Author Topic: Catholic Voting Guide  (Read 5667 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23120
  • Reputation: +20276/-246
  • Gender: Male
Catholic Voting Guide
« on: October 28, 2008, 02:56:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Download it here!
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline MaterDominici

    • Owner's Wife
    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 4953
    • Reputation: +3682/-69
    • Gender: Female
    Catholic Voting Guide
    « Reply #1 on: February 03, 2016, 08:45:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    "If I could only make the faithful sing the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei ... that would be to me the finest triumph sacred music could have, for it is in really taking part in the liturgy that the faithful will preserve their devotion. I would take the Tantum ...


    Offline AnonymousCatholic

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 488
    • Reputation: +158/-64
    • Gender: Male
    Catholic Voting Guide
    « Reply #2 on: February 03, 2016, 09:01:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have a feeling that Pope Pius XII couldn't even imagine what the lesser of two evils would mean in 2016.
    "The things that we love tell us who we are" - Thomas Aquinas

    Pray for us Blessed Karl I of House Habsburg
    Matthew 10:34

    Offline JPM

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 121
    • Reputation: +149/-48
    • Gender: Male
    Catholic Voting Guide
    « Reply #3 on: February 04, 2016, 09:38:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline AnonymousCatholic

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 488
    • Reputation: +158/-64
    • Gender: Male
    Catholic Voting Guide
    « Reply #4 on: February 05, 2016, 12:56:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    "The things that we love tell us who we are" - Thomas Aquinas

    Pray for us Blessed Karl I of House Habsburg
    Matthew 10:34


    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1817
    • Reputation: +1015/-121
    • Gender: Male
    Catholic Voting Guide
    « Reply #5 on: February 05, 2016, 05:31:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.  

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18173
    • Reputation: +8255/-638
    • Gender: Male
    Catholic Voting Guide
    « Reply #6 on: February 05, 2016, 10:59:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18940
    • Reputation: +10423/-4931
    • Gender: Male
    Catholic Voting Guide
    « Reply #7 on: February 05, 2016, 01:46:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18940
    • Reputation: +10423/-4931
    • Gender: Male
    Catholic Voting Guide
    « Reply #8 on: February 05, 2016, 01:49:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18940
    • Reputation: +10423/-4931
    • Gender: Male
    Catholic Voting Guide
    « Reply #9 on: February 05, 2016, 01:50:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18940
    • Reputation: +10423/-4931
    • Gender: Male
    Catholic Voting Guide
    « Reply #10 on: February 05, 2016, 01:55:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.



    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18940
    • Reputation: +10423/-4931
    • Gender: Male
    Catholic Voting Guide
    « Reply #11 on: February 05, 2016, 02:00:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline B from A

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 536
    • Reputation: +381/-105
    • Gender: Female
    Catholic Voting Guide
    « Reply #12 on: February 05, 2016, 02:11:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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

    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.

    Offline B from A

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 536
    • Reputation: +381/-105
    • Gender: Female
    Catholic Voting Guide
    « Reply #13 on: February 05, 2016, 02:14:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.  

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18940
    • Reputation: +10423/-4931
    • Gender: Male
    Catholic Voting Guide
    « Reply #14 on: February 05, 2016, 02:20:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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!


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16