Your analogy is flawed because it overlooks a fundamental truth: abortion is a grave sin, and there is no justification for supporting candidates who endorse it, even partially. The Catholic Church teaches that the intentional killing of innocent life is always evil.

Rationalizing support for candidates like Trump or hαɾɾιs based on their differing stances on abortion is dangerous. Just as indulterers manipulate the “moto proprio” to ignore the validity of the priesthood, supporting these candidates only serves to normalize the murder of innocent children.

When did birth Control become excepted by both Democrats and Republicans?  Because basically that is when the Catholics should have stopped voting.  Yet moral theology says differently.  Theologians say it is the 4th commandment that tells us we should vote.  The 5th commandment is thou shall not kill.   Isn't there a hierarchy to the Commandments?

When did birth Control become excepted by both Democrats and Republicans?  Because basically that is when the Catholics should have stopped voting.  Yet moral theology says differently.  Theologians say it is the 4th commandment that tells us we should vote.  The 5th commandment is thou shall not kill.  Isn't there a hierarchy to the Commandments?

No, there's no hierarchy of commandments in the sense that you can violate one commandment in order to prevent violation of another.

But it's not true that one would be required to stop voting simply because both parties had accepted birth control.  No one is arguing that a candidate has to be perfect and sound on everything.

So, for instance, if you had a candidate who was pro birth control (assuming a non-abortifacient variety) but anti abortion, your vote for the candidate would have the double effect, one good, one bad.  One would be permitted to vote for such a candidate under double effect, since this passes the test of proportionality.  Now, there is one other test that would apply here, namely, that you don't really have any other alternative.  That means that if there was a candidate who was against both abortion and BC, you could vote for the mixed double-effect one ... since there is an available alternative.

But it's not true that one would be required to stop voting simply because both parties had accepted birth control.  No one is arguing that a candidate has to be perfect and sound on everything.

Of course ... if the US were a country with, say, 50 million SOLID Catholcs who would simply refuse to accept a candidate who was pro birth control, at least one of the political parties would be forced to also run a candidate who also opposes BC, since someone couldn't win if that base of 50 million refused to vote for you.

So there's that aspect of the question also.  If significant numbers refused to buy stolen cars, for instance, then there would be no incentive for the thieves to steal cars.  If large numbers of people would have refused the abortion-tainted jab, then it would have created a market and incentive for some pharma company to develop a version that wasn't tained, etc.  That's one aspect of not cooperating with evil that isn't often discussed, since it's a bit slippery.  If everybody, say, boycotted stores that sold birth control, then some stores would emerge that didn't have it, but in reality you know that not enough people are going to do that to where it would make any difference.  That's where a real Catholic hierarchy would come in, where the bishops could order all Catholics to, say, boycott certain companies, and the sheer numbers would make such a hit on the company that it would have to comply.

No, there's no hierarchy of commandments in the sense that you can violate one commandment in order to prevent violation of another.

But it's not true that one would be required to stop voting simply because both parties had accepted birth control.  No one is arguing that a candidate has to be perfect and sound on everything.

So, for instance, if you had a candidate who was pro birth control (assuming a non-abortifacient variety) but anti abortion, your vote for the candidate would have the double effect, one good, one bad.  One would be permitted to vote for such a candidate under double effect, since this passes the test of proportionality.  Now, there is one other test that would apply here, namely, that you don't really have any other alternative.  That means that if there was a candidate who was against both abortion and BC, you could vote for the mixed double-effect one ... since there is an available alternative.

Thank you on your kind response.

Passing the test of proportionality?

Do you mean too many cons on both sides to vote for either candidate?  Please list the cons of Trump, so far I have only seen two, abortion and LGBT support (by the way being friends with people who are sinning is not a sin, is it?)  I am just trying to understand you better, please bear with me.

When did birth Control become excepted by both Democrats and Republicans?  Because basically that is when the Catholics should have stopped voting.  Yet moral theology says differently.  Theologians say it is the 4th commandment that tells us we should vote.  The 5th commandment is thou shall not kill.  Isn't there a hierarchy to the Commandments?

Just off the top of my head here are a few, but for the past few weeks he has brought it up in almost every sermon or every other at the very least:   

Thank you on your kind response.

Passing the test of proportionality?

Do you mean too many cons on both sides to vote for either candidate?  Please list the cons of Trump, so far I have only seen two, abortion and LGBT support (by the way being friends with people who are sinning is not a sin, is it?)  I am just trying to understand you better, please bear with me.

So, the test of proportionality is one of the (typically listed as) 4 criteria for determining the liceity of some action under the principle of double effect.  I have to run out here, but I can list them again, but it's really the only one that's relevant here.  We can assume that no one here intends the evil effect.  We know that voting is not intrinsically evil (but at least indifferent).  We also know that there's no practical alternative whereby we might obtained the good without also the evil that would come with it.  So the remaining test is the one of proportionality.

As I said, if one wanted to make a case for that under double effect, I have no issues with that.  I'm more upset about the prevalent thinking that "lesser evil" is a valid principle and that the end can justify the means, and various other expressions of utilitarian moral relativism that I keep reading everywhere.

So, here are some of the evils of Trump:
1) promises to fund IVF (which would lead to myriad abortions)
2) would veto any federal ban on abortion
3) pro-sodomite policies (including having attempted to get other countries to de-criminalize sodomy)
4) [this one to me is huge] ... his aggressive support for the Jєωιѕн genocide and general intention to enable and cooperate with and fund various Jєωιѕн evils
5) in his last term, federal funding for Planned Parenthood reached record levels

In the good column, I see that if there were SCOTUS openings or federal judge openings, he'd pick some marginally decent candidates.

