FutureCarmeliteClaire Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351702503' post='2501196'] I'm not sure your intention, but typically this statement (especially the part in caps) is used as a defense of the "lesser of two evils," even though the second (lesser evil) may still be morally repugnant. [/quote] I am aware. My point was that if you want to vote for Romney (if you believe he is really the lesser of two evils), you have to avoid scandal by coming out and saying you know he's evil, but you believe he is the lesser. Sorry if my whole post was all blobbed together and un-understandable, I'm exhausted... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roamin Catholic Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='FutureCarmeliteClaire' timestamp='1351702296' post='2501193'] 3) THE VOTER AVOIDS GIVING SCANDAL BY TELLING ANYONE WHO MAY KNOW FOR WHOM HE OR SHE HAS VOTED THAT HE OR SHE DID SO TO ADVANCE THE MORALLY GOOD PRACTICES THE CANDIDATE SUPPORTS, WHILE REMAINING OPPOSED TO THE IMMORAL PRACTICES THE CANDIDATE ENDORSES AND SUPPORTS. [/quote] [quote name='FutureCarmeliteClaire' timestamp='1351702640' post='2501199'] I am aware. My point was that if you want to vote for Romney (if you believe he is really the lesser of two evils), you have to avoid scandal by coming out and saying you know he's evil, but you believe he is the lesser. [/quote] I love this. Thanks for posting it. Edited October 31, 2012 by Roamin_Catholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='FutureCarmeliteClaire' timestamp='1351702640' post='2501199'] I am aware. My point was that if you want to vote for Romney (if you believe he is really the lesser of two evils), you have to avoid scandal by coming out and saying you know he's evil, but you believe he is the lesser. Sorry if my whole post was all blobbed together and un-understandable, I'm exhausted... [/quote] Oh, okay, that makes sense. I don't think anyone here has made an argument that he isn't evil. The main argument so far has been "he's less evil than Obama." (Or not, depending on who's giving the argument.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FutureCarmeliteClaire Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351702777' post='2501203'] Oh, okay, that makes sense. I don't think anyone here has made an argument that he isn't evil. The main argument so far has been "he's less evil than Obama." (Or not, depending on who's giving the argument.) [/quote] Okay, I can accept that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351702777' post='2501203'] Oh, okay, that makes sense. I don't think anyone here has made an argument that he isn't evil. The main argument so far has been "he's less evil than Obama." (Or not, depending on who's giving the argument.) [/quote] Have you been following the Freedom threads? Pretty sure she wears Romney pajamas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='FutureCarmeliteClaire' timestamp='1351702296' post='2501193'] 38. ...In certain circumstances, it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports some immoral practices while opposing other immoral practices. Catholic moral teaching refers to actions of this sort as material cooperation, which is morally permissible when certain conditions are met. With respect to the question of voting, these conditions include the following: [b]1) there is no [color=#ff0000]viable[/color] candidate who supports the moral law in its full integrity;[/b] [/quote] This is all I've been saying the whole time. Romney and Obama are the only [color=#ff0000][b]viable[/b][/color] candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfink Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351707524' post='2501247'] This is all I've been saying the whole time. Romney and Obama are the only [color=#ff0000][b]viable[/b][/color] candidates. [/quote] [size=8]YOU.[/size] [size=8]DO.[/size] [size=8]NOT.[/size] [size=8]KNOW.[/size] [size=8]THAT.[/size] [size=8]OUR VOTE CAN CHANGE WHO IS VIABLE.[/size][size=8] STOP IT.[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='arfink' timestamp='1351707774' post='2501252'] [size=3]YOU. DO. NOT. KNOW. THAT. OUR VOTE CAN CHANGE WHO IS VIABLE. STOP IT.[/size] [/quote] Dude. Chill. Yes, I do know that. Common sense man. Obama and Romney are the only viable candidates. The church tells us that you must use prudence. It's reality. Yes, our vote can change who is viable--but that needs to happen WAY BEFORE one week before the election. At this point, Obama and Romney are the [b]only viable candidates[/b]. To deny this is to ignore prudence and deny reality. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) How do you not recognize that you are being one of the many enforcers of that rule of viability? You are enforcing it, right here right now by appealing to the "common sense" that dictates the two party system, you are the essence of the self-fulfilling prophecy. your line of reasoning is exactly what keeps it happening, your line of reasoning is the PROBLEM, the people you're arguing against are the SOLUTION. Prudence does not mean that you're required to follow along with the more viable way, anyway. A prudential judgment is simply a reasoned approach towards seeking the best path to take, the conflation of that with the two-party-doctrine that has become so indoctrinated into people is absolutely wrong. Just because you have reasoned that the most prudential course of action is to choose one of the two-parties does NOT mean that your judgment is correct, and the idea that either Obama or Romney is extremely likely to be the winner of this election does NOT equate with choosing one of the two as the most prudential judgment. sometimes the most prudential judgment is to refuse to allow yourself to be tainted by either scumbag; to say to hell with it and refuse to join either the Nazis or the Red Army, but to instead jump on a horse and grab a sword and go down fighting against tanks no matter how unlikely you are to lose. Prudence and Courage are two things to consider here. As regards voting for Obama, I wouldn't recommend it. I also wouldn't recommend voting for Romney, but I'd recommend stronger against a vote for Obama. There are various lines of reasoning that an informed conscience could used to justify a vote for either of the two, though; I think the lines of reasoning justifying a vote for