Why Do Faithful Catholics Vote Liberal?

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jun 30 2004, 09:55 PM'] I am not required to lower the standard due to the ignorance of millions of other people. I am in no way shape or form required to vote for Bush, nor will I, even if he be the lesser of two evils. That I may vote for Bush I will grant you. That I must is absurd.

For Ice Princess:
I already know the Fr. Mastroeni argument and it doesn't hold water. [/quote]
Thats your opinion. I think it does, I wasn't even going to bother bringing it up. I will trust the counsel of a priest and moral theologian over people I don't know any day.

For those that are curious, the Fr. Mastroeni argument is essentially what Archbishop 10-K said.

[PedroX]

[quote]this is getting nasty.

and for the record, I'm one of what PedroX called the precious few[/quote]


Hi Az, good to see ya! Have you posted any new pictures of Dani?

To others,

Where in respectable moral theology does it compel us to act for the "lesser of two evils"? That is a legit question, I am not trying to be snarky.

this is my current Thinking:

Canidate Y is really bad. Canidate Z is not so bad, but still goes against my conscience albeit in lesser ways than Canidate Y. My conscience dictates I don't vote for either. Now, it may be the difference between mortal and venial sin, but it still is an unpleasant place to be. So, I ask again where in respectable moral theology do I have the permission to actively support the lesser of two evils?

Please don't get nasty, as I think these are very important issues for us all to struggle through, and I believe that struggling together is better than struggling alone. My mind is not firmly made up on this issue, but truly trying to puzzle out the right thing to do.

peace...

[Archbishop 10-K]

For a "lesser of two evils" scenario, here's an example.

George W. Bush vs. Adolf Hitler

Both are bad, but one is worse than the other. The race is almost 50/50. There's no telling who's going to win. Would you vote?

[PedroX]

Hey, thanks for such a reasonable example. Also, thanks for quoting authoritative moral theology.

peace...

[Chrysologus]

I agree with PedroX. If voting for a candidate who supports sin means sinning, then we can't vote for anyone, essentially.

[Archbishop 10-K]

[quote name='Chrysologus' date='Jun 30 2004, 11:52 PM'] If voting for a candidate who supports sin means sinning, then we can't vote for anyone, essentially. [/quote]
But does it? (mean sinning, that is)


What about voting for a bad candidate with the intent of stopping an even worse candidate from taking control of the country? Does the 4,000+ abortions per day count mean nothing? I can only imagine it rising under Kerry. In this sense, Kerry is, indeed, not much different from Adolf Hitler. With a guy like him running for office, the voter apathy is somewhat disturbing. I mean, I'm not even old enough to vote yet and at least I'm concerned.

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='PedroX' date='Jun 30 2004, 11:14 PM'] Where in respectable moral theology does it compel us to act for the "lesser of two evils"? That is a legit question, I am not trying to be snarky.


[/quote]
JPII Evangelium Vitae, Paragraph 73:
[quote]"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. 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, 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."[/quote]

My guess is that this would also apply to electing the elected officials. If anyone has anything better, or contrary to my read on this, feel free.



Also, sorry if I overreacted in my previous post on this thread. It just is really tiring to be (seemingly) told that I ignore the Pope because I support Bush. That may very well not have been the intent, so, I'm sorry. :ignore:

[PedroX]

Since we seem intent on using real people as our examples (not a good idea in arguing theology, but let see what we can do)

We have Canidate X who supports, unequivocably abortion on demand. Bad, very bad. We can not vote for him (or her) with a clean conscience.

We have Canidate Y who supports (limited) embryonic stem cell research, war, the death penalty, and other measures that go against a voters conscience. Now, none of these measure up to abortion on demand (with possible exception of stem cell research) but they go against my conscience.

The question comes back to "am I required to vote for candiate Y". Please remember, that this is my conscience. I have to sit before God (and my confessor) and say that I voted against my conscience. How is that required of me?

peace...

[qfnol31]

[quote name='PedroX' date='Jun 30 2004, 11:14 PM']Where in respectable moral theology does it compel us to act for the "lesser of two evils"?  That is a legit question, I am not trying to be snarky.[/quote]
Killing is in itself not good, however we are allowed to participate in just wars. It's the lesser of the two evils in that case where either we kill or innocent will be killed. It's a sticky situation, but one allowed for under moral Theology.

[quote name='PedroX' date='Jun 30 2004, 11:14 PM']Canidate Y is really bad.  Canidate Z is not so bad, but still goes against my conscience albeit in lesser ways than Canidate Y.  My conscience dictates I don't vote for either.  Now, it may be the difference between mortal and venial sin, but it still is an unpleasant place to be.  So, I ask again where in respectable moral theology do I have the permission to actively support the lesser of two evils?[/quote]

First of all I don't think that it would be a venial sin for you to vote for Bush. Think for a moment what the requirements for a sin are. What are your intentions? I come up with the following:
1. Do good and avoid evil.
2. Abortion and going against the Magesterium is evil are among the greatest evils of all candidates.
3. Kerry supports abortion and goes against the Magesterium.
4. Therefore it would be bad for me to allow him into office, so I must prevent him from doing so.
5. Also, I must try to get someone into office who can make the most difference possible.

Your intentions in voting Bush are for these two things to happen. If you vote for Nader, you could become the deciding vote for Kerry winning, just as if you had not voted. Now, that I've used the chart, I know that letting Kerry into office is the worst thing I could allow happen. I know that the only way to keep him out is to vote for Bush. Now, if he gets into office because I vote Bush, then I haven't avoided the evil that I mentioned earlier. I would therefore be sinning because I let him into office. If you believe Bush is an immoral person, but your intention in voting for him is because he is the only chance at keeping Kerry out, then your not sinning by voting for him. It just depends on how immoral you think Kerry to be.

