Moral obligation to vote--is there one?

[mary_bobo]

Have you ever voted for a candidate and it turned out that you were sorry that you voted for him or her? It happened to me and I don;t like it. I felt that I was swindled and taken in by the campaign rhetoric and if I had it to do all over again, I would vote for the other candidate. To say that we are supposed to make an informed decision is nice in theory, but in practice it really is not possible because the various candidates have polished their positions on issues to make them appeal to as many voters as possible, but once in office, things change from what they had promised during the campaign. And voting for these complicated propostions is a real mess. Many times the general public vote in favor of a particular proposition, but what happens after that? It goes to one court after another, with one appeal after another and the NY lawyers get it overturned and so it turns out that the opposite of what you had voted for goes into effect.

Much of what you say is true. The thing that I think causes some of the problems is that a voter often does not pay attention to what is going on until close to the election. He/she has no background information on which to base an educated vote. They don’t pay attention to what is going on in the Congress, what speaking engagements the person has long before election time. Voters only seem to know what their reps are doing, if that, but have no idea what other Congressmen/women are doing when the bills that come out of the House and Senate affect us all. I pay no attention to what they say prior to the election, I already have a pretty good idea who stands for what. One caveat, my husband is a former political consultant so perhaps that is why I pay attention all the time.

 

[bobzills]

We cannot possibly be completely informed, but we try our best.

And some of the candidates are not talking about certain things. For example, who is talking about the conditions under which he would use nuclear weapons, or why the USA has so many of them in fhe first place. Not to mention the biological weapons, or the chemicals weapons. Are we really informed enough on the candidate’s positions on the use of these horrible weapons to be able to make an intelligent choice? And if we cannot really be informed on these and other issues, I don;t see where we have a moral obligation to vote, or how it could be a mortal sin not to vote, since most of the time, we really don’t know what we are voting for in the end.

 

[Joe_5859]

And some of the candidates are not talking about certain things. For example, who is talking about the conditions under which he would use nuclear weapons, or why the USA has so many of them in fhe first place. Not to mention the biological weapons, or the chemicals weapons. Are we really informed enough on the candidate’s positions on the use of these horrible weapons to be able to make an intelligent choice? And if we cannot really be informed on these and other issues, I don;t see where we have a moral obligation to vote, or how it could be a mortal sin not to vote, since most of the time, we really don’t know what we are voting for in the end.

I never said it was a mortal sin, and I don’t believe the Catechism said that either. It said we have a moral obligation, but for not voting to be a mortal sin, it would have to constitute grave matter, which I’m not sure that it does. Maybe it’s a venial sin to miss a local election, but a mortal sin to miss a presidential election.

Wikipedia has articles on the political positions of the presidential candidates. If they don’t address nuclear weapons, it is probably because they don’t anticipate a situation where they would need to use one, at least not in the next 4 years. If there was a legitimate possibility that the next president might be put in a position to use a nuclear weapon, I would imagine some reporter would have asked the candidates by now. I think there is enough information to make a fairly well-educated decision.

Plus, with things like abortion and the murder of millions of children each year, shouldn’t we do everything within our power to bring it to an end? Voting is a critical way to help in the fight against abortion.

 

[bobzills]

Maybe it’s a venial sin to miss a local election, but a mortal sin to miss a presidential election.

The catechism mentions moral obligation, but I am not sure I would agree with the catechism on that as I have already given reasons why I would think so. I mean, I don;t see where there is a moral obligation to defend the interests of the USA in the Iraq war, and actually, there have been Catholic bishops who even said that it would be wrong to do so. So it looks like the catechism is wrong on that issue. And I don;t see a moral obligation to vote in a presidential election when both candidates have positions on issues contrary to Church teaching. Of course, I could be wrong, but I don;t see it as a sin, because in voting for either candidate you are in effect voting against Church teaching.

 

[Joe_5859]

The catechism mentions moral obligation, but I am not sure I would agree with the catechism on that as I have already given reasons why I would think so. I mean, I don;t see where there is a moral obligation to defend the interests of the USA in the Iraq war, and actually, there have been Catholic bishops who even said that it would be wrong to do so. So it looks like the catechism is wrong on that issue. And I don;t see a moral obligation to vote in a presidential election when both candidates have positions on issues contrary to Church teaching. Of course, I could be wrong, but I don;t see it as a sin, because in voting for either candidate you are in effect voting against Church teaching.

As I said in an earlier post, the CCC says we have the moral obligation to “defend one’s country.” This does NOT mean that we have a moral obligation to join the military and fight in any war that our country deems appropriate (such as the Iraq war). I’m not sure why you keep trying to equate the CCC’s words with an uncritical acceptance of the Iraq war. Each war is to be evaluated in light of the just war doctrine (CCC 2309). Thus, it is permissible for bishops (and anyone else) to criticize a particular war.

The Catechism is speaking of general principles. We then take these principles and try to apply them in certain situations. Certainly, one might argue (convincingly) that the Iraq war does NOT qualify as “defending one’s country” and thus does not qualify as a moral obligation.

