qfnol31 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 What did you think of my response to your response to my response to your response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351646762' post='2500768'] Yes you did! All over the place! UGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!! [/quote] I don't think I did. I think you may have jumped to conclusions or possibly read some of my statements out of context? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Q, (when I type that I think of Q from Star Trek), hmm... I don't actually think there is ever a legitimate argument to be made that all Catholics must morally vote for a particular candidate. even in the case where a candidate might further approximate someone worthy of that kind of stance, I would still be wary of such a stance because it would have the tendency of misusing the sacramental bond of the Church to be nothing more than the glue that holds a political voting block together. Even if a candidate were 100% perfect on all issues that were substantially important to Catholics, I would still grant the leeway for members of the Church to choose a different voting strategy (though I would personally jump on board with the 100% guy) Edited October 31, 2012 by Aloysius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351646803' post='2500771'] Alright then, your personal qualifiers in post 27 make your reasoning a hell of a lot better, man. [/quote] Post #27, but only my second reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 well, those were much needed qualifiers to a lot of your posts throughout this political war that I helped to instigate on phatmass (haha it works better here than on facebook!) I discussed as well your post 28 a little bit; the one part you ask what individual you had specifically addressed and endangered their Catholic faith; for that, I refer you to my point that it is all about the audience... plenty of people lurk and never post, my friend. Most debates will never result in convincing your debate opponent, but representing your side will has implications on the lurking readership of the threads; and the mindset that I came into this thread to particularly argue against tonight is a mindset which is absolutely poisonous and dangerous--the mindset that conflates the Catholic faith with a particular political bent. Honestly it wasn't you in particular that was the worst offender in that regard, but I felt you had contributed to it and this thread left the easiest opening for an assault on that type of dangerous sand faulty reasoning, so I took it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351648013' post='2500799'] Q, (when I type that I think of Q from Star Trek), hmm... I don't actually think there is ever a legitimate argument to be made that all Catholics must morally vote for a particular candidate. even in the case where a candidate might further approximate someone worthy of that kind of stance, I would still be wary of such a stance because it would have the tendency of misusing the sacramental bond of the Church to be nothing more than the glue that holds a political voting block together. Even if a candidate were 100% perfect on all issues that were substantially important to Catholics, I would still grant the leeway for members of the Church to choose a different voting strategy (though I would personally jump on board with the 100% guy) [/quote] Read my sig then go [url="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0209496/"]here[/url]. I don't mean this argument as a canonically binding statement, wherein a person must make the correct choice to belong to the Church. I mean to say that in the end we can be held accountable for our actions, but that determination comes from God alone. If indeed we make the wrong choice, sure that doesn't necessarily exclude us from ecclesial communion, but at the same time we ought to seek forgiveness if we determine we acted incorrectly. But since this isn't so much an ecclesial matter, it definitely will not come down to the bishops or the Pope to speak in such a manner (following in particular the argument I made earlier in response to dUSt). If such an argument about the moral legitimacy of a singular candidate were to be made, it would only come from someone appropriately and perfectly applying the standards set forth by the Church to an [u][b][i]exact[/i][/b][/u] understanding of the circumstances present, accounting for every detail. Such an argument is very unlikely possible, but at the same time I want to say it is because I believe the Church has given us the resources to know everything well enough that if we could see all circumstances with keen insight we would be able to make only one choice. Again, I think that this is a very unlikely argument, but I want to say it's possible to defend the nature of the Church's teachings. I'll put this a different way. [color=#0000cd]You and I probably both agree that it's easy to make an argument against a particular candidate as a possible choice from a Catholic point of view. I think that this could possibly be extended out to the other candidates as well, following similar criteria as the argument against a singular candidate.