Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Politics and World Leaders => Topic started by: 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
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The following is taken from the clebrated catechism of Bishop Morrow, My Catholic Faith:
"Every Catholic who has the right to vote should exercise that right. … It may happen that all the candidates for an office are indifferent or hostile to religion. In that case, if no other candidate can be made available, the Catholic should vote for the one least hostile to Christian principles, more moral in his qualities” (Bishop Morror, My Catholic Faith, 1949).
That is the traditional teaching of the Church regarding voting for the lesser of two evils - not choosing to do an act that is less evil than another, but voting (an act good in itself) for the better candidate, when there are no viable candidates who are good. But in the case of Trump, we do have a candidate that is good, notwithstanding his personal opinion on certain moral evils. In my opinion, considering the state of our country, I doubt there is any better candidate for President today than Trump.
Your perspective on voting for Trump raises some important points worth discussing. While Bishop Morrow’s catechism suggests that a Catholic should vote for the least hostile candidate when all options are problematic, we must remember that this does not justify supporting a candidate who endorses intrinsic evils, like abortion.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us that “It is never lawful to do evil that good may come of it” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 64, Art. 7). This means that regardless of the circuмstances, if a candidate promotes grave moral wrongs, supporting them is still morally problematic.
Furthermore, the critique of both candidates as morally compromised echoes sentiments within the traditional Catholic community. The idea that voting for Trump means endorsing his flaws is not simply a matter of opinion but a serious concern for many who see it as a trap for one's soul. As one commenter aptly noted, "Trump isn’t the swamp—he is quicksand."
We must uphold our Catholic values above political expediency. Supporting candidates who fail to align with our faith only leads to further moral compromise. The goal should be to seek alternatives that genuinely reflect Catholic teachings, rather than settling for what appears to be the lesser evil.
So while you may see Trump as the better option in the current political landscape, we must remain vigilant and recognize that even lesser evils can lead to significant moral fallout. As Pope Pius XI stated in Casti Connubii, Catholics “cannot allow themselves to be guided by mere expediency.” It's vital we stick to our moral principles, no matter the situation.
-
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.
Correct. Compromises based on "lesser evil" are what have enabled the engine of the Hegelian dialectic to march forward. If even just Catholics had not compromised, it would have thrown a huge wrench into the gears of the Hegelian machine. But this tolerance for "lesser evil" leads inexoraby to (and basically is a statement of) moral relativism. With each election cycle, they provide a LESS less evil candidate, so that the end result is that one can barely tell the difference, and we today find ourselves in the deplorable situation where even self-proclaimed Traditional Catholics are promoting the liceity of voting for someone like Trump (which would have been a horrible scandal a few decades ago), someone who believes in exceptions for abortion, who will fund abortive IVF, will veto federal legislation banning abortion, believes the states have the right to legislate away human life, who brags about being the most pro-sodomite President in history and has attempted to force other countries to repeal anti-sodomite legislation, and who promises to enable the Jews to "finish the job" of their genocide and the establishment of greater Israel, to "Make Israel Great Again" (his words). But due to lesser evil, that's considered OK now even by Trads, and in fact some are arguing that there's a moral obligation to vote for this deviant.
We're just a few steps away from the following scenario:
Candidate A: Pro Unrestricted Abortion, Pro Sodomite, Pro Illegal Immigration, Bad Economic Policies
Candidate B: Pro Unrestricted Abortion, Pro Sodomite, Pro Illegal Immigration, Slightly Better Economic Policies
... to saying that a Catholic may vote for Candidate B above, since he's the "lesser evil" due to his better (or slightly less bad) economic policies. That's where moral relativism takes you, and there's no principled backstop to prevent the "lesser evil" principle from leading to this exact conclusion, providing a very clear reductio ad absurdum invalidation of the "lesser evil" thinking.
-
I am so confused by those who adamantly say do not vote.
Lets say people listen to you. No Catholic votes because it is cooperating with evil. What do you think that future would look like?
