Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Politics and World Leaders => Topic started by: Jaynek on November 08, 2024, 08:09:25 AM
-
Taken from http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm)
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.
I have seen people reject using Fr. Cranny's essay as a source due to suspicions that he was influenced by modernism. However this section is a summary of recognized Catholic moral theologians, not his personal opinions. I think that we can safely use it. Note how it agrees with Fr. Scott's writing on the subject that has apppeared in recent posts.
I certainly agree with those who consider Trump to have been an unworthy candidate. But they do not have a theological basis for claiming those who voted for Trump did something wrong. Catholics are permitted to vote for unworthy opponents in order to exclude an even less worthy one. hαɾɾιs was not merely a promoter of abortion, she made killing babies the main plank of her election campaign. Every time she referred to abortion as a "reproductive right" it was a lie and a sin. There is no right to murder. I cannot even imagine anyone being more evil than hαɾɾιs. Those who consider Trump less evil have good grounds to do so.
On the other hand, there were good Catholic reasons not to vote for Trump and there is no theological basis for claiming that Catholics were oblliged to vote for him. I think it is highly likely that every Catholic on Cathinfo voted (or refrained from doing so) in a way that is consistent with Catholic teaching. That is what I am assuming. It was a situation in which Catholics could make a prudential judgment among different options. There is no good reason for people to continue insulting and chastising each other over the election.
-
Taken from http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm)
... There is no good reason for people to continue insulting and chastising each other over the election.
You must be new here, Jayne. ;)
-
You must be new here, Jayne. ;)
:laugh1:
-
That corpulent Modernist's nonsense has long been discredited ... and the article is in fact nothing but Modernist trash.
Thanks for posting (rather late to the party, but pretending your link is definitive) ... but it's already been dealt with and exposed as trash.
There's every need to chastise Catholics for haviung committed the grave sin of voting for a Pro Abortion and Pro Genocide candidate who fails the test of double effect, by using the Modernist's nonsense, or anything else they can find, to justify their sin.
Oh, and not only that ... even IF you could make a case for "lesser evil" (or, rather, using legitimate Catholic reasoning via double effect), the result is still evil, and Catholics merely tolerate evil and not celebrate it. Yet we have Trads here popping champagne corks, singing (almost literally) Te Deums, as if the election of a 94% Pro Abortion and 100% Pro Genocide candidate is cause for celebration. At best you accept this with a heavy heart as the best we can do and the most we deserve.
And the worst part isn't just voting, it's the ongoing legitimization of "lesser evil" as if it were some valid principle of Catholic moral theology, and we see various Trad Catholics extending the same bogus "reasoning" to other moral questions outside of voting.
We need only one example from Cranny's nonsense to discredit the entire thing. He declares that because voting is a good, it's permitted to vote for an evil candidate. That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read from someone posting as a theologian. That's like saying because our procreative faculties are good, it's permitted to fornicate or commit adultery. That's like saying because free will is good, then it's permitted to use free will to choose evil. No, voting is not intrinsically good, but is indifferent, and is either good or bad depending upon whether you make a good or bad choice.
Cranny takes citations completely out of context to justify his position, a position rooted in Americanist Modernism (to which you're no stranger, since you have a Modernist view of Sacred Scripture). There's no backstop whatsoever regarding any "degree" of evil that's impermissible to vote for, as long as it's the lesser one, leading to complete moral relativism, where you could vote for a candidate who promotes unrestricted access to abortion if he's running against another candidate who promotes unrestricted access to abortion ... if the latter has slightly worse economic policies, because, the, well, the latter would be the lesser evil. This leads to that march toward oblivion and evil on which the controllers are marching everyone via the Hegelian dialectic.
-
Keep trying to tell yourselves that you didn't commit grave sin by voting for the Pro Abortion Pro Genocide candidate ... and that his election is not only an evil that had to be tolerated but a cause for celebration, and that with such an attitude you remain pleasing to God.
-
I certainly agree with those who consider Trump to have been an unworthy candidate.
Really? This is how Fr. Cranny described an unworthy candidate: "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."
