the 2 candidates.

Depending on which statistic you believe, Mao killed tens of millions more people than Stalin, so I guess going by this theory, it would have been okay to vote for Stalin.  

(http://i.imgur.com/eyUnc.jpg)

Question for those who believe in voting the "lesser of 2 evils" to keep out the greater evil:   Hypothetically speaking, if they were alive today, but knowing what we know about them, if Mao & Stalin were the 2 candidates for Democrat & Republican parties, would you vote for Stalin because his platform will kill fewer people?  And this hypothetical example assumes there are other parties, such as Constitution Party, which has a pro-life platform.  But, as in today's USA, the system is mostly rigged.  A common perception is that if you vote for the 3rd party, Mao will inevitably win, & Stalin is the only candidate who has a chance of beating Mao.

If you would not vote for Stalin, why not?    


Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: CWA on February 09, 2016, 03:45:53 PM
Quote from: AnonymousCatholic
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: OHCA
Throwing people off the boat is different from my analogy.  My analogy is closer to the abortion situation than throwing people off a boat is.  You're not choosing to kill to save others--you are simply saving some but not all.  Others are going to die anyway.  In your analogy, you are directly contributing to the death of some.

No, it reduces to absolutely the same thing.  That's what most "lesser evil" voters refuse to understand.

Affirmatively saving some but not others is completely different than affirmatively killing some so others may live.


But Republicans don't do that. They carpet bomb children for Israel and then claim to be pro life because they support limited abortion.


Pretty much.  Kill innocent people in the Middle East, plus our soldiers, while doing nothing substantial to stop abortion or limit it.  Lip service only to placate the naive.  
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: MaterDominici on February 09, 2016, 03:48:47 PM
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: Ladislaus
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?


Throwing people off the boat is different from my analogy.  My analogy is closer to the abortion situation than throwing people off a boat is.  You're not choosing to kill to save others--you are simply saving some but not all.  Others are going to die anyway.  In your analogy, you are directly contributing to the death of some.


How does OHCA's example not match yours from earlier?

Quote
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


1) intending a positive good (saving 900 per day)
2) not intending the bad (killing 100 per day)
3) the good isn't dependent on the bad
4) the good is proportionately larger than the bad

Which test did his example fail?
The only thing I can see is that he didn't explicitly say anything about the 100 -- does he want them dead or does he really want them saved too?
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: CWA on February 09, 2016, 03:53:02 PM
Not saying I agree with everything in this article, but I think it ties in with this thread topic.

Quote

The Problem With Abortion Politics (http://www.onepeterfive.com/the-problem-with-abortion-politics/)

By Steve Skojec on February 2, 2016 Catholic Life, Pro-Life, The Civic Sphere


It’s election season in America again. And since January 22nd, 1973, U.S. conservative voters have had their political autonomy held hostage by a single court decision. Roe v. Wade, by the very gravity of the issue it decided, forever changed the American political landscape, forcing conscientious pro-life voters to focus on this issue to the virtual exclusion of all others and constraining the field of candidates they are willing to vote for to those who have “the best chance of winning.”

Both Democrats and Republicans garner enormous political capital based on the emotion stirred up by abortion. Democrats rally their base over fear that the “right wingers” will once-and-for-all put an end to the “Constitutional guarantee of a woman’s right to choose.” Republicans talk about being “pro-life” and protecting the “sanctity of life.” Some candidates run on platforms that explicitly mention proposed legislation or even a “Human Life Amendment” to the Constitution. Each party rallies hundreds of thousands of voters (if not more) to their cause by playing on the abortion-related fears of American citizens.

And election after election, nothing of substance changes. Sure, some policies get switched around, federal funding for programs that include abortion is redirected, but at the end of the day, there is no statistical difference in the number of abortions performed as a result of a change in the party in office. Should we be surprised? An issue that grants each party so much power provides the greatest benefit to both by being kept in stasis, never moving too far in one direction or the other, always capable of generating fear that a sea change is just around the corner if “the other guy” gets elected.

In all of the politicking, two important facts get ignored by many pro-life voters:

1.) Abortion is a moral problem, not a political one; it must thus have a moral solution. Politics can’t fix it.

2.) The United States of America is a Federal Republic with a Constitution and a system of laws; while Roe was a manifest usurpation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, there are only certain courses of action available for legal remedy to Roe, all of which must be evaluated based on their probability of success and permanence.

