Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[Ridgerunner]

There may be some room for disagreement over whether the Iraq War was a just war in the popular sense of the word. But I think it is pretty clear that the Iraq War was not just in the Augustinian sense, as the criteria for just war in Catholic doctrine are very strict.

It’s not “clear” at all that it was an unjust war. St. Thomas Aquinas’ criteria can be stated as follows:

1. Last Resort

A just war can only be waged after all peaceful options are considered. The use of force can only be used as a last resort. Some may argue that not all peaceful options had been exhausted. Certainly, Saddam’s last one was to go to protected exile. Never did he stop violating the cease fire agreement. Never did he stop paying for the assassination of Israeli civilians.

1. Legitimate Authority

A just war is waged by a legitimate authority. A war cannot be waged by individuals or groups that do not constitute the legitimate government. Speaks for itself. The executive and legislative branches approved it.

1. Just Cause

A just war needs to be in response to a wrong suffered. Self-defense against an attack always constitutes a just war; however, the war needs to be fought with the objective to correct the inflicted wound. I think this is where the argument actually is the most difficult for many. The “wrong suffered” does not have to be one’s own nation. Saddam started two aggressive wars and killed a million people. There was no reason at all to imagine that he would never again do that kind of thing. During the cease fire, he murdered more civilians and paid people to assassinate Israeli civilians.

1. Probability of Success

In order for a war to be just, there must be a rational possibility of success. A nation cannot enter into a war with a hopeless cause. It did succeed.

1. Right Intention

The pirmary objective of a just war is to re-establish peace. In particular, the peace after the war should excede the peace that would have succeeded without the use of force. The aim of the use of force must be justice. Bush and the congressmen knew what their subjective intentions were. At a point, the war produced a peace that all three factions found satisfactory enough to ask the U.S. to stay.

1. Proportionality

The violence in a just war must be proportional to the casualties suffered. The nations involved in the war must avoid disproportionate military action and only use the amount of force absolutely necessary. The allies took great pains to avoid excessive causalities. The nature of the “end run” strategies instead of brutal frontal assaults evidenced a desire to minimize casualties.

1. Civilian Casualties

The use of force must distinguish between the militia and civilians. Innocent citizens must never be the target of war; soldiers should always avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are only justified when they are unaviodable victims of a military attack on a strategic target. I don’t think any sane person seriously argues that noncombatant civilians were specifically targeted.

Yes, I know. Counter arguments can be made, and some have made them. But my point is not that we should restart that debate here. Rather, my point is that it is not “clear” that the Iraq War Phase II (it never actually ended from Phase I) was “unjust”.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Archbishop Chaput has explained that in such a situation were are NOT voting for the lesser of two evils. We are voting to lessen evil.

I think that the Archbishop is using a bit of hyperbole here. For example, in the last election both Obama and Romney had evil positions on abortion. Neither one was pro-life. So they were both evil, the people who still chose to vote for Romney clearly were choosing the lesser evil.

 

[freeRadical]

Yeah, that method was created because those on the left didn’t want people to see the truth about their side. So they fashioned that political scale and were able to move fascism over the right as an offset to communism and socialism on the left. They could then pretend that fascism isn’t left, and pretend that the middle is where we want to stay.

It’s silly and insipid. There is NO government of the many in socialism or communism. It’s a false facade.

The true political spectrum measures govt control and power, and the further left you go, the higher it increases. Socialism, communism, fascism, and totalitarianism are on the extreme left.

Socialism and Communism are economic systems, not political systems.

Fascism is on the right.

Totalitarianism is on both the left and the right.

 

[freeRadical]

Libertarianism doesn’t equal anarchism. In libertarianism, the means of production would be owned and run privately with no regulation.

That’s Capitalism.

In anarchism the means of production would be run by the people and would be regulated by the very same people (no ownership at all, private or otherwise but it most certainly would be regulated to some extent).

That’s Communism

 

[estesbob]

I would appreciate it if someone could post a quote from a member of the Magisterium or a church document verifying you can vote for a candidate who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand if:

1. You hate the VP choice of the other candidate
2. The opposing candidate supported the war in Iraq
3. The opposing is more supportive of the death penalty

It would also be helpful if someone could post quotes or church documents condemning any of the policies in the Republican party platform.

 

[stinkcat_14]

It would also be helpful if someone could post quotes or church documents condemning any of the policies in the Republican party platform.

I am not sure what your point is. There is no moral requirement that one vote republican. One can remain faithful to the teachings of the Church and never cast a vote for republican.