I understand your frustrations (believe me, I do!). I can’t remember there ever being a candidate who conforms perfectly with Church teaching, at least, not in a major national election. Oftentimes voting, regrettably, consists in voting for the lesser of two evils. The question often is: which candidate will do the least damage? I sincerely wish the situation were different, but I do not believe that it is of little or no consequence who is elected. The candidates are not identical (even though it seems that way at times!), and I think that certain candidates will do much more harm than others.

All that being said, I’m not going to start pointing my finger at you and crying “Sinner!”

If I were you, rather than simply stating that the Church is wrong, I might instead try to argue how this general principle of the moral obligation to vote does not apply in a particular situation (the 2008 presidential election for example). That way, at least no one can accuse you of going against Church teaching!

 

[bobzills]

I can’t remember there ever being a candidate who conforms perfectly with Church teaching, at least, not in a major national election.

Well, then, since each candidate opposes a teaching of the Church in one way or another, why would it be wrong for someone to refuse to vote on the grounds of conscientious objection?

 

[po18guy]

I just came across this in the Catechism which answers the OP’s question pretty succinctly:

CCC 2240: Submission to authority and co responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country (emphasis added).

So I guess the answer would be: YES!

Thank you, Joe. I was just digging through the CCC!

 

[Joe_5859]

Well, then, since each candidate opposes a teaching of the Church in one way or another, why would it be wrong for someone to refuse to vote on the grounds of conscientious objection?

I think you could make a case for this in specific individual circumstances. If there were two candidates in a particular election who seemed equally opposed to Church teaching on every issue, and the damage they would do seems the same, perhaps one could refrain from voting in that particular election under conscientious objection.

I think the Catechism is speaking generally that we ought to vote, and that general principle still stands, even if an individual circumstance would lead one to believe that one cannot vote in a particular election.

I don’t think I’ve been in a situation where I’ve truly felt that it didn’t matter which candidate got elected, at least, in a national election. But, I wouldn’t say it’s impossible.

 

[txsoldier94]

For me…the CCC is an encouragement to vote. As Catholics, we are called upon to be stewards of God’s creation, and we can fulfil that role by participating in government.

For this election, I know I am bordering on dangerous ground, but there seem to be no choices that conform to Church teachings…so for me, I have to balance other issues that I think are important. And this go round, I have to look to who I think will best protect the nation.

Just my 2 cents.

Mik

 

[po18guy]

This is interesting, but I guess that the Catholic catechism is wrong on this issue.

Bob, willfully avoiding social responsibilities, the teaching of St. Paul and the Teaching Authority of the church is grave matter. Those who violate this and go to jail are there for a reason. They are wrong. They do not trust God enough to allow Him to allocate their funds morally, and they do not trust that he is ensuring that injustice is righted in His own time. Those who fail to obey this command do so out of ego. They are properly punished. May they examine their consciences.

Christ’s peace.

 

[bobzills]

Bob, willfully avoiding social responsibilities, the teaching of St. Paul and the Teaching Authority of the church is grave matter. Those who violate this and go to jail are there for a reason. They are wrong. They do not trust God enough to allow Him to allocate their funds morally, and they do not trust that he is ensuring that injustice is righted in His own time. Those who fail to obey this command do so out of ego. They are properly punished. May they examine their consciences.

Christ’s peace.

As I said, I don’t really see a candidate who supports the teachings of the Church. Where is your candidate who opposes the use of tax money to support contraceptive programs?

 

[Jester]

Red emphasis in all below is mine.

Catechism of the Catholic Church #2240
Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:
Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.
The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.”

See also 1913, 1914 & 1915 of CCC for more.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
***DOCTRINAL NOTE *on some questions regarding **The Participation of Catholics in Political Life
9. The principles contained in the present Note are intended to shed light on one of the most important aspects of the unity of Christian life: coherence between faith and life, Gospel and culture, as recalled by the Second Vatican Council. The Council exhorted Christians «to fulfill their duties faithfully in the spirit of the Gospel. It is a mistake to think that, because we have here no lasting city, but seek the city which is to come, we are entitled to shirk our earthly responsibilities; this is to forget that by our faith we are bound all the more to fulfill these responsibilities according to the vocation of each… May Christians…be proud of the opportunity to carry out their earthly activity in such a way as to integrate human, domestic, professional, scientific and technical enterprises with religious values, under whose supreme direction all things are ordered to the glory of God».[31]

Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
A Call to Political Responsibility fromthe Catholic Bishops of the United States
Issued by USCCB, November 14, 2007

1. In the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in
   political life is a moral obligation. This obligation is rooted in our baptismal commitment to
   follow Jesus Christ and to bear Christian witness in all we do. As the Catechism of the Catholic
   *Church *reminds us, “it is necessary that all participate, each according to his position and role, in
   promoting the common good. This obligation is inherent in the dignity of the human person. . . .
   As far as possible citizens should take an active part in public life” (nos. 1913-1915).
2. Building a world of respect for human life and dignity, where justice and peace
   prevail, requires more than just political commitment. Individuals, families, businesses,
   community organizations, and government all have a role to play. Participation in political life in
   light of fundamental moral principles is an essential duty for every Catholic and all people of
   good will.