The first of these two points is seemingly obvious, but difficult to grasp on a pragmatic level. Abortion is murder – but not just any murder. It’s murder of the most innocent human life on a mass scale – unprecedented in history – that we have somehow rationalized to the point where it’s merely debated, and we are supposed to be able to “agree to disagree.” The sheer gravity of the situation must be taken into account as we evaluate both the urgency of the issue and the seeming paucity of options we have to redress it.

In this nation, many people believe sincerely that abortion is a legitimate moral choice. Some do so by denying the truth of what it is. Others are more direct – a trend which I suspect will intensify as medical technology continues to make the reality of unborn human life more irrefutable. In her infamous 1995 essay, Rethinking Pro-Choice Rhetoric: Our Bodies, Our Souls, noted Feminist Naomi Wolf wrote a stunning admission about the truth of abortion:

   
Quote
Now, freedom means that women must be free to choose self or to choose selfishly. Certainly for a woman with fewer economic and social choices than I had — for instance, a woman struggling to finish her higher education, without which she would have little hope of a life worthy of her talents — there can indeed be an obligation to choose self. And the defense of some level of abortion rights as fundamental to women’s integrity and equality has been made fully by others, including, quite effectively Ruth Bader Ginsberg. There is no easy way to deny the powerful argument that a woman’s equality in society must give her some irreducible rights unique to her biology including the right to take the life within her life.

    But we don’t have to lie to ourselves about what we are doing at such a moment. Let us at least look with clarity at what that means and not whitewash self-interest with the language of self-sacrifice. [snip]

    War is legal: it is sometimes even necessary. Letting the dying die in peace is often legal and sometimes even necessary. Abortion should be legal; it is sometimes even necessary. Sometimes the mother must be able to decide that the fetus, in its full humanity, must die. (emphasis mine)


This is not a problem government can fix. We cannot slap a law on this gaping intellectual and spiritual wound and think that our society will survive. The country is divided roughly in half on the issue of abortion, which leads to the second point – using our current approach and tactics, we do not have the political will to change the law of the land.

Some have discussed a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. While noble, this would invariably fail to garner enough votes to pass muster. A constitutional amendment outlawing abortion would require a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and a two-thirds majority passage by the 50 states. And even if an amendment were able to be drafted that would bring in more of the fence-sitters, it would surely include exception clauses for rape, incest, and life of the mother. If such an amendment were to pass, we would then transition from a jurisprudence that interprets an implicit right to abortion within the 14th Amendment to one that grants an explicit right under specific circumstances, even if it outlaws it in all others. This is a toehold in judicial precedent that can be exploited and expanded over time.

Others rely on what I like to call “judicial roulette” – voting for any presidential candidate who might have a chance at installing a justice on the Supreme Court, who in turn might vote pro-life if a new challenge to Roe comes before the Court. But of course, there’s the problem of the judicial litmus test. Both Justices Alito and Roberts had to be extremely circumspect in their positions on the abortion issue, with Roberts going so far as to re-affirm that “Roe is the settled law of the land” during his confirmation hearings. We don’t know for certain how they would vote even if they had the chance (Roberts has been extremely disappointing on key votes like the Affordable Care Act) and yet these justices were considered pro-life victories in the arena of judicial appointments.

History is more sobering. Five of the justices that decided Roe (Burger, Brennan, Stewart, Blackmun, and Powell) were Republican appointees. Similarly, five of the justices that upheld Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (Blackmun, Stevens, Souter, O’Connor, and Kennedy) were also Republican appointees – with Blackmun being the only common justice between the two decisions. Nine pro-abortion Republican justices in the two major abortion cases to ever come before the Supreme Court, each time comprising the majority? Forgive me if I have little confidence that the next Republican president will pick someone who will turn the tide.

Even if we were to go out on a limb and assume Roe could be overturned, would it mean abortion would once again be illegal in this country? No. Overturning Roe would create no federal ban on abortion rights. It would simply return the issue to the individual legislation of the states in accordance with the 10th Amendment.

So what does all of this mean for the Catholic voter?

In my opinion, it is long past time that we vote our consciences, not the party line.  Candidates who favor the centralization of power in the federal government, foreign interventionism, and big government spending while offering no realistic solutions to abortion are not good options for the future of our nation. Every time we grit our teeth and vote for the candidate they nominate, they give us another one like him the next time, only just a little further to the left. Incrementalism has a funny way of sliding down that slope. We do it in good conscience, of course, thinking that by holding our noses and pulling the lever we’re taking one for the team because this time things are going to change for the better.

Have you ever watched Charlie Brown try to kick a football? It’s a lot like that.

