Second article:
Razón y fe : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveOF ELECTIONS
The municipal elections that have just taken place in Spain have shown a certain tendency that we consider beneficial to the good of the people. In some towns the voters have tried to bring to the Town Halls representatives, not from political parties, but from the different guilds that defend special interests of the locality, e.g., from commerce or agriculture. But the note that has seemed most sympathetic today has been the greater effort shown on several points by the Catholics to cast their votes and to cast them in favor of citizens, for their proven honesty and the fervour of their faith, worthy of their trust.
The final result has not been satisfactory. It can be seen elsewhere in this issue. (See "General News" .)
It is just that, unfortunately, the conduct so often inculcated by the Supreme Pontiff and the Spanish Bishops has not been observed everywhere. Far from all Catholics having united, like a phalanx, against the enemies of Religion and of the country, they have fought against each other or for different candidates in some of the towns most oppressed by sectarians; this is indicated by some newspapers that have come into our hands.
It must be admitted, however, and we are pleased, that the voice of the Prelates has not failed to have some effectiveness. There are several who have judged it prudent to remind their diocesans, on the occasion of the last elections, of the general obligation that all voters have, if some cause does not excuse them, to seek, even through the good use of the electoral vote, the common good of society, and to vote, in order to achieve this, for honest, religious subjects and with a known aptitude to administer with profit the important religious, moral, and economic interests entrusted to their public office. All these venerable Prelates generally show the need to prevent the advance of the enemies of Religion, and to oppose "the socialist currents and the tendencies of anarchism that are beginning in our Spain and are preparing us for days of mourning for the future" (i), and the triumph "of the enemies of the Church who are shouting hatred of Christ and the supernatural order" (i). Some of these Prelates have considered the case, unfortunately too frequent, that due to lack of organization of Catholics, or for other causes even sadder, there is no Catholic candidacy, nor hope of obtaining the triumph of a suitable Catholic candidate, only liberal candidacies more or less hostile to the Church being presented; and they resolutely decide and advise that in such a case a vote should be taken, with the proper conditions, for the least hostile against the most hostile. Between one well disposed in favour of the Church and another hostile to it, it is clear that there can be no cause (of friendship, gratitude, etc.) for which it is lawful to prefer the hostile one. (Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae.)
(i) Words of Mr. Cardinal Casañas, reproduced on October 15 in the Official Ecclesiastical Bulletin of the Bishopric of Barcelona.
Beginning with the Cardinal Primate, in his "Counsel to the Clergy and Catholics" of October 16, we read (2):
"Therefore, in view of the risk to which the foundations of order, public authority and society are at risk, we advise, and if it were within our powers we would order, all priests and Catholics of the archdioceses, capable of casting their vote, to go with courage and serenity to cast their vote in the ballot boxes in favor of citizens who, in addition to being eligible, are honest, religious and of a notable capacity for the profitable municipal administration.
"However, in order for this work to be a successful one, it is necessary that it be carried out with order, discipline and prudence. Of course, the need for a Board in each locality is indicated, which will take care to see if all those who have the right to vote are included in the electoral lists, and those who do not have the right to vote are excluded; to present their own candidates, and if the desired election of them is not possible, to enter into an understanding with the respective authorities, with the aim of obtaining the good that can be obtained; not losing sight of the theological rule that sometimes it is lawful, in order to save the whole, to tolerate the loss of a part, and in order to save the ship and its crew from certain shipwreck, to tolerate the throwing into the sea of merchandise to the extent that necessity and prudence dictate.
»On these and other concrete points, one can follow the examples recently given in other dioceses, and the instruction on gradual preference of candidates, published in some Catholic magazines and newspapers; trying to make the exception, as far as the priests are concerned, that they go to the polls free of all commitment to political parties, and of personal prejudices and hatreds. They must clearly state and say that their attitude has been determined by insults to worship and Religion, and by the tenacious, hateful and unjust provocations that have arisen in Masonic and socialist centers and hypocritical groups, covered with a false freedom livery, against the sacred ministers of the Catholic Religion and against the fundamental and, therefore, necessary bases for the existence and conservation of all society.»