[/color] I want to be careful to distinguish this possibility of a single vote and the consequences of choosing poorly from the legitimacy of making such an argument. That an argument can be made that there is only one possible vote does not mean that such an argument [i]should[/i] be made. If a person were to make such an argument and miss a point, thereby misleading a whole group of people, then that person would be morally culpable for their (unintended) deception. Likewise, leaving out the possibility of prudential judgment is morally wrong when prudential judgment is the correct form of action. Again, I don't think that this necessarily would exclude a person from the Sacraments, but that doesn't mean we can't be held accountable for not acting well. Also, God is the ultimate judge and I would never want to step into that roll and no one else can either. Therefore while an argument can be made from this point of view, it would be difficult to defend without stepping into God's point of view. Hopefully this language isn't too unclear. I purposefully wrote this post without simple language, though normally I prefer simple language to precision...Oh well, this is a rambling post if ever I had one. Gah, this was meant to be a new post: Good grief that was longer than I wanted. TLDR: possible to make the argument, but it's not necessarily a good argument to make. Edited October 31, 2012 by qfnol31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maiw592lfV1rug97lo1_400.jpg[/img] it's alright, occasionally the length of posts gets away from us. It seems to me as if what you're saying amounts to a continuation of our previous discussion of the ends and the means, to which I had infamously replied with Polish people on horseback fighting German Tanks. It seems your argument is summed up in the idea that we are culpable for the results of an action or an inaction (omission) and therefore if there was a 100% good on Catholic-issues candidate and we failed to support him and therefore our lack of support resulted in that candidate losing, then our action would be bad? Am I reading you right (even if I am simplifying it down to a basic point)? I remain in opposition to your position on my selfsame positions of the art of hopeless hope. Certainly inaction when you have the capability of good action is something sinful, the sin of omission; but I would never equate any hopeless action, no matter how unlikely it is to succeed, with an act of omission. supporting one unlikely-to-win fully pro-life person over a likely-to-win fully pro-life person is not morally despicable unless you do so because you truly wish for no pro-life person to win. I don't think this is an evaluation solely on one's intentions, because the action in and of itself is still good. So could an argument ever be made that there is only one possible vote for a Catholic (including your qualifiers that it is not hinging your membership in good standing to the Church, but rather indicating that not doing so is a sin)? I still don't think so. Because no matter how exact your reasoning on how good any given candidate is and how much good they will do, you cannot rest your final case for that individual solely on Catholic morality; there will always be a legitimate case to be made for a hopeless cause and the argument that it is failing to help the more-likely-cause does not make your action a sin of omission, because by supporting the hopeless cause you're committing a righteous act. you can rest your final argument on reason and practical politics and exhortations to join you in your project to do good because it's more likely to succeed, but I don't see any way in which Catholic morality requires you to stand up with the more likely cause, it just requires you to stand with a righteous cause, perfect or imperfect, plausible or implausible, to try to enact good in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351644266' post='2500695'] Lol, I don't think anyone on this forum would dare to try and say that Obama is a legitimate Catholic vote. [/quote]i don't think you've been reading enough posts here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 hmm... there's Kujo mostly, maybe one or two others but mostly people have said they don't think we should vote for either one of the two... I suppose on a couple occassions I indicated that I would not call someone's Catholicity into question if they voted for Obama any more than I would do so for someone who voted for Romney as it is up to everyone to make their own informed decisions about how they think they can best use their vote to limit evil (of course my main point is not that you should vote for Obama, I think voting for Obama is a BAD vote, but more that I find it repugnant that the communion of the Church has become the attempted glue to hold a voting block together) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Not so much the Communion of the Church, but cooperating and prioritizing goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351650966' post='2500848'] [img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maiw592lfV1rug97lo1_400.jpg[/img] it's alright, occasionally the length of posts gets away from us. It seems to me as if what you're saying amounts to a continuation of our previous discussion of the ends and the means, to which I had infamously replied with Polish people on horseback fighting German Tanks. It seems your argument is summed up in the idea that we are culpable for the results of an action or an inaction (omission) and therefore if there was a 100% good on Catholic-issues candidate and we failed to support him and therefore our lack of support resulted in that candidate losing, then our action would be bad? Am I reading you right (even if I am simplifying it down to a basic point)? I remain in opposition to your position on my selfsame positions of the art of hopeless hope. Certainly inaction when you have the capability of good action is something sinful, the sin of omission; but I would never equate any hopeless action, no matter how unlikely it is to succeed, with an act of omission. supporting one unlikely-to-win fully pro-life person over a likely-to-win fully pro-life person is not morally despicable unless you do so because you truly wish for no pro-life person to win. I don't think this is an evaluation solely on one's intentions, because the action in and of itself is still good. So could an argument ever be made that there is only one possible