Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

I think you are engaging in a word game here. So, it is either beng missed or evaded but, let’s be clear. The culpability for any (and every) act is judged by God alone. But, please note - this is not what is being discussed. Sin is ultimately subjective being between the person and God. But, we can determine that certain objective behaviors are objectively sinful. This is different from saying, “You are guilty of a mortal sin!” I really think this difference needs to be acknowled.

We have one of the objective criteria for a mortal sin:

1- Grave matter or considered grave matter. We can say - and, that means you too - that abortion is grave matter - and it has been declared so by the Church. Other actions have been decalared

*2- Full knowledge. The person must understand what it is they are doing - and that would be (in this particular case) voting for a President who is actively engaged in promoting, encouraging and funding the destruction of innocent life. It is possible that someone does not know about Obama’s position on abortion. In that case, then they would not be guilty sin.

*3- Full consent. It is difficult for me to imagine someone going to the polls and voting - and not giving their full consent to what it is that they are doing. But, that is me - and it is possible to do things and not give their full consent. And, in that case, too, they would not be guilty of sin.

Where we appear to differ is that someone does not have full knowledge. It may be claimed that someone does not agree with the Church’s teaching that abortion and promoting abortion is morally evil - and this is objectively sinful behavior. Destroying innocent life is inherently disorderd. By way of analogy, homosexual behavior is inherently disordered and objectively sinful behavior. Again, just to be clear - it wol be inappropriate to say that someone is guilty of a mortal sin - but, there is no prohibition in identifying what is sinful behavior as such.

Claiming not to give full consent is something that I can say is possible - in the sense that anything is possible in theory. But for someone to promote those who promote abortion and claim that they did not give full consent - that someone forced them to act or vote that way - stretches more then my imagination.

But, what I am really missing here - and, yes this does cut right to the chase - are you saying that someone can know abortion and the promotion of abortion has been identified grave matter, that someone can claim to have full knowledge of this President’s behavior and his on-going promotion of abortion - and they consent to vote for this man - and this behavior is not objectively wrong - objectively sinful? Note, the real determination of sin lies with God - but, no one can remain silent when murder is being committed.

God bless

Well, that I guess is an ability you have that I do not. I will never presume to call anything a sin apart from what Mother Church has called sin. I do not wish to elevate my opinion that high. When someone says like earlier that voting for a third party is a sin, I see a mindset, that one elevates their own theological opinions above the Church. That may be okay in some denominations in America, but it is not Catholic.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So how does one explain why Ron Paul, probably the most anti-abortion and anti-war member of the House, was shut out/off by the RNC for the second straight time?

No, say it ain’t so !

Jim

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We can say - and, that means you too - that abortion is grave matter - and it has been declared so by the Church.

You skipped a step. While it is undeniable that abortion is a grave matter, you have not demonstrated that voting for a politician who holds a particular view about abortion is also a grave matter. It may be obvious to you, but since you have gone to such trouble to be precise in the rest of your arguement it would be nice if you were precise on this point too.

 

[pnewton]

Hi, Pnewton,

Why not try that ‘simply reading’ again…No one said they were claiming others have committed a mortal sin - but, I am telling you that based on Catholic Church teachings - we can not cooperate with evil - and aboriton is evil and never morally acceptable. This is grave matter.

Draw your own conclusions - and, please, unlike other posters - just give a clear answer. There are 70 days remaining before this election. There is not time for a game of words.

God bless

I am quite familiar with the Church’s teaching on the matter, which is why I did object when someone said accused those who do not vote right (in this case Romney) of gravely sinning. It was not you, but another poster, and they did include third party voters in that sin.

No, we can not cooperate with abortion. Yes, it is a grave matter. That is why the bishops have given us help as to when our vote meets this criteria. What you said is not in question. It is only its application to voting that the Church does not say this always equates to cooperation with evil, which is why people can also vote for Romney in a good conscience.

I am sorry that I do not give a clear answer. The Church does not give a clearer answer and I am slow to exceed what they say in forming the conscience of another.

I think you are engaging in a word game here.

I am truly not trying to engage in word games, but words are the tools of discussion. Now the question at hand is not subjective sin, but neither it is abortion. We all agree that sin is subjective and abortion (and cooperation with it) is gravely sinful. We are not voting on abortion though. This is a point that is missing. This is not a yes or no vote on abortion. Yes, with the history of the current president, I do not see how a person can vote for him in good conscience, but it is not my role to go that far, as the Church does not.

 

[pnewton]

I prefer to follow the Church on this, as well, but I don’t base my vote on the self-defeating idea that it won’t have an impact anyway. I vote for the best candidate, closest to my values that has a realistic chance at being elected.

So you do allow for realism to factor in. So do I. So which is more realistic, that a third party will be elected, or that the election will come down to one vote?