(i) Mr. Archbishop of Seville, October 31, Official Bulletin of the Archbishopric.
(2) Ecclesiastical Bulletin of the Archbishopric of Toledo of October 19.
(3) The allusion to Reason and Faith is evident.
The Bishop of Leon transcribes the Advice of Mr. Archbishop of Toledo, and adds on October 23 (i): «We make our own these instructions of the Excmo. Cardinal Primate, and we recommend the Clergy and faithful of our diocese to meditate on them carefully and to practice them with generosity.»
The same Advices are accepted and adopted by the Archbishop of Zaragoza with the following words, which we are grateful for:
«A few days ago we spoke with the president of the Catholic Action of Zaragoza and we recommended that he read a beautiful article published in the magazine Razón y Fe, which develops the main points that embrace the advice of His Excellency the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, charging him to make such reasonable and accurate doctrine known to all those who pride themselves on being Catholics and lovers of order and respect for the tranquility and well-being of the people. We therefore declare that, considering the previously inserted Advice to be very appropriate, we accept it and make it our own, applying it completely to our beloved diocesans and venerable Clergy, who will observe it opportunely, as we strongly recommend, harboring the consoling hope that, without failing one, all will appreciate it in this way.
^Zaragoza, October 22, 1905.»
In the Ecclesiastical Bulletin of Jaca of October 31, the Advice of the Cardinal and the words of the Archbishop of Zaragoza are published in separate paragraphs.
The Councils are also transcribed in the Bulletin of Teruel and Albarracín of October 30, and the Ecclesiastical Governor, Full Headquarters, adds: «The previously inserted Councils seeming to us to be very appropriate, we accept them and make them our own, applying them completely to all the Catholics and venerable Clergy of these dioceses, who will observe them punctually, as we earnestly wish and with the greatest efficiency we recommend.
»Teruel, October 26, 1905. — Dr. Lino Singla, Ecclesiastical Governor. (S. P.)>
Shortly afterwards (October 30), and more explicitly, if possible, the Bishop of Tortosa resolves our case in his «Pastoral Instruction» published in the 5th Ecclesiastical Official of the Bishopric of October 31.
«Let us now come, he writes, to the practical field. And who should we vote for in the elections to which we are told to participate? It is desirable that in all towns, where possible, a purely Catholic candidate be presented, and where this is presented, all Catholics who consider themselves to be such should vote for it.
(i) Ecclesiastical Bulletin of October 26, 1905.
»Where there is no purely Catholic candidacy, and only a so-called liberal candidacy is presented, Catholics are to abstain from voting for it.
»But where two so-called liberal candidacies are presented, one composed of elements who call themselves Catholics and the other formed of anti-clerical elements, known for their hatred of the Church and contempt for its teachings, Catholics are to vote for the former to prevent the triumph of the anti-clericals, that is, anti-Catholics.
»Let not the scruple of contributing in this case to the triumph of the former, because they do not vote for them to signify that they approve of their principles or that they do not matter to them for the government of the people, but to prevent the triumph of enemies who boast of not believing and of fighting the Church and its ministers. In this case no evil is done, but rather a relatively good is done, inasmuch as an evidently greater evil is prevented. This is the doctrine upheld by authors who are commendable for their science and sound ideas.»
It seems to us that such testimonies, with others no less authoritative that we know of in particular, are enough to assure us of the truth or solidity of the doctrine expounded by Father Minteguiaga in the October issue of Razón y Fe, and of its prudent application in certain particular cases in our Spain. But perhaps it is appropriate to confirm it and explain it further. We are moved to do so by seeing, not without pain and surprise, that the article Something about the Municipal Elections has been misinterpreted by a certain part of the Catholic press, moreover, in combating it we believe that some inaccuracies have been committed, which it is good to undo so that the truth may shine more purely in favor always of Religion and of the Fatherland, whose greatest good is that which guides us and that which we believe guides all good Catholics in this struggle. Veritas liberabit vos. S. Joan., viii-32.