In the mean time, our country is slipping through our fingers. We are going broke. We owe more money than we can possibly hope to repay, both to our own citizens and to foreign governments. We are involved in unnecessary, unconstitutional, and arguably immoral wars and conflicts around the globe. We are facing an energy crisis that needs real solutions. We have all but lost our manufacturing sector, and with it, our ability to be self-sufficient in a world that grows weary of American dominance. Our borders are dangerously porous, and our culture is falling apart. What kind of a future are we leaving to our children?

Ironically, there has been real legislation proposed that would address the abortion issue directly and immediately, so we can focus on the other problems facing our nation. The Sanctity of Life Act (introduced several times by former Congressman Ron Paul – with very little Republican support) would have defined all human life and legal personhood as beginning at conception while simultaneously stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction over the issue, thereby returning the issue to the states. This would not only be an appropriate interpretation of the 10th amendment limitation on federal powers, but would effectively accomplish the same thing as overturning Roe – with far less waiting and political maneuvering to appoint willing justices to the Supreme Court.

I submit that while there are individual Republicans who are serious about the issue of abortion, the party as a whole is not. They win elections by using this issue to rally their base to the voting booth, and that makes legal abortion far too valuable a gambit to willingly surrender.

The stark reality is this: we may be watching the last gasps of a dying republic. So as the election debates once again heat up and Catholics try to choose morally acceptable candidates from a series of less-than-desirable choices, the only advice I can offer is to be careful who you vote for. Make sure that it’s someone whose policies you really support, instead of just the candidate you think has the best chance of winning. Under the present circumstances, reasonable moral arguments can be made to vote for someone who isn’t as strong as we would like on abortion (since no candidate is likely to initiate substantive legislative changes on this issue) if he were able to provide some other, compensatory benefit that might help stabilize the nation’s future. If we ever want better choices, we need to send the message that we’re not just going to accept empty promises and the status quo. In the mean time, betting all our chips on the issue least likely to be affected by the actions of a sitting president may lead to the election of someone who will at last cost us the country, and all the policies that matter most along with it.

 

A version of this article was originally published at CatholicVote.org on June 21, 2012. It has been slightly updated to reflect the present election cycle.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: CWA on February 09, 2016, 04:03:25 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus
How much has all this voting for "Pro Life" candidates accomplished?  At least a couple of these "Pro Life" presidents appointed Supreme Court Justices that have set back the Pro Life cause.  It's all a fraud.


This bears repeating.  Another practical reason not to vote for these liars.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: CWA on February 09, 2016, 04:18:10 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus
How much has all this voting for "Pro Life" candidates accomplished?  At least a couple of these "Pro Life" presidents appointed Supreme Court Justices that have set back the Pro Life cause.  It's all a fraud.


And wasn't it a Supreme Court consisting of majority Republican-appointed Justices who approved Obamacare?  Sodomite "marriage"?  
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Ladislaus on February 09, 2016, 05:03:00 PM
Quote from: MaterDominici
How does OHCA's example not match yours from earlier?

Quote
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


1) intending a positive good (saving 900 per day)
2) not intending the bad (killing 100 per day)
3) the good isn't dependent on the bad
4) the good is proportionately larger than the bad

Which test did his example fail?
The only thing I can see is that he didn't explicitly say anything about the 100 -- does he want them dead or does he really want them saved too?


This is actually a very good example to illustrate double-effect vs. lesser evil.  It depends on how the hypothetical would be framed.

If the current status quo is the killing of 1,000 and the one candidate were to campaign on a platform of scaling back the killing (would pass a law to restrict the killing) to 100, then that would be a good.  And then too it would depend on how the legislation were framed.  If the legislation stated, "We will kill 100.", then that's an evil.  If the legislation stated, "We will restrict the killing to 100." then it's a positive curtailment of killing and therefore a good.  Since the killing is currently at 1,000 then the effect of our vote would be the saving of 900 with the unintended secondary effect that 100 would die.

Now let's say that the current status quo is that none are being killed.  One candidate wants to kill 100, another 1,000.  In that case, double-effect would not allow you to vote for EITHER one.  You cannot kill 100 in order to prevent 900 from dying.  That's more like the lifeboat example.  This would be permitted under the non-Catholic "lesser evil" principle but not under the Catholic double-effect principle.  You cannot do an evil in order to prevent a greater evil.

