Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6

Author Topic: Why Catholics Must Reject the 'Lesser of Two Evils'  (Read 3908 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline M1913

Why Catholics Must Reject the 'Lesser of Two Evils'
« on: October 17, 2024, 11:14:37 AM »
To thoroughly reject the notion of voting for the "lesser of two evils," we turn to Traditional Catholic sources that emphasize moral absolutes and uncompromising adherence to Church teachings on cooperation with evil:

1. St. Thomas Aquinas on Cooperation with Evil
    St. Thomas Aquinas provides a foundational argument against choosing any evil, regardless of its degree. He teaches, “No one is permitted to commit sin, even for the sake of avoiding a greater sin or obtaining a greater good” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 78, Art. 1). The principle here is clear: choosing the lesser of two evils still involves committing an evil act, which is never permissible. Aquinas’s teaching underscores that we cannot engage in moral wrongdoing, even with the intent of achieving a supposedly greater good.
2. Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii
    Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Casti Connubii (1930), condemns abortion as a grave evil that Catholics must oppose without compromise. He states: “In this matter, Catholics cannot allow themselves to be guided by mere expediency but must obey the dictates of the moral law.” This directive is not limited to abortion; it applies to all actions that conflict with the moral law. Voting for a candidate who supports any form of abortion, even if perceived as the lesser evil, amounts to indirect cooperation with evil, which Catholics must reject.
3. Pope Pius XII on the Dangers of Moral Compromise
    Pope Pius XII emphasized the Church’s duty to uphold moral truth without compromise. In his Allocution to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Jurists (December 6, 1953), he proclaimed, “The good end does not make right an action which is in itself wrong.” This means that even if a candidate’s election might lead to certain good outcomes, voting for them still involves endorsing moral wrongs. This statement directly refutes the idea of supporting a lesser evil, as it reveals how this approach leads Catholics to justify morally unacceptable actions for perceived benefits.
4.Pope St. Gregory the Great on Leadership and Moral Integrity
    Pope St. Gregory the Great advised against selecting leaders who fail to uphold moral principles. In his Pastoral Rule, he emphasizes, “It is better that scandals arise than the truth be suppressed.” Here, he underscores the need for Catholics to uphold moral truth at all costs. Supporting a candidate who promotes or tolerates grave evils like abortion constitutes a form of moral surrender. St. Gregory’s words call Catholics to choose leaders who are fully aligned with Catholic values, not merely lesser evils.
5. Catholic Moral Theology on the Misapplication of the Double Effect Principle
    The principle of double effect does not justify voting for a morally compromised candidate. According to Traditional Catholic moral theology, this principle applies only when the bad effect is not directly willed, and there is no other way to achieve a necessary good. In the case of voting, however, Catholics knowingly endorse a candidate with morally flawed positions, which constitutes direct cooperation with evil. Therefore, the double effect principle does not provide cover for voting for the lesser evil.

Traditional Catholic teaching, as seen in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, and Archbishop Lefebvre, is unequivocal: Catholics cannot choose any evil, even if it is perceived as lesser. Supporting a candidate who endorses intrinsic evils like abortion is incompatible with Catholic principles. Instead, Catholics must seek alternatives that align with moral absolutes and uphold the Faith without compromise. The call is to reject any form of political manipulation that lures Catholics into accepting moral compromises and to remain steadfast in defending the Church’s teachings on non-negotiable issues.




4o

Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Why Catholics Must Reject the 'Lesser of Two Evils'
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2024, 11:50:35 AM »
Thanks for the citations.  It's clear that end justifies the means and lesser evil have always been rejected by Catholics.  That's a great tragedy that most of the Trad clergy are throwing around the term "lesser evil" as if it were somehow a valid principle.

Now, you're going to the right of where I was, and it actually has me pondering things, whether we can cooperate in evil PRINCIPLES, and not just evil practical effects.

I've been arguing for the liceity of applying double effect, but you do raise a good question.  There's something that stinks about merely avoiding cooperation in evil due to the PRACTICAL effects (counting the numbers of innocent lives lost vs. those saved, for instance).

What if we had a candidate, for instance, that wanted to put a blasphemous denunciation of God and Our Lord into the constitution or enact it as law.  He might be anti abortion, anti birth control, etc. etc. ... but then we would participate in his evil principles for the practice effect of saving lives?  God instructed the Israelites to completely wipe out certain groups that were practicing idolatry, and the early Christian considered it a grave evil to even drop the token grain of incense before the emperor, and then there was a serious debate about whether the Church would ever re-admit those who had compromised by doing so (even if not "meaning"/"intending" the evil, but just to save their lives).