In the first place, we note that Father Minteguiaga's article does not indicate any theoretical or practical change in the doctrine already upheld in Casus conscientiae on liberalism, and that it does not in any way favor liberalism, in any of its degrees, or anyone who does not profess the entire Catholic doctrine of the Church. — It is an extension of the case resolved there. It is true that it does not go into resolving questions of thesis and hypothesis, of the general union of Catholics, etc.; which in the end would be nothing more than an association or alliance or league, as you wish to call it, but permanent in itself and not for a single act. It is not against any political party or group, nor against any particular person. Its scope is more modest. Lamenting the ravages that the gentle revolution causes every day in our Spain, he reminds the leaders of Catholic parties or groups and their members, as well as isolated Catholics and all men of good will, and especially the enlightened readers of Razón y Fe, that among other means of combating this revolution and preventing its development, there is this of voting for the least bad, when it is necessary to prevent that development; which, as we will see, is not to favor evil, but to prevent it from growing.
Regarding the first point of Father Minteguiaga about the need to go to the polls, no one, as far as we know, has made any important observation; but regarding the second point of the union of Catholics in this business of elections, there has been someone who has found Father Minteguiaga's formula too broad or too narrow.
Neither one nor the other has paid attention to the fact that the union proposed there is between Catholics. This is for those who consider the formula lax. The others have not observed either that the author of the article has not set out to unravel the limits within which Catholics are contained, excluding those who are outside those confines: and this for those who consider it narrow. To indicate those terms precisely, without declining either to the right or to the left, was not his task, nor is it proper for private writers.
But what, although they do not say it, has perhaps annoyed many more, is that Catholics are not forced to renounce the party to which they belong in order to join another from which they are separated, but are allowed to remain each in his own, provided that all cooperate loyally and effectively to obtain the good that is proposed by the union. At this point it is enough to note that the author of the article has done no more than express what Leo XIII said in different words in the Encyclical cuм Multa, addressed precisely to the Spanish Catholics to exhort them to unite in defense of Religion and the Church. This Encyclical is the only norm to which Spanish Catholics must adhere, since up to now no docuмent of this nature has come from Rome that has retracted what the Roman Pontiff orders and advises in it.
These are his words (i):
"In one thing," he says, "the advocates of the opposing parties must agree, although in others they differ, namely, that the Catholic Religion must be preserved intact amidst the progress of civilization. And to achieve this noble and necessary end, all those who claim the title of Catholics must, united in a close alliance, apply themselves diligently, silencing in the meantime the different opinions on political affairs, which, however, they can honestly and legitimately defend in their time and place. For this kind of affection, provided it is not repugnant to Religion or justice, the Church in no way condemns it, but, removed from all noise of dispute, goes forward, employing its work for the common good, and loving with a mother's love all men, without exception, but especially those in whom faith and piety are most outstanding."
(i) "The supporters of the opposite parties, disagreeing with the rest, must all agree on this, that the Catholic cause must be saved in civilization." And for this noble and necessary purpose, as many as love the Catholic name, they must bow diligently to it as if in a covenant, and be silent for a little while on the orders of divergent opinions on the political cause, which, however, may be defended in their place honestly and legitimately. For the Church does not in the least condemn studies of this kind, so long as they do not conflict with religion or instinct; but far from all the noise of conflicts, he continues to bring his work to the common benefit, and to love all men with a mother's love, especially those whose faith and piety have stood the greater. {^Ada of the Holy See, vol. xv page 243.)
(i) Conscientious casts, t. ii, "On the consequences of liberalism", n. 4 (note i)\a.
Let us now consider the things which some have noted concerning the lesser evil:
1. The so-called "theory of the lesser evil," some say, "is always and in every way false, because it contradicts the teachings of the Great Apostle." — This assertion is far from being true. The theory of the lesser evil is current among theologians, and none of them, however, dares to contradict the teaching of St. Paul; an evident sign that these theologians do not consider it contrary to the Apostle. In the celebrated words, et non faciamus mala ut veniant bona, the Holy Apostle speaks, as we have elsewhere observed (i), of the moral evil or sin, which one can never commit even in order to obtain the greatest possible good.