 

[Crossbones]

I assume you are not Catholic. If you were you would know the difference between binding matters of Faith and moral and matters of prudential judgment…

I understand prudential judgment. It just isn’t clear to me if people are applying it properly here or do they use it as a crutch to ignore the teaching of the Pope because of their poorly formed consciences.

 

[estesbob]

I am not sure what your point is. There is no moral requirement that one vote republican. One can remain faithful to the teachings of the Church and never cast a vote for republican.

Correct and I am not claiming that-BUT we have had numerous posters tell us it was OK to vote for Obama because of the policies of the Republican Party-I would like to see which of these policies are contrary to Church teaching.

 

[Crossbones]

It’s not “clear” at all that it was an unjust war. St. Thomas Aquinas’ criteria can be stated as follows:

1. Last Resort

A just war can only be waged after all peaceful options are considered. The use of force can only be used as a last resort. Some may argue that not all peaceful options had been exhausted. Certainly, Saddam’s last one was to go to protected exile. Never did he stop violating the cease fire agreement. Never did he stop paying for the assassination of Israeli civilians.

1. Legitimate Authority

A just war is waged by a legitimate authority. A war cannot be waged by individuals or groups that do not constitute the legitimate government. Speaks for itself. The executive and legislative branches approved it.

1. Just Cause

A just war needs to be in response to a wrong suffered. Self-defense against an attack always constitutes a just war; however, the war needs to be fought with the objective to correct the inflicted wound. I think this is where the argument actually is the most difficult for many. The “wrong suffered” does not have to be one’s own nation. Saddam started two aggressive wars and killed a million people. There was no reason at all to imagine that he would never again do that kind of thing. During the cease fire, he murdered more civilians and paid people to assassinate Israeli civilians.

1. Probability of Success

In order for a war to be just, there must be a rational possibility of success. A nation cannot enter into a war with a hopeless cause. It did succeed.

1. Right Intention

The pirmary objective of a just war is to re-establish peace. In particular, the peace after the war should excede the peace that would have succeeded without the use of force. The aim of the use of force must be justice. Bush and the congressmen knew what their subjective intentions were. At a point, the war produced a peace that all three factions found satisfactory enough to ask the U.S. to stay.

1. Proportionality

The violence in a just war must be proportional to the casualties suffered. The nations involved in the war must avoid disproportionate military action and only use the amount of force absolutely necessary. The allies took great pains to avoid excessive causalities. The nature of the “end run” strategies instead of brutal frontal assaults evidenced a desire to minimize casualties.

1. Civilian Casualties

The use of force must distinguish between the militia and civilians. Innocent citizens must never be the target of war; soldiers should always avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are only justified when they are unaviodable victims of a military attack on a strategic target. I don’t think any sane person seriously argues that noncombatant civilians were specifically targeted.

Yes, I know. Counter arguments can be made, and some have made them. But my point is not that we should restart that debate here. Rather, my point is that it is not “clear” that the Iraq War Phase II (it never actually ended from Phase I) was “unjust”.

Please provide the quotes from the Pope supporting your view that this is a just war. I cannot find anything to that effect. What I find suggests that the Popes felt it was an unjust war.

catholicism.about.com/od/thechurchintheworld/f/popes_on_iraq.htm

 

[estesbob]

I understand prudential judgment. It just isn’t clear to me if people are applying it properly here or do they use it as a crutch to ignore the teaching of the Pope because of their poorly formed consciences.

Since the Pope specifically says that support of the war was a matter of prudential judgment it is incorrect that say that such support is “ignoring the teaching of the Pope”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Socialism and Communism are economic systems, not political systems.

Fascism is on the right.

Totalitarianism is on both the left and the right.

I realize that’s the common conception of them. But in my opinion, whatever it’s worth, there is little to distinguish among them. True socialism, communism (which claimed to be socialism) and fascism are very little different. Two words can make the difference, and even then one can question whether there’s any difference. The words are “or controlled”.

Socialism, communism and fascism are all characterized as control of both economic and political processes by an elite that purports to know better than ordinary people what’s in their best interests. Communism purported to allow no private ownership, but did allow it in the case of elites. Even when the state owned assets, the value derived from them went to the elites.

Socialism/communism and Fascism both pretend to have overarching ideologies that justify the measures they employ. But they’re really not different. “It’s better for you that we do this” is the common thread of both.

Both are, of their nature, totalitarian because both have to be totalitarian. They have to be totalitarian because both seek to oblige people to do that which they would not naturally want to do, or prevent them from doing that which they naturally prefer to do.