I think the odds of that one vote mattering are greater in, say Florida or Virginia. I think it matters less in my state, much, much less.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rig,

I have been debating with myself how best to address this comment from Pnewton - the so-called “ineffectual vote”. Yours is good - and charitable… Mine … well … you tell me…

The idea that anyone for any election can claim that their vote is ‘ineffectual’ requires either a supernatural knowledge of the future - how the election ACTUALLY turns out - or a defeatest view that is a debasement to the human spirit. One’s vote is only ‘ineffectual’ if one does not vote! Trying to play God by claiming to know what is going to happen in the future - and then deciding to vote or not vote based on that?

History is full of stories on what one or just a few votes did to totally change the outcome of an event. The most recent - at least that I can think of, was the US Presidential election of 2000. The results of the votes were astounding if one is interested in a cliff (or chad) hanger!

** …Bush… Gore

Electoral Votes 271 … 266

Popular vote 50,456,002 … 50,999,897** (sorry about the dots, I couldn’t line this data up into columns without them…)

Bush lost the popular vote by 543,895 votes out of over 100 milion votes cast, but won the Presidency by 5 electoral votes - and, that’s the way it was. For those unhappy with the results - and voted - well, at least you tried, and better luck next time. For those unhappy with the results and stayed home because they identified their vote as ‘ineffectual’ - shame on you! There was a chance to make a difference and it was just thrown away!

We have a moral obligation to vote - and to vote our conscience. To advocate that it is ‘OK’ to sit this one out - is just totally irresponsible. Every 4 years we have a chance to change our government with votes and not bullets as so many other countries are experiencing.

God bless

To the best of my knowledge neiher Bush or Gore are pro-abortion. There was some criticism about Romney being in favor of abortion for rape or incest (don’t know about the ‘life of the mother’ but, I would guess this trio has remined

My comment was in response to your claim that your vote is ineffectual. If that is what you believe, then Mickey Mouse is as good a vote as any.

I prefer to follow the Church on this, as well, but I don’t base my vote on the self-defeating idea that it won’t have an impact anyway. I vote for the best candidate, closest to my values that has a realistic chance at being elected.

 

[mary_bobo]

So how does one explain why Ron Paul, probably the most anti-abortion and anti-war member of the House, was shut out/off by the RNC for the second straight time?

I agree with Ron Paul on some things, but let’s face it, he is out of the mainstream of GOP thinking and as such is not acceptable to too many conservatives. I don’t like war any more than the next person, but protecting the country is one of the major points in our constitution.

 

[pnewton]

Hi, Rig,

I have been debating with myself how best to address this comment from Pnewton - the so-called “ineffectual vote”. Yours is good - and charitable… Mine … well … you tell me…

The idea that anyone for any election can claim that their vote is ‘ineffectual’ requires either a supernatural knowledge of the future - how the election ACTUALLY turns out - or a defeatest view that is a debasement to the human spirit.

Lest we chase a rabbit that does not exist, I was not speaking of refraining from voting, but rather voting for a third party. Let me also clarify that every vote does count, in my case, one eight millionth. As miniscule as this is, it is not zero.

We do not know the future. So why are we always so convinced that certain candidates are unelectable?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, LeafByNiggle,

I am not sure exactly what you are asking me to do.

You are in agreement that abortion is grave matter. This means it is an evil. We are to combat evil as we do good - here is a link:vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm .

So, if the Catholic Church tells us we are to denounce evil (see link above) then how do you propose to do this by voting to keep the most abortion promoting President this country has ever had? If you think I skipped a step please let me know - because I honestly think I have covered all of the issues. We are required to take our Catholic Faith out into the market - and actively engage those who would destroy it (HHS Mandate) and destroy life itself - something I read seems to run counter to this (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”)

So, I submit that it is self-evident since abortion is evil, we are to denounce it. This does not mean merely that we stop ourselves from investing or donating to an abortion facility, do not counsel women to have abortions, or refuse to engage in abortion activities ourselves - yes, of course - but, there is more. We have an obligation to vote - and, in conscience, we can not vote for Obama.

While I think I arrieved at my conclusion in a logical manner, and that I have been clear - I also hope I have been convincing. So, let me ask you - under what conditions do you think it would be morally justified to vote for Obama in this election as opposed to any of the other candidates that are on the ballot?

God bless

You skipped a step. While it is undeniable that abortion is a grave matter, you have not demonstrated that voting for a politician who holds a particular view about abortion is also a grave matter. It may be obvious to you, but since you have gone to such trouble to be precise in the rest of your arguement it would be nice if you were precise on this point too.

 

[ProVobis]

…but protecting the country is one of the major points in our constitution.

Only against direct aggression, and all the military and money in the world didn’t protect us or our financial structure on 9/11.