2. The lawful theory of the lesser evil is only applicable when there is absolute necessity or obligation to choose between two evils; therefore the amputation of the arm in order to preserve life is lawful. — This too is false. It is always permissible to have one's arm amputated in order to preserve life, but it is not always, and in itself never, according to theologians, obligatory to do so; because there is no obligation to preserve, or rather, to prolong life by extraordinary means, such as that of said amputation; see, v. gr., San Alfonso, 1. 3. "• 37^, and Gury, i.°. I, n. 391.
3. At least, applied to moral evil, the theory is inadmissible; because to choose one of two moral evils or two sins is already to sin; and this is what happens in the election of the least evil candidate, who, after all, is evil. — Here is the crux of the matter, and here it seems that two very different things are confused. One is to formally commit moral evil, that is, to commit sin, and another is to materially permit another to commit it or to give occasion for another to sin by abusing it. The first is never licit; the second can be, as theologians commonly admit, if it is done to obtain a great good, and of course, without bad intention and duly avoiding the scandal that may arise. For this is precisely what happens in the election of the least unworthy: with it the office is given to him, which is as a weapon or occasion which it is feared will be abused by his malice to the detriment of society; but it is given with sufficient cause, that is, to avoid the greater evil that would come from not voting for him. And it should be noted well that the malice of choosing the unworthy, when there is one, consists in this, in giving such an occasion without sufficient cause, as we already noted when explaining in what sense the Cardinal of Lugo says that it is intrinsically evil to elect an unworthy person. How is Lugo to understand that this is in itself and in all circuмstances evil, when, as was seen in the article on Reason and Faith, he clearly teaches the lawfulness of choosing in given circuмstances the least unworthy?
In this way, Father Vermeersch also explains the material or objective malice of the choice of the unworthy, when he maintains (i) that "it is a cooperation, mediate particip antis, quite similar to that of the seller who gives arms to someone who he foresees will abuse them. Therefore, this cooperation may be excused for a proportionate cause." Thus moralists commonly excuse (2) the one who sells, for example, with just cause finery and attire, in themselves decent, to a young woman who will perhaps abuse them; likewise the one who, needing money and finding no one to lend him, asks a usurer for it, putting him in an opportunity of sinning by demanding unjust interest, etc. For in this occasion of abusing his office he puts the councillor or the deputy on his side, who gives him his vote for such an office. To do so without cause, or intending the harm that is feared or with moral scandal, is a sin; To do so in order to obtain a relatively proportionate good, such as avoiding a much greater harm, which the most unworthy person will do, is a lawful thing.
Someone has pointed out that we cannot rely on the authority of the illustrious Cardinal Lugo, because there is no analogy between our case and that discussed by the great theologian, who speaks of elections for benefices. — But does not the benefice imply, by chance, an office? And is not this office public, e.g., that of parish priest? Why then should not what is said of ecclesiastical public offices be applied, in the benign sense, to civil public offices? If in order to obtain a great good, such as preventing a much greater harm than the least unworthy beneficiary will do, one can elect the latter, can not, for a similar reason, one elect a councillor or a less bad deputy?
(i) Quaestiones dejustilia, n. 91.
(2) Gury, t. I, n. 354-3.°, with Saint Alphonsus, cited there, etc.
Moreover, it seems appropriate to note that the authors of Moral Theology who have dealt with this particular point of elections to civil public offices, whether administrative or political, since the publication of Casus conscientiae de liberalismo (in 1884), all, without exception, as far as I know, have resolved, in the same way as in Casus, in favour of the lawfulness of suffrage. In addition to Lehmkuhl, March, Berardi, Ojetti, Aernys, Génicot, Palmieri, etc., cited and followed by the Monitore, the same is taught by Bulot in his Compendium of Moral Theology which has just been published, Ferreres, Busquet, Noldin, Delama, Muller.
4. But in the end, by voting for the least bad liberal, liberalism is encouraged, just as by throwing less fire, a fire is encouraged. — Strictly speaking, what is done is to prevent the setting of fire as much as twenty by allowing the setting of fire as much as two; which is not to encourage, but to dampen the fire; and it can be dampened so much that it will be easy to extinguish it later.