What about Trump causes you to believe is a man "of vacilliting temperent who fears to make deceisions," and/or will "cause crave injury to the state or religion"?
-
That corpulent Modernist's nonsense has long been discredited ... and the article is in fact nothing but Modernist trash.
Do you also accuse Fr. Scott, who says essentially the same thing, of Modernism? You simply refuse to recognize any authority, no matter how credible, who disagrees with you. And not simply on this subject.
Please produce quotes from actual moral theologians to show that Catholic teaching is other than what it appears to be from the quotes given by Fr. Cranny. Or give the context that supports your assertion that he took them out of context. Make a logical argument instead of bluster and hand-waving.
-
You must be new here, Jayne. ;)
LOL
-
I am not American, and if I were, I would have probably abstained. That being said, I am interested in Moral Theology, so I am reposting the quotes below, since I saw no refutation to it:
Moral Theology. A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities.
John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan. 1929.
_Per accidens_, it is lawful to vote for an unworthy candidate when this is
necessary to prevent a greater evil, as when the opposing candidate is
much worse, or a good ticket cannot be elected unless some less worthy
candidates are included.
Moral Theology BY
REV. HERIBERT JONE, O. F. M. CA. Fifteenth Edition (1961).
One may vote for an unworthy candidate only when this is necessary to prevent a still less worthy candidate from obtaining office; but in such a case one should explain the reason for his action if this is possible. In an exceptional case one may vote for some unworthy candidate; viz., if he can thereby avert some unusually great personal disadvantage.
Dominic M. Prummer, O. P.
HANDBOOK OF MORAL THEOLOGY. Published in Germany in 1949. First published in English in 1956.
In itself it is a grave sin against legal justice to elect bad representatives
for government, since the voters themselves must be held responsible
in part for the harm caused to the State by such representatives. But
there may be excusing causes vvhich permit the choice of such persons.
Thus, for instance, a worker would be justified in voting for a bad
representative if otherwise he would lose his post and be unable to find
another. It is also permitted to elect a bad representative in preference
to one who is worse, which may frequently occur in so-called second
ballots. The reason which permits a person to cast his vote for this evil
candidate is that such a vote is no more than material co-operation in
another's sin
My question is: are all these Moral Theologians wrong? I don't know that much about the others, but Prummer is one of the most eminent in this field.
-
What about Trump causes you to believe is a man "of vacilliting temperent who fears to make deceisions," and/or will "cause crave injury to the state or religion"?
Trump is a Zionist with a long history of supporting Israel. (There is even a book called Trump:America's first Zionist President) That alone is reason to see him as a person who will cause grave injury to both state and religion. Most of the criticisms of him I've seen on CI have seemed fair to me.
-
And again what priest will agree, that my voting was a sin.
I really don't understand why, Lad, you are not a home aloner, if you think all the clergy is allowing people to gravely sin by voting, then what Church do we have left?
-
And again what priest will agree, that my voting was a sin.
I really don't understand why, Lad, you are not a home aloner, if you think all the clergy is allowing people to gravely sin by voting, then what Church do we have left?
A priests political views don't hold me from receiving sacraments that are obviously needed by the laity.. Whether I disagree with that priest wholeheartedly or not on.. voting, lets say.
-
Trump is a Zionist with a long history of supporting Israel. (There is even a book called Trump:America's first Zionist President) That alone is reason to see him as a person who will cause grave injury to both state and religion. Most of the criticisms of him I've seen on CI have seemed fair to me.
That is a perfect example of a non sequitur. Nevertheless, explain why you believe supporting Israel necessarily causes Trump to be an unworthy candidate. Fill in the blank by explaining your reasoning. Or better yet, explain how his support of Israel caused him to harm America during his first term?
-
And again what priest will agree, that my voting was a sin.
I really don't understand why, Lad, you are not a home aloner, if you think all the clergy is allowing people to gravely sin by voting, then what Church do we have left?
Exactly right Gray.
-
That corpulent Modernist's nonsense has long been discredited ... and the article is in fact nothing but Modernist trash.