Romney are slightly more viable than the lines of reasoning justifying a vote for Obama; but especially with such little difference between the two, we should absolutely refrain from using the power of the unity of the Church to shame or ostracize anyone for choosing either of those two paths. To do so would be incredibly sinful IMO. Edited October 31, 2012 by Aloysius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PadrePioOfPietrelcino Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1351696511' post='2501122'] There has been lot's of discussion regarding voting for Romney, voting third Party, or obstaining from voting as viable moral choices for Catholics. It's been touched on, but not really discussed. Can Catholics morally justify voting FOR Obama? Why or why not? [/quote] I'm sure some can TRY to morally justify it, they may even believe themselves to be right. Now the larger question ( and better IMHO) is Can a well informed Catholic legitimately vote for Obama and not violate their consciences? Then perhaps yes, as we can not know truly the status of an individual's heart and understanding, it their level of cooperation with sin is something that must be judged by God. In short CAN a Catholic vote for him...sure we can do whatever we want, we have the ability...should a Catholic vote for him...NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351710532' post='2501315'] How do you not recognize that you are being one of the many enforcers of that rule of viability? You are enforcing it, right here right now by appealing to the "common sense" that dictates the two party system, [/quote] Lots of words, but nothing has convinced me that Obama and Romney are not the only two viable candidates. Sorry. You can keep going on and on about how voting for a viable candidate makes other candidates non-viable, but I simply don't agree with that logic. If there was a viable third party candidate, I'd consider a vote for that candidate. You and the people who think like you failed this go-around at producing a viable third party candidate. Take it as a loss. Charge it to the game. Whatever. The fact is, as it stands today, Obama and Romney are the only viable candidates. Nothing you can say or do will change this [b]fact.[/b] Get over it and face reality. The third-party team has lost this election. Now be a good loser and vote for one of the only two teams left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351711804' post='2501342'] Get over it and face reality. The third-party team has lost this election. Now be a good loser and vote for [s]one of the only two teams left.[/s] the dismemberment of Iranians using drone attacks. [/quote] fxd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1351712004' post='2501345'] fxd [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Just truthifying. Romney's wardrums have been booming his entire campaign. He can't wait to oversee the deaths of foreign children. Because 'Merica gots to be safe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351711804' post='2501342'] Lots of words, but nothing has convinced me that Obama and Romney are the only two viable candidates. Sorry. You can keep going on and on about how voting for a viable candidate makes other candidates non-viable, but I simply don't agree with that logic. If there was a viable third party candidate, I'd consider a vote for that candidate. You and the people who think like you failed this go-around at producing a viable third party candidate. Take it as a loss. Charge it to the game. Whatever. The fact is, as it stands today, Obama and Romney are the only viable candidates. Nothing you can say or do will change this [b]fact.[/b] Get over it and face reality. The third-party team has lost this election. Now be a good loser and vote for one of the only two teams left. [/quote] I do recognize that I lost, I didn't attempt to set up a third party, I am a Republican and I remain a Republican, I was actually a delegate to the Republican National Convention, I faced directly up to lying and cheating and fraud at all sorts of levels, blatant violations of the rules, blatant power-grabs by the Romney Campaign to utterly freeze out future grassroots people, to blatantly attempt to freeze out any pro-life influence in the Republican Party, all in all a pretty ugly affair; but I will be a Republican next time around when I fight in the primaries again. The fact that we lost the Republican Party to a man like Mitt Romney means to me that we lost the general election. I already did my part, I did my civic duty, and I already lost. My subsequent vote was not a support for either Romney or Obama because I find no reason to support either one over the other. What I am saying is that you have to break free of this mindset that we must lend our support to one of the two. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy; the only reason it's true is that people like you SAY that it is true. We all have real power here, and so many have used that power to be pawns of the corrupt system, that's what you're doing by making that argument that we should just smell of elderberries it up and pick someone from the 2 party system. So long as we have that mindset, they will exploit us and treat us like pawns. We will never have any real influence. If we are not willing to withhold our support from a candidate as disastrously bad as Mitt Romney, the Republicans will take us for granted and ignore us. You have the short-sighted goal in mind of winning this election; and to succeed at this goal, you sell out the future of the pro-life movement. But what is even more disconcerting is that many people with this short-sighted goal are willing to go even further: in order to win this one particular election, as if this one singular election was so important, they are willing to sell out people's faith, using their desire for communion in the Church as a weapon to pressure them into the action of voting one way or another. It's short sighted for the long-term game of politics, but what is worse is that it's short sighted in the very serious game of the salvation of souls. And that's why the Pope doesn't tell everyone to vote for Mitt Romney (lol I know, that's another thread, right?)--this one particular election is far less important than people make it out to be. 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