And here the question arises: Who shows more horror at the fire of liberalism, the one who, while unable to extinguish it, strives to dampen it, or the one who, unable to extinguish it, stays at home, doing nothing but lamenting and groaning? “By separating from liberalism,” it is said, “by refusing it all cooperation, by striking at it and opening breaches in its walls, it will collapse and the fire and gangrene will end.” — Fine; but how does one strike at it and open breaches in it? Because separating from it and refusing it all formal cooperation, not only by putting in place the merely material one, but when it harms it and prevents its development, is what all good Catholics already do. Why not strike at it also by casting a vote, especially when we see in practice where apathy and withdrawal lead us? In Spain, as everywhere, where there have been brave men, war has been waged against the enemy with all lawful means, using one's own weapons against him first, and if necessary, those of others, even if they are of a partial enemy, against the common enemy. This is not favouring the enemy, it is serving him.
5. The theory of the lesser evil, applied to the choice of liberals, is useless in practice, because all are one for the case: political-irreligious liberalism is one, there is no need to choose. — Whoever expresses himself in this way must have forgotten that Leo XIII, in his famous Encyclical Libertas, sets forth various degrees or kinds of liberalism, one worse than another, the first of which is called the worst kind of liberalism: one can therefore choose between the worst and the least bad.
Having explained the capital vice of liberalism, the Supreme Pontiff adds that "many forms are distinguished in it, because the will can be separated, not in just one way or in just one degree, from the obedience that is due to God or to those who share in God's authority." To refuse "all obedience whatever, whether in public or private and domestic matters, is the greatest perversion of liberty, and the worst kind of liberalism, pessimum liberalismi gemis. Close to this is the doctrine of those who consent to subject themselves to God, the Creator of the world"; but who boldly reject the laws of faith, etc., etc.
The most pernicious ideas that they call Catholic-liberal, these, these are the true causes of the ruin of the States, and they have brought such ruin to France. Believe me, this evil is a more terrible evil than the revolution itself, than the Commune itself; and then, speaking of the horrors of the Commune, he says: "But no, it is not these alone that I fear. What I fear most is this ill-fated (seesaw) policy, unstable and moving away from God." And why are Catholic-liberal ideas a more terrible evil and more feared by Pius IX than the Commune itself? The Pope himself expressly says this when dealing with this matter in his Brief to Senator Caunart de Hamale (May 8, 1873), because liberal Catholicism is "an error surrounded by ambushes and more dangerous than a declared enmity." And this same reason is also given by Pius IX in his Brief to the members of the Milan Circle on March 6, 1873, because liberal Catholics, he says, "are more dangerous and more fatal than declared enemies." Where it is seen that the Pope considers liberal Catholics worse than declared revolutionaries, not because the latter do not feel and act worse than liberal Catholics, but because the latter can, with their mask of Catholics and with their ambushes, as the Pope says, deceive more easily than declared enemies, and the closer they are to Catholics and the more relations they have with them, the more easily they can introduce their ideas, "dividing their minds and weakening the Catholic forces that it would be necessary to unite to direct them all against the enemy" (2). This is not hyperbole, as it has seemed to some; in the circuмstances and in the sense in which Pius IX said it, it is a truth of common sense. A slight illness, but concealed and unknown, may be, and sometimes is, more harmful, is a more terrible evil, than a serious illness, but manifest and known, because effective remedies can be applied to the latter and not to the former. A small enemy, less to be feared in itself because he only wants to inflict a wound on me, is more to be feared, and in this sense worse, than a great enemy who wants to kill me, if the latter declares himself a great enemy, and I consider him as such, and the former presents himself to me and is received by me as a friend; because if I do not guard against the latter, I shall be more certain to be wounded.
(i) Speech to the French deputation on June 18, 1871: in speech 59, in the work Discorsi del Sommo Ponlcficc Pió IX, pronunziati in Vaticano ai fideli di Roma c dell'orbe. Rome, typography by G. Aureli, 1872.