In this case, your intention is what matters.

[quote name='PedroX' date='Jun 30 2004, 11:14 PM']Please don't get nasty, as I think these are very important issues for us all to struggle through, and I believe that struggling together is better than struggling alone.  My mind is not firmly made up on this issue, but truly trying to puzzle out the right thing to do.[/quote]

I hope I've helped at least a little, without being mean....

[PedroX]

Qfn,

Please demonstrate from a legit source where in moral theology I am compelled to act for the lesser of two evils. Your opinions are great, but not convincing enough to cause me to sin against my conscience. Please also not that I am not neccessarily talking about Bush and Kerry.

peace...

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='PedroX' date='Jul 1 2004, 12:08 AM'] The question comes back to "am I required to vote for candiate Y".  Please remember, that this is my conscience.  I have to sit before God (and my confessor) and say that I voted against my conscience.  How is that required of me? [/quote]
You can't go against your conscience, period. Conscience binds (ST I-I, 79, 13) (also somewhere else, I'm sure, but not finding it at the moment). Even when it is erring, it binds us. One should never go against his (or her) conscience. If they know they have an ill-formed conscience however, I do not know that it would be sinless to follow the ill-formed consience before taking steps to correct it.


Edit: Ah, here's more. (ST I-II, 19, 5):
" For in matters of indifference, the will that is at variance with erring reason or conscience, is evil in some way on account of the object, on which the goodness or malice of the will depends; not indeed on account of the object according as it is in its own nature; but according as it is accidentally apprehended by reason as something evil to do or to avoid....
"In like manner, to believe in Christ is good in itself, and necessary for salvation: but the will does not tend thereto, except inasmuch as it is proposed by the reason. Consequently if it be proposed by the reason as something evil, the will tends to it as to something evil: not as if it were evil in itself, but because it is evil accidentally, through the apprehension of the reason."

Now, this is seriously a huge statement here. Thomas is going so far as to say that, and here I quote from Fr. Brian Davies' OP Book,
[i]Thought of Thomas Aquinas[/i], "should one's reason [ie, conscience] tell one to deny Christ, then that is what one should actually do, even though to do so is to do something bad."

Edited July 1, 2004 by BurkeFan

[qfnol31]

[quote name='PedroX' date='Jul 1 2004, 12:19 AM'] Qfn,

Please demonstrate from a legit source where in moral theology I am compelled to act for the lesser of two evils.  Your opinions are great, but not convincing enough to cause me to sin against my conscience.  Please also not that I am not neccessarily talking about Bush and Kerry.

peace... [/quote]
LoL, sorry. I do better with current examples. Though, I do believe that these really must be on a case by case basis.

I know that list I gave you is modelled after the one that St. Thomas Aquinas used. For the rest, I'm still searching for good resources.

St. Augustine, in his [i]Confessions[/i] talks about eternal moral laws. These laws never change in history because they are outside of time. However, the temporary practice of these laws do change. I give the example of the children of Adam and Eve. Incest is wrong, and always has been, and always will be. However, for their sons, it was okay morally to have sex with the daughters. Today, and even for the next generation, this is no longer the case. In all cases, it's really a matter of having intercourse (and kids) with someone who's really distant from you in relationship.

I mention this case because incest is always immoral, however the temporary practice does change with circumstances. So too, I would say, with voting. Yes, if Nader was the only other candidate, I would say voting for Bush would be a sin. However, the circumstances are different in this case, and so as I said, we must look at them case by case.

However, I want to you to know, that if you think it's sinning to vote for Bush, it would be a sin to vote for him, no matter what moral Theology says in this case. As St. Thomas Aquinas said, and was posted just above me. Therefore, I guess I would have to find some sources where voting for the "lesser" evil candidate would be best.

I'm still working on more for you.

Edited July 1, 2004 by qfnol31

[BurkeFan]

This pastoral letter, from then Bishop Raymond Burke of Lacrosse, is a letter which I find to be particularily beautiful in its writing and somewhat revelant to this topic. It's available [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/BURKECIV.HTM"]here[/url].

Also, more directly relevant is an article by Fr. Frank Pavone regarding the 2000 election. In it, he said: [quote]"While some call this voting for "the lesser of two evils," it really isn't. We may never choose evil, but we may choose good even when evil is mixed in with it. When we vote for someone in order to improve the current policies, that improvement is itself a good, even when it isn't perfect....By the act of voting, we are neither waving a magic wand, nor are we making statements about what is perfect. What we are doing, instead, is attempting to place in positions of public trust those whom we believe can make the best improvement possible at the present time in the public policy of our nation."[/quote]
It's available [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3168"]here[/url].

Hope these help.

Edit: There's also a pastoral letter by Bishop Sheridan [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5956"]here[/url]. It is entitled: "A Pastoral Letter On the Duties of Catholic Politicians and Voters"

Edited July 1, 2004 by BurkeFan

[qfnol31]

[quote name='BurkeFan' date='Jul 1 2004, 12:44 AM'] This pastoral letter, from then Bishop Raymond Burke of Lacrosse, is a letter which I find to be particularily beautiful in its writing and somewhat revelant to this topic. It's available [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/BURKECIV.HTM"]here[/url].

Also, more directly relevant is an article by Fr. Frank Pavone regarding the 2000 election. In it, he said:
It's available [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3168"]here[/url].

Hope these help. [/quote]
Very good post/ point.

[crusader1234]

The US voting process drives me crazy, youve basically got two options. You like the taste of chocolate but your parents wont let you get it because its too messy, but you are allergic to vanilla. You have a white sweater thats dirty and a black sweater that is too small.