vote for a Catholic (including your qualifiers that it is not hinging your membership in good standing to the Church, but rather indicating that not doing so is a sin)? I still don't think so. Because no matter how exact your reasoning on how good any given candidate is and how much good they will do, you cannot rest your final case for that individual solely on Catholic morality; there will always be a legitimate case to be made for a hopeless cause and the argument that it is failing to help the more-likely-cause does not make your action a sin of omission, because by supporting the hopeless cause you're committing a righteous act. you can rest your final argument on reason and practical politics and exhortations to join you in your project to do good because it's more likely to succeed, but I don't see any way in which Catholic morality requires you to stand up with the more likely cause, it just requires you to stand with a righteous cause, perfect or imperfect, plausible or implausible, to try to enact good in the world. [/quote] Well in this case you've already thrown in a bunch of modifiers that would have to be denounced in such a case. I remember going through the "hopeless cause" showing that such an action is about a certain witness to a particular good. It is conceivable that someone could argue against the good witnessed as a good not worthy of support. Again, this is a difficult argument to make, but what if the good you're witnessing is some small good, such as you think the president needs to be of a certain age? (This is a purely hypothetical, ridiculous point to illustrate what is involved in such thinking.) What if in fact the only other viable candidate is as bad as the first bad one? Is the good of a three-party system worth the vote? I won't say here, but I could continue for a while. To see my argument right now you'd have to throw out a bunch of arguments that I made before, as strange as that might sound. Actually, here it might be best to throw out a bunch of dUSt's arguments even more so. Essentially this argument rests on a balancing of goods and evils and their relative merits. A good end must outweigh the evil through remote material cooperation, yada, yada, yada. My argument is really twofold: 1) Distinctions can be made everywhere and there can be a ton made, though after a certain point that's impractical. However, the more distinctions made, the easier it becomes to make one choice over another. 2) I think that Catholic moral theology has a lot of basic ideas that can be applied to a situation. Again, I'm not making the argument here that Romney is the only moral choice, but I really have a hard time believing it's out of the question that a case can be made for Romney or a third-party candidate as the only legitimate option. Actually, going third-party would probably be the only legitimate option if a person honestly believed an equivalency between Romney and Obama. Most people see some gradation, but not much. The real question for my purposes is whether or not these two are the same and if a person could legitimately make a (binding?) argument either way. I suspect not, which then brings in much of your previous point. So long as we can't honestly and clearly distinguish between the two absolutely, or if that difference ends up being only negligible, then it would be impossible to come up with an honest argument for Romney as the only viable choice, and thus your point stands entirely. Okay, I think I'm done rambling for tonight. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 One more thing. I think reading my posts is like listening to all of Romney's speeches back to back to back. You see the shift midway through when I start incorporating different elements that ought to be considered. Maybe a vote for Romney is really a vote for Q...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351651756' post='2500864']but more that I find it repugnant that the communion of the Church has become the attempted glue to hold a voting block together) [/quote] On this we agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Normile Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1351390711' post='2498919'] If those were the only two issues, yes. However, I've already said he might well repeal overt funding for overseas abortions. However, since he shows no signs of understanding funding is fungible, the effect could be nil. The HHS mandate may well go away, but the option then is to have government fund it, anyway. He favors portions of teh Obamacares. I'm not anti-Romney. I'm anti-: War, unlimited Federal Government, Market intervention, Fiat currency, Central banking, legal tender laws, NDAA, Unconstitutional Federal agencies such as: DEA, ATF, KMFDM, FDA..., TARP, Monopolies (including the Federal Reserve)... It's not the man, it's his policies, his willful violation of the Constitution, and his commitment to violence. [/quote] So Winchester you are saying you are anti - Obama then, thats good. We can agree on that, Obama has started two wars without going through with approval of the congress, which of course is just another bypass of the constitution. Obama has increased not only the size but the scope of the Federal Government, he has thrown millions away on useless green technologies and incested in failing overseas companies like the swedish car battery company that has yet to produce anything. Just an FYI Romney has never stated the government would fund HHS, he has said it was a state issue and as such would be up to state legislatures to pass in their individual states as teh U.S. constitution allows for. ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1351653245' post='2500891'] So Winchester you are saying you are anti - Obama then, thats good.[/quote] Did you honestly doubt this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now