(2) Pius IX, Briefly quoted, to the members of the Circle of St. Ambrose.
A lesser evil, less intense and lasting^ is sometimes greater, because it is more harmful, than another intense one of short duration (i). Thus, a liberal Catholic, although, because of being such, does not intend to do as much harm as the monster of the Community, is more feared than the latter, where he is considered a sincere friend of the Church, and for that reason he is not fought and enters the ranks of good Catholics, "dividing the minds and weakening the forces that should be united to direct them all against the enemy* (2).
In the time of Pius IX, as is clear from the speech cited above, there were politicians who, while sincerely proclaiming themselves Catholics and lovers of the Church, and many considered them as such, were in reality liberals, since they maintained, like the private gentleman mentioned by Pope Pius IX, that "in order to govern well, it is necessary (and therefore even in theory) to have an atheistic law, indifferentism and that singular tactic of accommodating oneself to all opinions, to all parties, to all religions, and to unite the immutable dogmas of the Church with freedom of worship and conscience" (3). These true liberals and false Catholics are rightly called more pernicious to the simple faithful of Christian nations than the monsters of the Commune; because the latter are avoided as declared enemies, and the former are listened to as feigned friends.
But what follows from this? It follows that Catholics must always be on the alert so as not to be deceived by these hidden enemies, and therefore those who sound the alarm against such a danger do very well, and those who lull them to sleep in the face of such a great risk, or incite them to join with them when they are really liberal Catholics and have the ideas that the Pontiff condemns there, do very badly. It follows that Catholics must unite among themselves, making all kinds of sacrifices to present their own deputies, and thus direct all their united forces against the common enemy, and that in the case where a Catholic presents himself as a candidate against a liberal Catholic, the latter cannot of itself be given a vote or in any way help him to be a deputy. This is what follows, and nothing more, from the oft-repeated words of Pius IX.
But all this was said by Father Minteguiaga in the explanation of the second point of his article, when he deals with the union of Catholics, and it has nothing to do with the case, unfortunately too frequent, which he deals with in the third point. He does not speak in it of what Catholics should do when the liberal Catholic candidate stands against the pure Catholic; when the former tries to deceive the good voters with the mask of a Catholic and attract them to him, and in this way triumph over the blameless Catholic; but he deals with the case in which no pure Catholic candidate stands, either through indolence or through the passion of the Catholic parties themselves; he deals with the case in which a more or less liberal candidate, but always liberal, stands against another more liberal than him, and, consequently, worse and more unworthy of being voted for; It is, as he says, a case of one unworthy person against another unworthy person, which case has nothing to do, as we said before, with that other case alluded to in the words of Pius IX, in which he speaks of the ambushes of liberal Catholics who present themselves as Catholics in order to deceive the good and make their candidacy triumph over that of the pure Catholic. To bring up, therefore, the words of the Pope when it is a question of the unworthy person in the presence of the most unworthy, is to abuse his authority, it is to do him an injury by supposing that the revolutionary and the anarchist feel and want and do less harm to the Church than the liberal Catholic, when he presents himself as such and does not try to wage war on the Catholic candidate, nor to deceive the good in this way. This, neither has Pius IX said nor has he ever dreamed of it, and those who bring up his words in this regard show either great ignorance or great thoughtlessness and frivolity, to say the least. Pius IX knew very well from experience that if the more or less moderate liberals treated him badly in 1870, he was not treated better, but much worse, by those of 1848, who were more liberal and more revolutionary; this same judgment of both classes of people is well expressed by Leo XIII when he says in his Encyclical Immortale Dei: "Experience has shown enough what results they (the so-called modern liberties) lead to, having engendered everywhere such effects, which have rightly brought disappointment and repentance to truly honest and prudent men. Without a doubt, if this kind of modern State is compared with another State, whether real or imaginary, where the Christian name is tyrannically and shamelessly persecuted, the former may seem more tolerable; but the principles on which it is based are such, as we have said before, that no one can approve them. > Individuals from political parties may be worse than others, and sometimes perhaps someone belonging to a more advanced party may be less bad than someone belonging to a more conservative party; but