I just don't see him doing anything practical to curb abortion.  Since Dobbs, and his agreement that it should stay with the states and his promise to veto any federal abortion ban (all that's left after Dobbs) ... means that he's not going to do very much practically against abortion (resting complacent on Dobbs).

In addition, Matthew brought up earlier that he's (likely?) to end the war in Ukraine more quickly than the Dems would.

I cannot vote for him because I don't see a possible quicker end to the Ukraine war as outweighing his funding of IVF (which results in myriad abortions) and his backing of Israel's ongoing genocidal activities.  If I were to vote for Trump, I'd feek like Lady Macbeth, constantly going around washing my hands of blood while muttering "Out, damned spot, out, I say."  If you see what's going on over there, the merciless butchering of innocents, contemplate how myriad unborn children will be aborted via IVF procedures ... I don't see how it's possible to vote for this guy and contribute to his taking office.

I am not disagreeing with you about this. You’re clearly more knowledgeable than most of the posters here.


my question is: if a large number (I’d say the majority but I obviously don’t know) of traditional Clergy hold that it would be morally licit to vote for Trump under certain conditions, then how can we fault traditional Catholics? Wouldn’t voting for Trump based on a majority opinion from the clergy be in the spectrum of acceptable behaviour? you have a lot of good points, but I still think that Catholics may be able to vote for Trump as many reliable clerics who are traditionally trained hold that you could.

Certainly, any degree of subjective "fault" or sin committed by any individual Catholics is a matter of the internal forum and between them and God.  I am speaking about objective principles.  So, one part of culpability tends to be whether one takes an opinion because they "want" to for various ulterior motives, and not necessarily because it's right and true.  You could have someone who, for instance, takes the more lax opinion regarding some other question of moral theology over the strict opinion, which is, objectively speaking, permissible ... but they could be at fault if they went with that opinion for ulterior motives (because they wanted the laxity) rather than that it was because they came to the conclusion that it was the right and true opinion most pleasing to God.  At that level, only God can discern such motivations.

If someone sincerely (without ulterior motives) goes with what the Trad clergy overall say, then I'm sure they will not be judged harshly by God.  But I would caution against the "Nuremberg" defense.  They might try to plead that at their judgment before God, "But Father so and so said it was OK.", to which God [may, if it's the case] respond, "You knew very well that it was wrong.  You sided with that priest's opinion because it was what you wanted to do, not because you believed it to be right and pleasing to Me."  How many souls went along with Vatican II simply because the Pope and all the bishops and all the theologians and all the priests (that they knew) went along with it and told them it was Catholic ... to the ruination of their souls.  Some perhaps sincerely went along, whereas others secretly just liked the Modernism and liberatlisation ushered in by V2, and God will be able to sift those souls out.

I find the principles being bandied about out there to be very dangerous and very un-Catholic.  I have yet to see any of the Trad clergy explain how their conclusion regarding the liceity of voting for Trump does not violate core Catholic principles of moral theology, and they have a very serious buden to do so ... since otherwise they could be causing grave scandal and doing serious damage, well outside the realm of voting, by promoting principles that lead to moral relativism (end justifies the means, lesser evil, etc.).  Being a Traditional bishop or priest is not all glory, having lay people bow their heads in reverence while calling you "Father", making you feel like a bigshot when perhaps in the world you'd be bagging groceries the supermarket (at least for some of them).  There's a grave responsibility there due to the influence they have, and I don't see any of them meeting their obligation to clearly explain this particular matter to the faithful.

You see very carless stuff put out there like, "Well, you're voting to limit the damage."  OK, well, by aborting a baby when both mother and baby would die otherwise, you're just "limiting the damage", no?  Since when does "limiting damage" by itself establish liceity?

So, here are some of the evils of Trump:
1) promises to fund IVF (which would lead to myriad abortions)
2) would veto any federal ban on abortion
3) pro-sodomite policies (including having attempted to get other countries to de-criminalize sodomy)
4) [this one to me is huge] ... his aggressive support for the Jєωιѕн genocide and general intention to enable and cooperate with and fund various Jєωιѕн evils
5) in his last term, federal funding for Planned Parenthood reached record levels

In the good column, I see that if there were SCOTUS openings or federal judge openings, he'd pick some marginally decent candidates.

I just don't see him doing anything practical to curb abortion.  Since Dobbs, and his agreement that it should stay with the states and his promise to veto any federal abortion ban (all that's left after Dobbs) ... means that he's not going to do very much practically against abortion (resting complacent on Dobbs).

...I cannot vote for him because I don't see a possible quicker end to the Ukraine war as outweighing his funding of IVF (which results in myriad abortions) and his backing of Israel's ongoing genocidal activities.  If I were to vote for Trump, I'd feel like Lady Macbeth, constantly going around washing my hands of blood while muttering "Out, damned spot, out, I say."  If you see what's going on over there, the merciless butchering of innocents, contemplate how myriad unborn children will be aborted via IVF procedures ... I don't see how it's possible to vote for this guy and contribute to his taking office.

I've also seen this writeup:

Trump and Vance have both backed the abortion pill, which is responsible for 63 percent of all abortions in this country. Donald Trump has said he will use taxpayer dollars to fund IVF for all -- which destroys more human embryos per year than abortion. Most importantly, Trump has stripped the GOP platform of all Christian moral considerations so that in the future there will be no pro-life political party to defend the babies of which you speak. Now for the first time in 40 years, there will is no political party in America that defends the basic right to life. And then they dropped the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Millions of babies in the future will thank those who are demanding that Trump drop this insane pro-abortion compromise and restore the basic right to life to the GOP platform, especially since a leak out of the Trump camp last week made it clear that, despite all the good things Trump did for pro-life in the past, he will not be doing that again if he gets in: Again, please pray for Trump to go back to his base, and stop alienating Christian voters before it's too late.