Whatever small voice the Catholic had in society would then be null and void.
And if we apply this thought process (you can't do anything that cooperated with an evil) to living in this world, then wouldn't we have to make everything ourselves and essentially end up dead because we don't have any access to resources because it is all corrupted by the evil of those who run the businesses and work in the hospitals and run the government. I know that this point has been brought up by others.
-
Your perspective on voting for Trump raises some important points worth discussing. While Bishop Morrow’s catechism suggests that a Catholic should vote for the least hostile candidate when all options are problematic, we must remember that this does not justify supporting a candidate who endorses intrinsic evils, like abortion.
So, the standard I've seen is that one cannot support those who promote evils contrary to natural law. Obviously we're not going to get candidates anytime soon who promote the Kingship of Christ and reject the separation of Church and State, and other errors contrary to Catholic teaching ... and one could look at various aspects of the US Constitution on those points as merely a tolerance, where the Church can tolerate a practical co-existence with false religions, for instance, but there's no toleration for evils against natural law.
There's no candidate, for instance, who believes that divorce should be outlawed and adultery punished ... but then even St. Thomas taught that it's OK to tolerate such evils in civl law (i.e. to not punish them, or to de-criminalize them) due to the practical problems with enforcing it. So there's also a distinction to be made between tolerance of various evils and active promotion of them.
-
I am so confused by those who adamantly say do not vote.
Lets say people listen to you. No Catholic votes because it is cooperating with evil. What do you think that future would look like?
Whatever small voice the Catholic had in society would then be null and void.
And if we apply this thought process (you can't do anything that cooperated with an evil) to living in this world, then wouldn't we have to make everything ourselves and essentially end up dead because we don't have any access to resources because it is all corrupted by the evil of those who run the businesses and work in the hospitals and run the government. I know that this point has been brought up by others.
Look at examples from The Vendee on how to handle compromise.
-
Let's suppose everyone who was intending to vote for Trump read your article and was convinced by what you said and decided not to vote for Trump.
Who would win in November if that happened? Who would become president in January?
-
Let's suppose everyone who was intending to vote for Trump read your article and was convinced by what you said and decided not to vote for Trump.
Who would win in November if that happened? Who would become president in January?
Trump was still selected to win, he will win.
-
Trump was still selected to win
.
:confused:
-
.
:confused:
A user by the name of "Valentine" I believe it is him who breaks this down much better than I could.
-
Trump was still selected to win, he will win.
That is my opinion also, that he's been pre-selected to win ... though I could be wrong, and if it isn't Trump then hαɾɾιs was pre-selected to win. If anyone believes that the voting system isn't rigged, I have a bridge I'd like to sell them.
Of course, both of the candidates are ultimately controlled and will do what they're told just in case something unforeseen happens, such as one of them dropping dead of natural causes. In addition, the candidates are told whom to select for VP, so that just in case something happens while they're in office, the VP candidates are also under control, as is clearly the case with both Vance and Walz.
-
Trump is not advocating changing any laws to allow abortion where it is not already permitted.
Oh yes he is-
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.95)]Donald Trump Says States Will Undo Abortion Laws That Are ‘Too Tough’[/color]
https://time.com/7093731/donald-trump-abortion-state-measures/
PS: Cera -“Time” said this , not me
-
:facepalm: But Trump is at the Federal level…he has nothing to do with states laws.
You have no idea how our govt operates. :facepalm:
-
he has nothing to do with states laws.
Except that federal laws trump state laws: Supremacy Clause of U.S. Constitution (art. 6)
-
I am so confused by those who adamantly say do not vote.
Lets say people listen to you. No Catholic votes because it is cooperating with evil. What do you think that future would look like?
Whatever small voice the Catholic had in society would then be null and void.
And if we apply this thought process (you can't do anything that cooperated with an evil) to living in this world, then wouldn't we have to make everything ourselves and essentially end up dead because we don't have any access to resources because it is all corrupted by the evil of those who run the businesses and work in the hospitals and run the government. I know that this point has been brought up by others.