the one who in his Government programme shows himself to be less persecuting of the Church will always be less bad or more tolerable. This same doctrine was recently approved by Pius X in the Italian elections, allowing many Catholics to vote for deputies who were more or less liberal, and, consequently, more or less hostile to the Church and the rights of the Pope, in order to prevent the triumph of the socialists and anarchists who were present in such districts. With reason, therefore, many Spanish Bishops have urged the Catholics of their dioceses, as we have indicated above, to conform their conduct in the last administrative elections to this doctrine. And, when considered, it is so reasonable and so in accordance with Christian common sense that even several Catholic publications opposed to the article of Reason and Faith are forced to confess: one of them, that the principle on which the doctrine is based is true, even though its application in this land of praiseworthy tenacity and holy intransigence against heretics, Moors and Turks is a very delicate point; another, that such doctrine is lawful in administrative elections, and in some rare cases for political elections; which we do not see how it can be explained in good logic, since the moral malice of the election of an unworthy person in both kinds of elections is specifically the same, since it consists in conferring by vote a public office that the elected person is feared to abuse as a weapon to do harm; another, finally, seems to be content with the fact that, once the principle is admitted, it is not systematically applied always and in every case. Where, then, is the difference? Not in the doctrine itself, but, as I understand it, in the application of the same in some particular cases. Some Catholic politicians think that in the present circuмstances of Spain it is not advisable to vote for the least unworthy in the presence of a more unworthy one, because by not voting one will better achieve the eradication of all strains of liberalism from the native soil. Others believe, with us and with the Bishops mentioned at the beginning, that it is advisable to vote for the least unworthy, that in general and as an ordinary rule it is advisable to vote for the least unworthy in the presence of the most unworthy, because in this way liberalism, more or less moderate, is prevented from becoming fierce, not by violent revolution that could perhaps provoke beneficial reactions, but by evolution, as is happening in unfortunate France. If Catholics there had not abstained from voting in such large numbers, solely because there were no candidates from their party, the revolutionaries would certainly not have been able to rise to power as they have and wage the fierce war they are waging against the Church.
(i) Casus conscientiae, t. 11 cit. (note 3) b.
(2) Pius IX, Briefly cited, to the members of the Circle of Saint Ambrose.
(3) Cited speech.
We will make two observations to conclude: 1, that in expounding this doctrine and in applying it as we do, it is not our intention to impose it on anyone, for which we have no authority; We declare, however, that the intrinsic reason given in favor of the lawfulness seems certain, according to the moral principles of morality in matters of cooperation, and that we do not see how one can in conscience force one not to vote in the case in question; 2.* That in assessing in each case which is the greater evil or relative good is not always easy, and, consequently, both the electors and also the leaders of parties, and the latter perhaps more than the former, should consult in case of doubt with learned and pious persons, and, if possible, with authority in the Church, who, well informed of the case in the various lawful combinations that can occur, without political passion and guided by the sincere love of the greater and more solid good of Religion and of the Fatherland, will be the best disposed to form and issue a prudent judgment.
All that has been said and that in these days we have seen and read on the occasion of the present question makes us miss, once again, the complete organization of "The Catholic forces must be united in order to avoid the need to vote for a candidate who is less liberal or less hostile to the Church in order to prevent the victory of the one who is more liberal. May Heaven grant that all Catholics, and especially the leaders of the parties, have so deeply impressed upon their hearts the need for this organization and this union that they will not spare any sacrifice, even of the most expensive things, to achieve it. If in each district, as a general rule, a candidate, only one, but truly Catholic and suitable, were to stand against the more or less liberal ones; if all Catholics, both those who form political groups, with their leaders at their head, as well as those who are scattered and act independently of any direction, were to launch themselves united into the struggle, led by expert guides and with the blessing of the Prelates, we could still obtain victory and restore the social reign of Jesus Christ in our Spain and make it great and powerful. And, at least, we would have the consolation of having fulfilled our duties as Spanish Catholic citizens.
P. ViLLADA.
Recent Posts
