Quote from: OHCA

The first paragraph in Ladislaus' post is the teaching of the Church.  As to the second paragraph, I'm quite certain that it is Ladislaus' position that the Church would prohibit casting a vote for either candidate.  That is where he runs amuck with the "lesser of evils" misnomer.

I've seen him consistently advise posters to apply the principle of double effect when taking into consideration the right candidate to vote for.  I don't see how anyone can find this position disagreeable.

As to the second paragraph, I don't see anything wrong with his conclusion.  Perhaps I am missing something?
 

Ladislaus' whole premise in starting this thread was that if he can find one thing morally objectionable in Trump's platform, he CANNOT (pursuant to Catholic teaching according to him) vote for either Hillary or Trump.

I re-read the post in question.  It is ambiguous whether Ladislaus' conclusion is that it is acceptable for an individual to choose not to vote for either candidate (correct but not preferable) or that the Church would forbid voting for either candidate (incorrect).

Quote from: Matthew

The Catholic Church permits us to vote for "the lesser of two evils"...

I've never heard this before.  Can you elaborate on this Matthew?

I am familiar with the principle of double effect, but the "lesser of two evils" is not the same thing, as I understand it.  

I might be using the wrong terminology, or the "common parlance".

But if it weren't morally permissible for Catholics to vote for a George Bush, that is a "moral mixed bag" candidate (Bush was Illuminati and a Skull & Bones member), then Catholics would all be strangers to the voting booth at this point, having not voted since 1960 or so.

And it would be common knowledge that Catholics aren't supposed to vote, just like we can't go to nude beaches, use pornography, cheat on our spouses, or use illegal drugs. And you'd better believe that the SSPX, CMRI, Resistance, and virtually all Traditional Catholic priests would be preaching this fact "from the housetops".

There are plenty of Catholics of good will who would listen to their priests if they advised abstinence from voting. Have ANY Traditional priests been preaching this? Or is it just Ladislaus?

If this WERE true Catholic doctrine, have Traditional priests even been TRYING to get this message out? Forget about the willingness or unwillingness of the people to follow their priests, for a moment.

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: sedevacantist3

If both candidates are pro abortion, in my opinion  it would be immoral to vote for any of the 2.

Well, your opinion is worth less than a single Cheerio that's been on the floor for 3 weeks. And I will treat it accordingly.

For what it's worth, the same goes for Ladislaus OPINION and my OPINION. Unfortunately for you, we are not giving our worthless opinions, but rather the teachings of the One True Church on this matter.

. . .

The Catholic Church permits us to vote for "the lesser of two evils", but She does not command us to do so -- much less under pain of grave sin.

You and Ladislaus are not in agreement.

Yes, I'm somewhat confused.  You agreed that we cannot do an evil to prevent a greater evil, i.e. apply "lesser of two evils" reasoning, but then say that the Church permits this.

Everything I've ever seen that tries to say it's OK in politics to apply "lesser evil" actually derives from the "unworthy candidate" principle.  Unworthy candidate refers to an individual precisely like Trump (a textbook example), someone who in his personal life is a complete degenerate, but not to someone who holds positions publicly that no Catholic can endorse.

Someone asked, "Can we vote for Donald Trump, who pretends to be pro-life now, but we really don't know if we can trust him."

Why not vote for a maybe, rather than a loud, resounding NO to Life?

Hillary's position is certain and clear: a loud, resounding NO towards Life.

Even if Donald Trump is fooling us, remember it's still good to show that if you want to fool the people, you need to act like a good Catholic. In a way, it helps remind people what truth and goodness are -- even if politicians only remember Truth and Goodness when they want to pay it lip service to make themselves popular.

Isn't it good, in a way, that Trump is showing up at our Catholic font of truth and goodness when he wants to win votes? Isn't that giving the truth at least SOME respect?

WHAT IF IT DOESN'T WORK THOUGH? What if no one votes for Trump even when he sounds Catholic? He (and others) won't even bother next time. Then the truth will  TRULY be dead and buried.

Remember, in all things it doesn't make Catholics look bad when they are taken advantage of. It is our lot to be abused, taken advantage of, etc. The bad guy is the one who cheats on you, the one who dumps you, the one who betrays you. NOT the one who loves, the one who gives the benefit of the doubt, or follows someone speaking the TRUTH.

If Trump got elected due to a bunch of pro-life people voting (or "being fooled"), wouldn't Trump think twice before ticking off that huge bloc of voters?

We've discussed this on CathInfo many times before. How a Catholic, bound by morality, is at a huge disadvantage for "being hurt" when he offers the benefit of the doubt, for example, or tries to be charitable at all. Virtually EVERY TIME you offer charity to someone, you risk being hurt or being taken advantage of. Catholics must have Charity, which is inseparable from Sanctifying Grace. But look at where charity led Our Lord: to the hill of Calvary. And look at all the saints: most of them were abused, ignored, and mistreated here on earth.

Remember the saying: fool me once, shame on YOU. Fool me TWICE, shame on ME.