Discredited by whom? And what seems more likely, that Fr. Cranny and all the highly respected authorites he cited (whose manuals all enjoyed the requisit nihil obstat and imprimaturs) were modernists, or that Mr. Ladislaus warped views of voting are not Catholic? As has been said before, Ladislaus is a perfect example of a prideling who knows just enough to be dangerous. In his mind, anyone who disagrees with him must be a "Modernist".
-
And the worst part isn't just voting, it's the ongoing legitimization of "lesser evil" as if it were some valid principle of Catholic moral theology, and we see various Trad Catholics extending the same bogus "reasoning" to other moral questions outside of voting.
We need only one example from Cranny's nonsense to discredit the entire thing. He declares that because voting is a good, it's permitted to vote for an evil candidate. That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read from someone posting as a theologian. That's like saying because our procreative faculties are good, it's permitted to fornicate or commit adultery. That's like saying because free will is good, then it's permitted to use free will to choose evil. No, voting is not intrinsically good, but is indifferent, and is either good or bad depending upon whether you make a good or bad choice.
I actually agree with your concern about "lesser evil". It is not an independent principle of moral theology, as some people seem to be using it. It is one of several conditions that needs to met in order to apply the principle of double effect. It is necessary but not sufficient. All the conditions must be met. It does seem that some people are not understanding it correctly or using the term in confusing ways.
As for Fr. Cranny's supposed "nonsense", here are his exact words: "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 is obviously an allusion to the principle of double effect, for which one of the conditions is that the act is, in itself, either good or neutral. He is saying that this condition is met in the case of voting and the others must be as well. His comment is not at all like the analogies you compare it to. I, like you, am more inclined to classify voting as neutral rather than good, but either is adequate in this case. It makes no difference to the overall argument.
-
Nevertheless, explain why you believe supporting Israel necessarily causes Trump to be an unworthy candidate. Fill in the blank by explaining your reasoning. Or better yet, explain how his support of Israel caused him to harm America during his first term?
I need to think about how to answer this. It is not a question I ever expected to see on this forum.
-
I actually agree with your concern about "lesser evil". It is not an independent principle of moral theology, as some people seem to be using it. It is one of several conditions that needs to met in order to apply the principle of double effect. It is necessary but not sufficient. All the conditions must be met. It does seem that some people are not understanding it correctly or using the term in confusing ways.
As for Fr. Cranny's supposed "nonsense", here are his exact words: "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 is obviously an allusion to the principle of double effect, for which one of the conditions is that the act is, in itself, either good or neutral. He is saying that this condition is met in the case of voting and the others must be as well. His comment is not at all like the analogies you compare it to. I, like you, am more inclined to classify voting as neutral rather than good, but either is adequate in this case. It makes no difference to the overall argument.
Like I said in another thread, I thought your post about "tolerating" the lesser evil was excellent. I wish you had made that distinction pre-election. What? You didn't want to join in the fun? 😅
-
Trump is a Zionist with a long history of supporting Israel.
:jester: Every major political figure in the last 40 years has been a zionist. Even Biden is one. This whole Middle East 'war' is a farce. It's a political war-game, designed to create a temporary flare-up "problem" which will be "solved" by the elites in due time. Zionism leads to antichrist, let's not forget the end game.
-
:jester: Every major political figure in the last 40 years has been a zionist. Even Biden is one. This whole Middle East 'war' is a farce. It's a political war-game, designed to create a temporary flare-up "problem" which will be "solved" by the elites in due time. Zionism leads to antichrist, let's not forget the end game.
Right, which is why I'm confused on why people think Trump is "different".
-
Discredited by whom? And what seems more likely, that Fr. Cranny and all the highly respected authorites he cited (whose manuals all enjoyed the requisit nihil obstat and imprimaturs) were modernists,
There actually is some justification for suspecting Fr. Cranny of modernism. His obituary described him as a promoter of ecuмenism. But even a modernist can correctly quote orthodox authors. Ladislaus has not provided any evidence that the quotes in the essay do not mean what they say.
-
Right, which is why I'm confused on why people think Trump is "different".