The more I read about both, the less difference I see between them.

 

[Crossbones]

Since the Pope specifically says that support of the war was a matter of prudential judgment it is incorrect that say that such support is “ignoring the teaching of the Pope”.

I would think that those exercising prudential judgement correctly would be great weight on the Pope’s views and would only come to a different conclusion than the Pope after great scrutiny. I don’t see a lot of that here. I see a lot of dismissing the Pope’s views because he suggested that it would be a matter of prudential judgement. That seems like a poorly-formed conscience arrogantly ignoring the Pope’s teaching to me.

 

[estesbob]

I would think that those exercising prudential judgement correctly would be great weight on the Pope’s views and would only come to a different conclusion than the Pope after great scrutiny. I don’t see a lot of that here. I see a lot of dismissing the Pope’s views because he suggested that it would be a matter of prudential judgement. That seems like a poorly-formed conscience arrogantly ignoring the Pope’s teaching to me.

And I would think your analysis is wrong. But since the Pope said it was a matter of prudential judgment neither one of our opinions on the justness of supporting this war is relevant to anyone but ourselves.

Again I suspect you are not Catholic as you seem to have the standard Protestant misconception of the role of the Pope.

 

[Crossbones]

And I would think your analysis is wrong. But since the Pope said it was a matter of prudential judgment neither one of our opinions on the justness of supporting this war is relevant to anyone but ourselves.

Again I suspect you are not Catholic as you seem to have the standard Protestant misconception of the role of the Pope.

Are you referring to my analysis of prudential judgement, of which I would be very interested in learning why is it wrong, or are you referring to my analysis of the Iraq War, which is consistent with the Pope’s teaching on it?

 

[Lapey]

I am not sure what your point is. There is no moral requirement that one vote republican. One can remain faithful to the teachings of the Church and never cast a vote for republican.

Who said there is or that there should be? What this thread is in fact about is that a Catholic in good standing with a fully and correctly formed conscience can or cannot vote for a Democrat.

 

[Lapey]

I would think that those exercising prudential judgement correctly would be great weight on the Pope’s views and would only come to a different conclusion than the Pope after great scrutiny. I don’t see a lot of that here. I see a lot of dismissing the Pope’s views because he suggested that it would be a matter of prudential judgement. That seems like a poorly-formed conscience arrogantly ignoring the Pope’s teaching to me.

Kind of like the issue of voting for a pro-abortion Democrat, isn’t it?

 

[Crossbones]

Kind of like the issue of voting for a pro-abortion Democrat, isn’t it?

I don’t see how this sarcastic comment adds to the discussion in any meaningful way.

 

[Lapey]

I don’t see how this sarcastic comment adds to the discussion in any meaningful way.

It’s not sarcasm. You say that a person who does not feel the Iraq war is un-just is arrogantly rejecting the Pope’s words and Church teachings. Yet at the same time we are discussing the very same thing by supporting pro-abortion candidates where the Church has called abortion intrinsic evil and has not made that statement towards the Iraq War.

If you really want to have a discussion lets count apples as apples and oranges as oranges. Considering these two issues, abortion trumps the Iraq War, so even if your assertion was correct, I could still choose to vote for a candidate who supported the war but I cannot vote for a candidate who supports abortion.

Do you understand my point now?

 

[Crossbones]

It’s not sarcasm. You say that a person who does not feel the Iraq war is un-just is arrogantly rejecting the Pope’s words and Church teachings. Yet at the same time we are discussing the very same thing by supporting pro-abortion candidates where the Church has called abortion intrinsic evil and has not made that statement towards the Iraq War.

If you really want to have a discussion lets count apples as apples and oranges as oranges. Considering these two issues, abortion trumps the Iraq War, so even if your assertion was correct, I could still choose to vote for a candidate who supported the war but I cannot vote for a candidate who supports abortion.

Do you understand my point now?

Yes, it was sarcasm and, yes, I understand your point now. That said, it doesn’t answer the underlying question: are people arrogantly ignoring the Holy Father’s teachings and using prudential judgement as a crutch for their poorly formed consciences?

 

[Lapey]

Yes, it was sarcasm and, yes, I understand your point now. That said, it doesn’t answer the underlying question: are people arrogantly ignoring the Holy Father’s teachings and using prudential judgement as a crutch for their poorly formed consciences?

No. If an issue is left up to PJ, then that is exactly what it means. On the other hand, abortion is intrinsically evil, there is NEVER an option to support it.

And, no, it was not sarcasm. You do not get to change my intent. It may appear that way to you but that does not make it so.