There's nothing wrong with following the siren song of truth and goodness, when someone chooses to sing it. Unless the person has already proven himself a deceiver, and hasn't repented of his deceit since then.

Someone asked, "Can we vote for Donald Trump, who pretends to be pro-life now, but we really don't know if we can trust him."

Yes, and this is why, despite my extended bloviations regarding principles, I intend to vote for Trump.  This possibility (which exists to some extent, really, for any candidate) does not rise to the level of endorsing an evil.  We are voting for Trump based on the positions that he has publicly adopted during the campaign.  It is for THOSE things that we are voting and those things we are endorsing.

Quote from: Matthew

Someone asked, "Can we vote for Donald Trump, who pretends to be pro-life now, but we really don't know if we can trust him."

Yes, and this is why, despite my extended bloviations regarding principles, I intend to vote for Trump.  This possibility (which exists to some extent, really, for any candidate) does not rise to the level of endorsing an evil.  We are voting for Trump based on the positions that he has publicly adopted during the campaign.  It is for THOSE things that we are voting and those things we are endorsing.

I don't know Ladislaus--I'm afraid that if you vote for Trump that you will be personally responsible for every single woman he may, hypothetically, possibly molest.  And I am afraid that the "lesser of evils" prohibition would be applicable.  Bill Clinton may molest more as First Gentleman.  But your decision would clearly work against one specific group in favor of another in light of their disparity in taste in women.

Quote from: St John Evangelist

Now let's say that hypothetically, unless you vote for B, A will win the election. Do you refuse to vote B because you can't have a pro-abort as your representative? I think it would be highly immoral for you to refuse to vote B in such circuмstances.

You have thus admirably exposed your false principles.  Based on your "lesser evil" reasoning, you think it "immoral" to NOT vote for a PRO-ABORTION candidate (under certain circuмstances) ... and not even just "permissible" to vote for him.  You have made my point better than I ever could.  According to CATHOLIC principles, you CANNOT vote for such a candidate just because he's LESS evil.  You cannot vote for an evil candidate.  You are a Protestant utilitarian and not a Catholic when it comes to electoral politics.

This is the thing though, in the circuмstance I described, I am not voting for a pro-abortion candidate, rather I am voting AGAINST sodomy, human sacrifice, suppression of religion, etc. Intention can change the morality of an act. For example, shooting somebody in one circuмstance is attempt to murder, and in another it is self-defence. If I voted for him because I supported his abortion platform, I would indeed sin. However, I vote for him, not because he supports abortion, but because he opposes so many evils that the other candidate proposes. I don't think that this is choosing between two evils. I think that voting so as to keep out the greater threat to the common good is a positive good in itself, not merely a lesser of two evils.

I think that refusing to vote for Trump would be a sin of omission, particularly if you are in a "swing state". You think that by washing your hands of both candidates you will absolve yourself of all the evil that they might do, but in reality, if you refuse to vote for Trump and Clinton wins by a narrow margin (something that is very possible according to the polls), then you have some moral responsibility for Clinton's victory and all the evil that would ensue.

Now that we seem to be having a non-stop stream of evidence (as if we needed it) that the Obama and forthcoming Clinton administrations are basically a crime syndicate, stretching from the Department of Justice, through the FBI, and into the IRS -- and an international one at that, with tentacles, via the Clinton Foundation, all the way to Moscow and Riyadh -- it's time for the NeverTrumpers to take a final look at their position.

Do they want to enable such a crime syndicate to be running the U.S. government? And if so, how do they expect it ever to end, if not now? Through litigation? Under whose auspices? Do they not think, if Hillary is elected, that the paramount goal of her administration will be to further entrench the syndicate, making it impermeable to change, turning the USA into the ghost of itself? These things happen in history.

Not simple, is it?

If I were writing my book on moral narcissism today, I would have to add a chapter on the NeverTrumpers, because -- like it or not -- their stance, while once idealistic, at this point seems rather too substantially based on self-regard. They want to have "clean hands" to avoid any tarnishing by the unseemly Mr. Trump.

Well, fine. But where does that leave the rest of us? Where does that leave the country?

https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2016/10/31/last-call-for-the-nevertrumpers/?singlepage=true

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: OHCA

The first paragraph in Ladislaus' post is the teaching of the Church.  As to the second paragraph, I'm quite certain that it is Ladislaus' position that the Church would prohibit casting a vote for either candidate.  That is where he runs amuck with the "lesser of evils" misnomer.

I've seen him consistently advise posters to apply the principle of double effect when taking into consideration the right candidate to vote for.  I don't see how anyone can find this position disagreeable.

As to the second paragraph, I don't see anything wrong with his conclusion.  Perhaps I am missing something?
 

Ladislaus' whole premise in starting this thread was that if he can find one thing morally objectionable in Trump's platform, he CANNOT (pursuant to Catholic teaching according to him) vote for either Hillary or Trump.

That's not necessarily true.  If Trump held some position that's morally objectionable, then one could still possibly vote for him under the principle of double effect.

I'll try to outline double effect some more in a subsequent post.