Voting.

[Q the Ninja]

I want to use some principles of Catholic Moral Theology for a moment, if no one minds. I wrote my final essay/final exam on this for Moral Theology.

You have four candidates:
A - poor Catholic candidate, good chance of winning.
B - okay Catholic candidate, good chance of winning.
C - good Catholic candidate, no chance of winning.
D - great Catholic candidate, no chance of winning.

Well, I'll kick out C just because D's better.

A and B can both win, D cannot. We should vote, that's a given. If we vote D, then we are really saying that we don't want A and B to win, which is fine. However, this comes with a catch. We are also saying that it doesn't matter which one wins because we will not do anything about it. I'll come back to this.

If we vote A, then that's just not cool. We don't want him to win. No voting A!

If we vote B, but just so that A doesn't win, then we're materially participating in evil. We do not will or want it, and also keep it as remote as possible.

If we vote for D and B wins, that's fine. The participation is only material and as remote as allowing candidate B to win. If candidate A wins, however, then the material participation is not as remote, and it cannot be, because by not doing whatever he could to keep A out of office, the person voting for D implicitly allowed A to be in office.

[Don John of Austria]

I agree with your analysis, accepting of course I support option E throw out the voting garbage and put in a Catholic King. But you know thats just me.

[Guest Aluigi]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jan 9 2005, 07:48 PM'] I agree with your analysis, accepting of course I support option E throw out the voting garbage and put in a Catholic King. But you know thats just me. [/quote]


can I be king?

:king:

[Don John of Austria]

maybe? you willing to fight for the throne?