Similarly, if you had a candidate who stated that he would work to make abortions after the first trimester illegal, then that would be permitted ... since it's simply a curtailment of the status quo.  Your vote would not have had the effect of causing the first-trimester abortions, so that might not even be a double-effect example per se.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: MaterDominici on February 09, 2016, 05:47:41 PM
Quote from: CWA
Quote from: Ladislaus
How much has all this voting for "Pro Life" candidates accomplished?  At least a couple of these "Pro Life" presidents appointed Supreme Court Justices that have set back the Pro Life cause.  It's all a fraud.


This bears repeating.  Another practical reason not to vote for these liars.


My opinion is that things are only going to happen at the state level in the states that have enough support, but in order for those successes to stick, the federal level has to be at least supportive on paper and not outright fighting against it.

I posted an article here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=39834&f=14&min=10&num=5) talking about the success Kasich has had in Ohio of reducing abortion by, in part, reducing the number of abortion facilities.

The same is true in Texas. There were 41 clinics providing abortions here in 2012, now there are 18, and if the law which has already passed in this state is not overturned by the Supreme Court in March, there will be fewer than 10 clinics left in this whole state of 27 million people.

How is that not progress?

This was said in 2014:
Quote
The study finds that as a result of reduced access to abortion, there were 9,200 fewer legal abortions in Texas over the past year than in the previous year. ... He said it is also likely that women are traveling out of state for the procedure -- although that will become more difficult as neighboring states continue to enact similar restrictions.

source: Texas Abortion Rate Drops Dramatically As New Restrictions Take Effect (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/23/texas-abortion-rate-drops_n_5613293.html)
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Ladislaus on February 10, 2016, 07:38:07 AM
Quote from: MaterDominici
My opinion is that things are only going to happen at the state level in the states that have enough support, but in order for those successes to stick, the federal level has to be at least supportive on paper and not outright fighting against it.
...
How is that not progress?


I was speaking in terms of the Presidential race.  Yes, there has been a little bit of progress at the state level ... in some states.  In addition, double effect is even less of a problem, since local politicians and even governors would have little or no role in perpetrating other evils that might be a secondary effect of voting for them.  Senators and Congressmen, on the other hand, might.
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: CathMomof7 on February 10, 2016, 09:48:05 AM
In the United States, really the only election that "counts" per se is the Primary ones, and only if you live in certain states.

Now that Iowa and New Hampshire are behind us, l will use this an example.  Mind you, I am not suggesting that I am voting for any of these candidates, simply pointing out what so many don't seem to understand.

Iowa: Cruz, Trump, Rubio, Sanders, Clinton.

New Hamphsire: Trump, Kasich, Cruz, Sanders, Clinton.

Initially, perhaps Carson was a good candidate or perhaps Huckabee, but because the voters in two states did not vote for them, then they will not be invited to any more debates and their race is essentially over.  If you live in South Carolina, you might have more choices.  Maybe.  So where, in total, 20% of voters support candidate A, if only 2% of voters support candidate A in Iowa or New Hampshire, he will be out of the race and you will have to choose a new candidate.

By the time my state votes on April 26, the list of candidates will likely be down to two and it is very unlikely at that point that my vote will count anyway.  

Since the President is chosen in this country by electoral college votes, unless you live in a so-called battle-ground state, it is very likely you vote will not matter anyway.  Since I live in PA, whether I vote for a Republican or Independent or write-in candidate, it will not matter.  The state always leans blue and winner takes all 20 electoral votes.  Period.  

This year there are 7 battle-ground states:  NH, OH, VA, FL, IA, CO, and NV.  These are really the only voters that matter.  This makes up 85 electoral votes up for grab.  The Democrat candidate only needs 23 of those to win the election, as Democratic states in past elections rarely ever change to Republican.  They could, but rarely.  Republicans MUST hold on to all the states that traditionally vote Republican AND somehow sway 64 more electoral votes.  Not impossible, but a difficult task.  

If you live in OH, FL or VA, you probably have a really good shot at keeping Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders from destroying what is left of this country.  I would say, in your case, perhaps voting for an unworthy candidate to keep a truly evil candidate from winning, might be something worth praying about.

Honestly, I don't know why this is so hard to grasp.  It is very likely that your vote doesn't count for two cents.  Really.  And if your choice is between Trump and Cruz or Rubio, you might want to consider who actually has the best chance of winning those battle ground states in the first place.

The folks in New Hampshire, a battle ground state, threw their support behind Trump and Kasich and that state leans Republican in the presidential election.  Just something to think about.....


 
Title: Catholic Voting Guide
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on February 10, 2016, 11:25:16 AM
The Democratic Party won't even back their own candidates.
Henry Hewes is a Prolife candidate.  He and Carly Fiorina were down in DC during a Prolife march.