I'll have to ponder whether or not I was wrong in applying double effect to voting.  While I've been repeating the principles I've learned regarding double effect, and there are some real world applications where it applies, there's something that doesn't sit right with me about voting for any candidate that somehow represents evil principles (regardless of any calculation regarding practical effect).
Logged

Offline Michelle

Re: Why Catholics Must Reject the 'Lesser of Two Evils'
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2024, 10:37:38 PM »
Quote from: M1913 on October 17, 2024, 11:14:37 AM
To thoroughly reject the notion of voting for the "lesser of two evils," we turn to Traditional Catholic sources that emphasize moral absolutes and uncompromising adherence to Church teachings on cooperation with evil:

1. St. Thomas Aquinas on Cooperation with Evil
    St. Thomas Aquinas provides a foundational argument against choosing any evil, regardless of its degree. He teaches, “No one is permitted to commit sin, even for the sake of avoiding a greater sin or obtaining a greater good” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 78, Art. 1). The principle here is clear: choosing the lesser of two evils still involves committing an evil act, which is never permissible. Aquinas’s teaching underscores that we cannot engage in moral wrongdoing, even with the intent of achieving a supposedly greater good.
2. Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii
    Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Casti Connubii (1930), condemns abortion as a grave evil that Catholics must oppose without compromise. He states: “In this matter, Catholics cannot allow themselves to be guided by mere expediency but must obey the dictates of the moral law.” This directive is not limited to abortion; it applies to all actions that conflict with the moral law. Voting for a candidate who supports any form of abortion, even if perceived as the lesser evil, amounts to indirect cooperation with evil, which Catholics must reject.
3. Pope Pius XII on the Dangers of Moral Compromise
    Pope Pius XII emphasized the Church’s duty to uphold moral truth without compromise. In his Allocution to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Jurists (December 6, 1953), he proclaimed, “The good end does not make right an action which is in itself wrong.” This means that even if a candidate’s election might lead to certain good outcomes, voting for them still involves endorsing moral wrongs. This statement directly refutes the idea of supporting a lesser evil, as it reveals how this approach leads Catholics to justify morally unacceptable actions for perceived benefits.
4.Pope St. Gregory the Great on Leadership and Moral Integrity
    Pope St. Gregory the Great advised against selecting leaders who fail to uphold moral principles. In his Pastoral Rule, he emphasizes, “It is better that scandals arise than the truth be suppressed.” Here, he underscores the need for Catholics to uphold moral truth at all costs. Supporting a candidate who promotes or tolerates grave evils like abortion constitutes a form of moral surrender. St. Gregory’s words call Catholics to choose leaders who are fully aligned with Catholic values, not merely lesser evils.
5. Catholic Moral Theology on the Misapplication of the Double Effect Principle
    The principle of double effect does not justify voting for a morally compromised candidate. According to Traditional Catholic moral theology, this principle applies only when the bad effect is not directly willed, and there is no other way to achieve a necessary good. In the case of voting, however, Catholics knowingly endorse a candidate with morally flawed positions, which constitutes direct cooperation with evil. Therefore, the double effect principle does not provide cover for voting for the lesser evil.

Traditional Catholic teaching, as seen in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, and Archbishop Lefebvre, is unequivocal: Catholics cannot choose any evil, even if it is perceived as lesser. Supporting a candidate who endorses intrinsic evils like abortion is incompatible with Catholic principles. Instead, Catholics must seek alternatives that align with moral absolutes and uphold the Faith without compromise. The call is to reject any form of political manipulation that lures Catholics into accepting moral compromises and to remain steadfast in defending the Church’s teachings on non-negotiable issues.




4o

Yes.  These compromises with morality over the years has led us to where we are today.  Thirty, forty years ago, Trump and his views would have been considered far left lunacy but today he is the "conservative" choice.  
Logged

Offline M1913

Re: Why Catholics Must Reject the 'Lesser of Two Evils'
« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2024, 01:45:54 PM »
Quote from: RacerX on October 18, 2024, 01:44:17 PM
Sorry, but that is not what it means.  What Pius XII is saying is that one cannot commit and objectionally evil act in the hope that good will come from it.  Voting is not an objectionally evil act, and voting for the better of the two candidats is an objectively good act, even if the one voted for is not perfect.
Your argument raises significant concerns regarding the application of Catholic moral theology in the context of voting. It’s crucial to clarify several points using authoritative sources that align with traditional Catholic doctrine.