I’m afraid the RNC, Romney et al, have a lot to answer for by excluding Ron Paul. And the Tea Party I hear as well.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Only against direct aggression, and all the military and money in the world didn’t protect us or our financial structure on 9/11.

We haven’t really been hit since, though (thank the Lord).

 

[ProVobis]

We haven’t really been hit since, though (thank the Lord).

The effects on our financial system will last for quite awhile, though. If there is anything to be thankful for, it’s having taken out the main culprit for 9/11, and let’s all pray that there are no other ones, no matter who’s president.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

In 69 days when each of us goes to the voting booth and closes the curtain - we will find that there are many candidates running for various offices. But, not one of them is, “None of the above”. We will be clearly called upon to vote for someone running for office - and, this is a moral obligation.

As I see it, there are numerous 3rd Party Candidates who are sincerely seeking your vote. I really do not know much about any of them… but, that is my ignorance and not a matter of policy. The ‘Big Name’ candidates are: Obama and Romney. And, for the majority of people, this is where the decision is to be made.

Obama has a solid track record: being in favor of infanticide and actively promoting and supporting and funding abortions throughout this country - and in many 3rd World countries. While he has done things in office that are totally unrealted to abortion - there can be no bigger recognition that innocent life is the most important issue facing us. This means it trumps social justice concerns, environmental and energy concerns and financial concerns. Either life comes first or we ar dead. This is the 1995 message JPII gave in Evangelium Vitae (here is a link: old.usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/evangel/evangeli.shtml).

Romney has a track record, too. He supports abortion in cases of rape and incest. As difficult as it usually is to quantify an ethical issue - while we can say that both are flawed because of the position they have taken we really need to look at some numbers. Because of the unborn millions murdered under Obama’s policies - in this country and in the world where US dollars are withheld from those who do not agree with ‘Reproductive Rights’ - it seems to me that Obama is the GREATER of the two evils.

I am really not trying to split hairs with you on this. The moral directive is clear - we are to denouce evil. I do not think we can denounce with one hand and pull the voting leaver for the one we have just denounced. Now, if you see this as pushing the envelope - going in a direction not approved by the Bishops - then, please, tell me how you see the Bishops are moving to give you direction for when you walk into that voting booth.

God bless

I am quite familiar with the Church’s teaching on the matter, which is why I did object when someone said accused those who do not vote right (in this case Romney) of gravely sinning. It was not you, but another poster, and they did include third party voters in that sin.

No, we can not cooperate with abortion. Yes, it is a grave matter. That is why the bishops have given us help as to when our vote meets this criteria. What you said is not in question. It is only its application to voting that the Church does not say this always equates to cooperation with evil, which is why people can also vote for Romney in a good conscience.

I am sorry that I do not give a clear answer. The Church does not give a clearer answer and I am slow to exceed what they say in forming the conscience of another.

I am truly not trying to engage in word games, but words are the tools of discussion. Now the question at hand is not subjective sin, but neither it is abortion. We all agree that sin is subjective and abortion (and cooperation with it) is gravely sinful. We are not voting on abortion though. This is a point that is missing. This is not a yes or no vote on abortion. Yes, with the history of the current president, I do not see how a person can vote for him in good conscience, but it is not my role to go that far, as the Church does not.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

Maybe it has to do with not getting enough of recognition from the “ineffectual vote” crowd.

God bless

Tom

Lest we chase a rabbit that does not exist, I was not speaking of refraining from voting, but rather voting for a third party. Let me also clarify that every vote does count, in my case, one eight millionth. As miniscule as this is, it is not zero.

We do not know the future. So why are we always so convinced that certain candidates are unelectable?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mary Bobo,

You really do need to watch who you are standing next to … it may be the next person you are standing next to is a distant relative of Atilla the Hun!

One of the issues about our particular take on national democracy is that guys and gals in different parts of the country (Iowa, New Hampshire…and others) decide who will be the viable candidates in November…that the rest of us get to vote on. While there are pros and cons to this process - candidates like Rep Ron Paul can get few votes - and that translates into few $$$.

No easy answers here - and it is not free of criticism…from various and unexpected sources! Can you believe that the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he was one of 20 or so candidates who appeared on the general election ballot - there is no primary! Of course the way Iran trampled on protestors seems to dull some of that criticism… My guess is that if we wanted a change - we would have moved in that direction long ago.

God bless

I agree with Ron Paul on some things, but let’s face it, he is out of the mainstream of GOP thinking and as such is not acceptable to too many conservatives. I don’t like war any more than the next person, but protecting the country is one of the major points in our constitution.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Hi, LeafByNiggle,

I am not sure exactly what you are asking me to do.

You are in agreement that abortion is grave matter. This means it is an evil. We are to combat evil as we do good - here is a link:vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm .

So, if the Catholic Church tells us we are to denounce evil (see link above) then how do you propose to do this by voting to keep the most abortion promoting President this country has ever had? If you think I skipped a step please let me know - because I honestly think I have covered all of the issues. We are required to take our Catholic Faith out into the market - and actively engage those who would destroy it (HHS Mandate) and destroy life itself - something I read seems to run counter to this (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”)

So, I submit that it is self-evident since abortion is evil, we are to denounce it. This does not mean merely that we stop ourselves from investing or donating to an abortion facility, do not counsel women to have abortions, or refuse to engage in abortion activities ourselves - yes, of course - but, there is more. We have an obligation to vote - and, in conscience, we can not vote for Obama.

I think you have already demonstrated that you believe there are limits to how much one must “denounce evil” before it becomes a grave matter. That is, we are obligated to denounce evil, but not at the expense of everything else. In particular, you have been very reluctant to place any absolute obligation to denounce evil outside of the voting booth. So if it is a grave matter to fail to denounce evil in the voting booth, why is it not a grave matter to fail to take every other opportunity to denounce evil? In my yard sign example that you refuse to take a stand on, the person is actively suppressing the message that abortion is evil by taking down his pro-life yard sign for 4 hours. Why is that not a grave matter? You see, the jump is not a trivial or self-evident one that refusing to denounce evil is always a grave matter.

 

[pnewton]

Now, if you see this as pushing the envelope - going in a direction not approved by the Bishops -

I do not see this. I agree with everything in your post.

 

[pnewton]

Now, if you see this as pushing the envelope - going in a direction not approved by the Bishops -

There is nothing you have said I disagree with.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, LeafByNiggle,

Allow me to tell you something about courtesy. You asked me to do something and I declined. You asked again, and again I declined. Unless I am mistaken, this is your third attempt - and, I again, will decline. If you continue with this line of insistance, I will simply stop responding to you. Now, let’s get on with the business at hand.

Scripture has a number of examples people who went to great lenghts to get what they wanted - the 'Pearl of Great Price (Matt 13) is a good example. The livies of the Saints offer us the example of real people willing to sacrifice all to do what they believed.

The link I provided did not set a limit on denouncing evil - and, I think that deserves some time for thought. The issue I am trying to address is not a fanciful abstraction, but rather the real world of Presidential Politics - and our role in this matter when we go to vote. It really is as simple as that. If denouncing evil in the privacy of a voting booth is too much of an imposition, then everything else is of no real consequence. This thread asks the question of how do we address a moral issue.

There have been numerous posts that essentially state that we need to know the teachings of the Catholic Church on moral issues and we need to acquire some knowledge of the candidates running for office and what it is that they stand for.

Make no mistake about it, President Obama is a skilled orator. He is in command of the language, his tone and inflection, his delivery and his whole presence. Truly, this is a difficult set of skills to master - and he has acheived mastery. But, we can’t stop there - we need to know what it is he is actually saying - not how he says it. The next step is to then see how he acts in response to his speech. While he has tremendous speaking skills - he is a complete failure on keeping his word. The blood of millions of unborn children are the direct result of his policies. If anyone takes issue with this - please speak up. Obama has brought the moral decay of countless deaths to the Oval Office that few have equaled - and those times involved war. We can not vote for more evil - it really comes down to just that.

Candidate Romney is not running for Saint. He has some moral bagage that needs to be addrssed - and, in my own way, I have attempted to do this. His position to abortion is favorable when rape and incest are involved - of course, killing the innocent baby is the result -and this does even more violence to the victimized woman. So, do we accept a few abortions and have the abortion promoting policies of Obana overturned, or do we vote for someone (e.g., Ron Paul) who is against all abortions?

We will all be held accountable before God on how we vote. The innocent lives of many unborn children hang in the balance. I just do not think we will be let off easy on this matter - a line has been drawn separating those who favor life from those who favor murder. There are many ways we can be pro-life and voting is just one of them. But, when it comes to standing up for what we believe in when we are alone with that ballot - only you will know which side of line you moved towards.

That is the issue.

God bless

Ultimately it will come down to Election Day, when all campaigning ends and we stay up to watch the results of our vote count towards our candidate.

I think you have already demonstrated that you believe there are limits to how much one must “denounce evil” before it becomes a grave matter. That is, we are obligated to denounce evil, but not at the expense of everything else. In particular, you have been very reluctant to place any absolute obligation to denounce evil outside of the voting booth. So if it is a grave matter to fail to denounce evil in the voting booth, why is it not a grave matter to fail to take every other opportunity to denounce evil? In my yard sign example that you refuse to take a stand on, the person is actively suppressing the message that abortion is evil by taking down his pro-life yard sign for 4 hours. Why is that not a grave matter? You see, the jump is not a trivial or self-evident one that refusing to denounce evil is always a grave matter.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

Thank you.

God bless

I do not see this. I agree with everything in your post.