We don’t have much resources noe because people who run businesses, work in hospitals and run the global governments are corrupt and evil. Both parties are guilty of treason. The church is controlled by the government and they have taken the silver to betray Jesus Christ. Hanging an image of Bergolio in any chapel is evil.
I voted enough of the lesser of the evil. I have seen how both parties operate locally and in DC. They have intentionally and gradually corrupted society to go along with demonic activities with their lesser of the two evils. Isaiah 5:20 is here. You can’t vote your way to God. These people need to repent for their sins. You can’t make changes to society without God.
-
" OH, If no one votes for Trump, they will have pre selected him for prez anyway, same with whore hαɾɾιs!"
Lol! Talk about an unproveable defense of your argument and a worldview of total defeatism.
-
Here's Trump the other day cheering on the genocidal monster Netanyahu. He's upset that
Biden is holding back the slaughter!
You see how he is setting up the Hegelian dialectic, along with Fox News.
The Biden/hαɾɾιs administration, which is infested with joos and fully onboard with
the genocide is in some vague way not doing enough to expand the war into Iran.
It's like how Trump accused hαɾɾιs of being antisemitic, despite being married to the
very jew who heads the White House task force on antisemitism!
Is it possible to be more slavish to the moneylenders?
A vote for Trump is YOUR consent for this carnage, your consent to be ruled by Israel.
Precisely what the devil wants.
"Oh but muh 401k!" "Muh economy!" shrieks the comfortable trad Catholic.
https://x.com/mehdirhasan/status/1847383114299093404 (https://x.com/mehdirhasan/status/1847383114299093404)
-
:facepalm: But Trump is at the Federal level…he has nothing to do with states laws.
You have no idea how our govt operates. :facepalm:
Well then Trump doesn't know how the Federal government operates because HE SAID IT.
Facepalm him, silly.:facepalm:
I'm sure he will be planning federal legislation in Congress to supercede the states.There are ways to do this. Didn't the partial birth abortion ban effect the entire country even under Roe?
1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531, PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late termination of pregnancy called "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.
Federal law supercedes state laws under the Constitution
-
:facepalm:
-
:facepalm: doesn't validate you at all.
-
Look at examples from The Vendee on how to handle compromise.
Yea and they all got slaughtered, France is still a secular republic with over 50% and the vast majority being atheists, so a lot of good it did them, unless you suggest we wait another 100 years? The Sacred Heart to be used as a military standard was given to King Louis XIV who spurned it.
The rebellion, while certainly understandable... was at that point merely futile and doomed from the beginning... it reached it's inevitable conclusion and spurred on the reign of terror, it was the martyrs of Compiegne that ended the reign of terror.
In fact, by being so adamant, they condemned both the moderates and the radicals, so then the radicals won and executed the King and instituted the reign of terror, where both the Catholics and the moderates met the same fate.
“O Liberty! What crimes are committed in thy name!” ― Madame Roland before she was guillotined.
-
If the Catholics and Moderates realizing the reality of the situation had worked together toward common goals, the radical revolutionaries like Robespierre would not have been able to do all the evil things they did, neither would Napoleon have had such an opening to take absolute power and bring war to all of Europe.
A lot of things could have been done to mitigate things and prevent that awful situation and that doomed rebellion (understandable, but way too little too late) was the final nail in the coffin, only halted by the Martyrs of Compiegne which eventually lead to the execution of Robespierre himself, meeting the same fate he sent so many other poor souls to, it wasn't the Vendee that achieved that, so if you want to use them as your example to follow then don't complain when you follow them in death too.
Furthermore, someone like Napoleon could have been completely changed if King Louis XIV had of heeded the Sacred Heart in his time, as that would have absolutely fallen under the eyes of a young Napoleon Bonaparte in military study, but instead he chased after doomed figures like Julius Caesar.
"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."