 

[bobzills]

What the catechism says is all very nice in theory, but in practice, as far as I know, there are extremely few, if any at all, candidates who take the Catholic position that the use of contraceptive devices is a grave evil and that taxpayers should not be required to fund these immoral programs. As it is now, taxpayers have to pay taxes to support these immoral family planning programs, and I don;t see how it would be a sin of any kind if a person conscientiously objected to all of this and refused to vote. There is really no one to vote for, if you are looking for the person who will oppose government funding of all artificial family planning programs.

 

[Jester]

The CCC is not a theoretical treatise. It is a compendium of what Catholics are to believe and how they are to live.

Perhaps Evangelium Vitae, Number 73, paragraph 3 would be helpful:
“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.”

Application of the principle operative in the above quotation, compels Catholics to vote for that candidate whose position on abortion - or other paramount non-negotiable life issues - is most consisent with authentic morality, although none of the candidate’s position are 100% consistent.

Some have said “A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.” There is no truth in this statement. When there is no 100% Pro-Life candidate in a campaign, and one votes for a candidate who is 75% Pro-Life, rather than the opponent because the opponent is 100% pro-death, one is voting FOR the greatest reduction or limitation of evil possible in the given circumstance.

Of course there is no moral obligation to refrain from holding one’s nose with one hand while casting their vote with the other.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, let us all pray for the conversion of heart and mind and the strengthening of the will of all who aid and abet the culture of death in any way, shape, or form and to any extent.

His blessings and mercy!!!

 

[po18guy]

As I said, I don’t really see a candidate who supports the teachings of the Church. Where is your candidate who opposes the use of tax money to support contraceptive programs?

We stop the greater evil first: abortion. Then, we take on contraception and other issues. That is allowed by the church.

 

[txsoldier94]

We must see to the security of our nation, so that we can tackle these other problems…otherwise between socialism and sharia there will be no remedy for the others.

Mik

 

[bobzills]

We stop the greater evil first: abortion. Then, we take on contraception and other issues. That is allowed by the church.

Many contraceptives are themselves abortifacient. Why should I vote for anyone who refuses to block them and who requires taxpayers to pay for them?

 

[po18guy]

Many contraceptives are themselves abortifacient. Why should I vote for anyone who refuses to block them and who requires taxpayers to pay for them?

It is similar to repenting of sin and returning to grace, or conversion of the heart. It is accomplished in steps, not all at once, as we would like it. The alternative is either status quo, which is unacceptable, or violent, bloody revolution. I must therefore vote for voting.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[bobzills]

It is similar to repenting of sin and returning to grace, or conversion of the heart. It is accomplished in steps, not all at once, as we would like it. The alternative is either status quo, which is unacceptable, or violent, bloody revolution. I must therefore vote for voting.

Christ’s peace be with you.

Obviously, I respect everyone who takes the time to survey and study the issues and to vote for the best alternative. I am only saying that the current situation may provide reasons for conscientious objection to voting or defending the the interests of the USA as apparently is mandated by the catechism.

 

[whatevergirl]

Red emphasis in all below is mine.

Catechism of the Catholic Church #2240
Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:
Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.
The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.”

See also 1913, 1914 & 1915 of CCC for more.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
***DOCTRINAL NOTE ***on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life
9. The principles contained in the present Note are intended to shed light on one of the most important aspects of the unity of Christian life: coherence between faith and life, Gospel and culture, as recalled by the Second Vatican Council. The Council exhorted Christians «to fulfill their duties faithfully in the spirit of the Gospel. It is a mistake to think that, because we have here no lasting city, but seek the city which is to come, we are entitled to shirk our earthly responsibilities; this is to forget that by our faith we are bound all the more to fulfill these responsibilities according to the vocation of each… May Christians…be proud of the opportunity to carry out their earthly activity in such a way as to integrate human, domestic, professional, scientific and technical enterprises with religious values, under whose supreme direction all things are ordered to the glory of God».[31]

Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
A Call to Political Responsibility fromthe Catholic Bishops of the United States
Issued by USCCB, November 14, 2007

1. In the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in
   political life is a moral obligation. This obligation is rooted in our baptismal commitment to
   follow Jesus Christ and to bear Christian witness in all we do. As the Catechism of the Catholic
   *Church *reminds us, “it is necessary that all participate, each according to his position and role, in
   promoting the common good. This obligation is inherent in the dignity of the human person. . . .
   As far as possible citizens should take an active part in public life” (nos. 1913-1915).
2. Building a world of respect for human life and dignity, where justice and peace
   prevail, requires more than just political commitment. Individuals, families, businesses,
   community organizations, and government all have a role to play. Participation in political life in
   light of fundamental moral principles is an essential duty for every Catholic and all people of
   good will.

Thank you for posting this for us, Jester!