  • Aquinas on Evil Choices: St. Thomas Aquinas clearly teaches that one must never choose to do evil, even if the intention is to avoid a greater evil. In Summa Theologiae, he states: "No one is permitted to commit sin, even for the sake of avoiding a greater sin or obtaining a greater good" (ST II-II, Q. 78, Art. 1). This foundational principle is unequivocal: any act that involves moral wrongdoing is impermissible, which includes voting for a candidate who supports intrinsic evils such as abortion.
  • Papal Teaching on Cooperation with Evil: The Church's teaching on moral absolutes is well-articulated in the encyclicals of Popes. Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubii emphasizes the obligation of Catholics to reject moral compromises, stating, “In this matter, Catholics cannot allow themselves to be guided by mere expediency but must obey the dictates of the moral law.” Voting for a candidate who endorses abortion constitutes indirect cooperation with that evil, which the Church categorically rejects.
  • Understanding Lesser Evils: Your interpretation of St. Thomas regarding the notion of choosing the lesser evil is misleading. While he acknowledges prudence in decision-making, it is critical to recognize that the principle of choosing a lesser evil cannot apply when both options involve engaging in intrinsic evils. This point is further clarified in the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states: “One may never legitimize evil” (CCC 1756).
  • Moral Consequences of Voting: The notion that voting for a morally flawed candidate is permissible if a worse option exists undermines the essence of Catholic moral teaching. Pope Pius XII, in his Allocution to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Jurists (1953), reinforced the idea that “the good end does not make right an action which is in itself wrong.” This clearly outlines that the act of voting itself is subject to moral scrutiny, and endorsing a candidate who supports grave evils leads to complicity in those actions.
  • Historical Context of the Church's Teaching: The historical context provided by the Council of Trent emphasizes the validity and necessity of adhering to traditional doctrines regarding sacramental validity and moral law. Trent teaches that the validity of the sacraments is rooted in proper intention and adherence to established forms, which reflects the broader Catholic commitment to moral integrity in all aspects of faith, including civic engagement.

Your conclusion that voting for Trump is justifiable based on perceived lesser evils fails to account for the absolute moral law that Catholics are bound to uphold. The Church calls us to reject all forms of cooperation with evil, even when presented with seemingly difficult choices. Thus, the need for a faithful Catholic response is clear: we must stand firm against any form of idolatry or compromise with moral absolutes.

In summary, the Catholic stance on voting is not merely about choosing between candidates; it’s about upholding the dignity of the moral law as taught by the Church and echoed throughout its magisterial teachings. We cannot afford to diminish the importance of these teachings in the face of modern electoral politics.
Logged

Offline M1913

Re: Why Catholics Must Reject the 'Lesser of Two Evils'
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2024, 01:54:53 PM »
Quote from: RacerX on October 18, 2024, 01:48:49 PM

IF Pope St. Gregory the Great advised against seleting leadrs who fail to uphold moral principles, please quote him saying that, because the quote you cited certainly doesn't say it. The quote you cited only says truth should not be suppressed, evn if speaking it causes scandal.  Nothing there about voting for the far better of the two viable candidates, if he has erroneous personally opinions concerning certain moral issues.

So far, none of the quotes you cited support the error you are promoting.
Your assertion that St. Gregory the Great's teachings do not address the selection of leaders based on their moral integrity overlooks the broader context of his teachings on truth and leadership. St. Gregory emphasizes the importance of moral truth, stating, “It is better that scandals arise than the truth be suppressed” (Pastoral Rule, Book II). This principle clearly implies that supporting leaders who do not uphold moral truths is contrary to the teachings of the Church.

Furthermore, regarding your interpretation of St. Thomas Aquinas, it is crucial to clarify that his teachings explicitly condemn the notion of choosing any evil, regardless of the circuмstances. Aquinas states, “It is never lawful to do evil that good may come of it” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 64, Art. 7). This underscores that voting for a candidate who promotes intrinsic evils, even if perceived as the lesser evil, remains a moral failing.

Additionally, the historical context of moral theology consistently upholds the rejection of cooperating with evil in any form, especially in political contexts. Pope Pius XI, in Casti Connubii, makes it clear that Catholics “cannot allow themselves to be guided by mere expediency but must obey the dictates of the moral law.” This reinforces the teaching that supporting a candidate with known moral failings is not a matter of prudence but rather a serious compromise of one’s faith and moral obligation.

Thus, the argument that voting for a morally flawed candidate is permissible because the alternative is perceived as worse does not hold up against these established teachings. As Catholics, we are called to uphold our moral convictions unconditionally, rejecting any candidate who endorses grave evils.

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
« previous next »