Ewtn's "a Brief Catechism For Catholic Voters"

[Laudate_Dominum]

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm[/url]


First of all...

[indent=1]"If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a “disqualifying issue.” A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable."[/indent]

And the later it says...


[indent=1]10. What if all the candidates from whom I have to choose are pro-abortion? Do I have to abstain from voting at all? What do I do?[/indent]

[indent=1]Obviously, one of these candidates is going to win the election. Thus, in this dilemma, you should do your best to judge which candidate would do the least moral harm.[/indent]



In support of this leap in logic it quotes from a paragraph in Evangelium Vitae that is here in full:

[indent=1]73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. "They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live" (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: "the midwives feared God" (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for "the endurance and faith of the saints" (Rev 13:10).[/indent]

[indent=1]In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".98[/indent]

[indent=1][b]A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on.[/b] Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, [b]when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.[/b][/indent]

And then the voter's guide says...

[indent=1]Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.[/indent]

Hmm....

It also says, "You should never act on a doubtful conscience."

Well, sorry, but imagining the scenario of all pro-abortion candidates my conscience is pretty doubtful and I'm not buying the questionable application of EV.

Thoughts?

[SaintOlaf]

Is there possibility of a null vote? I would have a difficult time voting for anyone who was pro-abortion, and may choose not to vote at all.

My opinion is that when we arrive at a time when none of our potential politicians are willing to protect innocent life maybe the only answer is rebellion. Ill post more later when Im at my computer.

[Basilisa Marie]

I really don't like that so many groups are putting out these voting guides. The ones who read them already vote for pro-life candidates, and the ones who don't vote that way won't read them anyway. It really just feels like an excuse to encourage scrupulosity in considering who to vote for. Voting is a serious issue, of course. But I have a problem when tracts make it seem like there's only one way to interpret which candidate will do the most good for pro-life causes, and that's not true.

[SaintOlaf]

During the last election, I definitely felt like I was at this impasse of not being able to vote with a clear conscience for either Obama (obviously) or McCain. I was convinced by some of my fellow Catholics that I needed to vote for McCain with the thought that we could push him over the edge, and possibly have a real effect on the election (I live in Michigan, a "Battle-ground" state).

On a smaller scale, I can certainly see how the effect of one vote can be amplified, for State Senate and State Congress elections, many times they're decided by a few hundred votes or even fewer, so voting is much more paramount in those cases I believe.

On the larger scale, (Presidential especially) I think we have a real opportunity to evaluate what effect our vote will have. If you live in New York, a "Blue State" for all intents and purposes, I think you can certainly be justified in abstaining from a vote, seeing as the chances that your contribution to the electoral college will be minuscule if not completely negligible.

The opportunity to vote is something that is important in our society, but I believe that a null vote, can be viewed as a vote of "no-confidence" in the system as a whole.

When we have a system defined as a "Representative Republic", and a large portion of the potential voting public are drastically un-represented in their beliefs and morals it's time for a change. Finding a way to swing that power as a community that we would have would then be the trick, are we able to elect officials that represent our beliefs? Do we need to take action in different ways? If our antiquated 2-party system doesn't accommodate our needs, I believe we have a responsibility both morally and constitutionally to make sure our voices are heard.

Challenging the system in this manner will obviously be frowned upon by the powers that be, but sometimes revolution is the only way to solve such a problem. Maybe we organize a mass move to Texas and defect.

[rhetor4christ]

I'd be inclined to exercise my right to vote and write in Jesus.

I understand Olaf's point, but in the 2008 election I voted in Indiana, a traditionally red state. And as we might recall, Indiana flipped to blue that year.

So.. yeah.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1331766270' post='2400830']
...Thoughts?
[/quote]

Buy me a beer and maybe I'll think of a new idea out of this beaver dam voting problem. We can solve this and world hunger over a few cold ones. Good plan for the weekend!


Or perhaps we should get some chimps at typewriters and wait for a solution to be typed.




[quote name='rhetor4christ' timestamp='1331774239' post='2400880']
I'd be inclined to exercise my right to vote and write in Jesus.
[/quote]

So what happens if He wins?

[rhetor4christ]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1331882239' post='2401715']
So what happens if He wins?
[/quote]

Salvation? In all seriousnes though, I'd write in someone who I felt would best represent this country. I feel a strong need to vote, if for no other reason than many people simply do not possess that right.
At present, I'm inclined to write in Bishop Dolan

Edited March 16, 2012 by rhetor4christ

[Tally Marx]

I don't think refraining from voting is a good idea. If all Catholics decided not to vote because there were no perfect candidates, then non-Catholics would run the country, and things would be worse. Evil succeeds when good men do nothing.

Does voting for the lesser of two evils make you an accomplice to them? I would say no. In this case you are not voting for someone as much as you are against someone else. I think the principle of doube effect applies.

[Aloysius]

if all Catholics did X in relation to voting, then Y would happen.

if all Catholics decided not to vote, they would become irrelevant.
if all Catholics voted for one of the two major parties, then the Catholics would have fallen for the lies of one of the two major parties and helped the establishment continue its agenda that remains largely unchanged regardless of who's in power.
if all Catholics suddenly wrote-in someone else, or voted for the same third-party candidate... well, they wouldn't necessarily win yet, but it'd get noticed and could shake up the status quo.

voting for one of the two major parties is, in my opinion, a wasted vote. the ONLY worthwhile vote is the vote for a third party. why can't we spread that message around? isn't that the way to end the stranglehold of the single party two party system? it's not the third party vote that's the wasted vote, it's every vote OTHER than the third party vote that's the wasted vote.

(if Ron Paul miraculously gets the Republican nomination, the above statements become obsolete )

[qfnol31]

No one ever read my big long thing on why third party voting doesn't work.

Yep, I keep perpetuating the lie only since about 40% of Catholics or less even care about social issues in a good way.

The others all vote for abortion &c.

[qfnol31]

I think this post is relevant and it addresses most of the reasons raised for voting third party:
http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/118843-rick-santorum-takes-mo-mn-and-co/page__view__findpost__p__2387890

As far as I can tell, EWTN's guide is based on the USCCB guide. It's meant to help you form your conscience, as is the USCCB guide. I think that people are reluctant to vote for someone they don't like or a policy they don't like and so will vote only on those grounds. The USCCB and EWTN both understand that voting can be voting for or voting against a candidate. It's implicit in the statement that one is going to win.

Catholics must take into account what their vote says/whom it elects AND the outcome of their vote (i.e. who ends up in office). We are responsible for both, to a greater or lesser degree.

If a person walks into a bar and shoots everyone while you watch, though you could have at least called the police or tried to intervene, then you are responsible in a certain sense for the violence that took place. I know that our votes aren't worth as much in the election as when we are one-on-one with someone performing an evil action, but as a bloc of people we are responsible.