My thoughts exactly. He is surrounded by Jews.
-
Taken from http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm)
I have seen people reject using Fr. Cranny's essay as a source due to suspicions that he was influenced by modernism. However this section is a summary of recognized Catholic moral theologians, not his personal opinions. I think that we can safely use it. Note how it agrees with Fr. Scott's writing on the subject that has apppeared in recent posts.
I certainly agree with those who consider Trump to have been an unworthy candidate. But they do not have a theological basis for claiming those who voted for Trump did something wrong. Catholics are permitted to vote for unworthy opponents in order to exclude an even less worthy one. hαɾɾιs was not merely a promoter of abortion, she made killing babies the main plank of her election campaign. Every time she referred to abortion as a "reproductive right" it was a lie and a sin. There is no right to murder. I cannot even imagine anyone being more evil than hαɾɾιs. Those who consider Trump less evil have good grounds to do so.
On the other hand, there were good Catholic reasons not to vote for Trump and there is no theological basis for claiming that Catholics were oblliged to vote for him. I think it is highly likely that every Catholic on Cathinfo voted (or refrained from doing so) in a way that is consistent with Catholic teaching. That is what I am assuming. It was a situation in which Catholics could make a prudential judgment among different options. There is no good reason for people to continue insulting and chastising each other over the election.
Amen.
-
Right, which is why I'm confused on why people think Trump is "different".
As far as Zionism goes, I don't see a significant difference. The difference is abortion. Trump turned the decision to the states and some of them will not support abortion. hαɾɾιs would have made abortion on demand the policy for the whole country. Fewer babies die under Trump. Far too many die either way, but some will be saved under Trump. It is not exactly a victory, just a bit less horrific.
-
As far as Zionism goes, I don't see a significant difference. The difference is abortion. Trump turned the decision to the states and some of them will not support abortion. hαɾɾιs would have made abortion on demand the policy for the whole country. Fewer babies die under Trump. Far too many die either way, but some will be saved under Trump. It is not exactly a victory, just a bit less horrific.
And why would he do that, do you think? Because he hates abortion?
-
And why would he do that, do you think? Because he hates abortion?
For all I know he is doing it because he thinks it will get him some votes. I don't really care what his motive is. Fewer babies will die.
-
For all I know he is doing it because he thinks it will get him some votes. I don't really care what his motive is. Fewer babies will die.
It should be illegal, period. That's why I think not participating in political voting is a valid option as well for a Catholic.
-
It should be illegal, period. That's why I think not participating in political voting is a valid option as well for a Catholic.
I agree with you. Abortion should be illegal and your line of reason here is legitimate. As far as I understand the authorities on moral theology, not participating was a valid option under these circuмstance. Voting for Trum was also a valid option, if done for the right reasons.
We should save our condemnation for Catholics who voted for hαɾɾιs. Not that I expect anyone here to have actually done that.
-
explain why you believe supporting Israel necessarily causes Trump to be an unworthy candidate. Fill in the blank by explaining your reasoning. Or better yet, explain how his support of Israel caused him to harm America during his first term?
Israel is a country with evil policies and actions. Tolerating this evil would only be justified if it achieved a proportional good. No such good exists, making it immoral to support Israel. This support includes billions of dollars of financial aid, most of it going toward military expenses (in general and specifically under Trump). It harms America to lose this money rather than spending it to benefit Americans.
-
Like I said in another thread, I thought your post about "tolerating" the lesser evil was excellent. I wish you had made that distinction pre-election. What? You didn't want to join in the fun? 😅
I try to avoid forums these days. I've realized they are not good for me. But I was so surprised by the election results I wanted to discuss it, so I came here for a trad perspective. I'll be leaving soon, though I do check in from time to time.
-
Fr. Cranny is correct and his detractors here are mistaken. These latter cite no source of their own other than "trust me bro". Fr. Cranny, like a real traditional Catholic Theologian, cites multiple and numerous sources to confirm almost every single point of his teaching. That is Catholic Tradition, the Catholic doctrine/Thomistic principle of double effect, while the other view is an error/novelty,