Mortal sin not to vote?

[prv]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but Catholics have a moral obligation to vote.

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:

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.”

Our civic duty to vote is covered by the fourth commandment. We are obliged to vote for the candidate who best exemplifies Christian principles. If none of the candidates are Christians with good moral views, we should vote for the one least hostile to Christian principles and who is the most moral in their qualitites. By that same token we are not to vote for candidates who despise the teachings of Christianity.

None of the TX gubanatorial (sp.) candidates seem to exemplify conduct worthy of notice.
And if all the candidates (Republican, Democratic, independent) are all equally lousy…

 

[thistle]

There is another option which you have missed and that is choosing that which will do the least harm. This is also a factor that must be considered. This is a little different than choosing the lesser of two evils as the intention is not choosing a evil but choosing a good while tolerating an evil.

I totally disagree. You are just playing around with words.
If all candidates support abortion you must NOT vote for any of them even if you agree with the policies and views of a particular candidate excluding abortion.
That is not choosing good and tolerating an evil. That is choosing evil with the intention that the candidate has good policies (you agree with) that you would like to see enacted.
You must NOT vote for any person who proposes or endorses something that is considered a grave act (like abortion) by the Church.

 

[AndyF]

There is another option which you have missed and that is choosing that which will do the least harm. This is also a factor that must be considered. This is a little different than choosing the lesser of two evils as the intention is not choosing a evil but choosing a good while tolerating an evil.

Hi Mosher:

I didn’t miss it. There are some things that can never be accepted. This rule presupposes that there will always be cases where choosing the alternate of two unacceptable evils is required. An evil in a candidate is a deficiency, as he has freely accepted it in principal, and in this case, assists it’s cause by being a carrier to others through infection. This acceptance has made his character and ability to make moral choices suspect. In times of national crises, or imminent war, a stable person is required at the helm. The misconception is that there is no other recourse. We can call it off and try for a better batch.

The error is that it is the oness of the selector to solve the issue by accepting bad choices available, but the reality is the candidates need to resolve issues in their own life first, then unblemished, present themselves for selection. The voters are obliged to choose, but they are also responsible to weed out the unaccepted. This is not even an exception to the rule scenerio. The Devine law overrides civil. We are never to select evil as an alternative. Two evils are a singular evil, as they are allied to each other in intent, ie: our demise.

AndyF

 

[SeekerJen]

So a single mother living in a rented apartment who works two jobs so she can care for her kids and not go on welfare doesn’t get a vote under your system?

College kids who are expected to get fired up to eventually take the reins as adults don’t get a chance to vote?

A senior citizen who rents a townhouse in a seniors’ complex because home upkeep was too hard to maintain loses the vote he’s held for years?

A husband and wife who had to sell their house because the husband lost his job due to the tanking auto industry would both lose their previously held voting rights?

Sorry, that doesn’t sound fair or equal. Care to explain?

Yes they all can’t vote. Voting is not a right it is a privledge. Modern leftist education has tried to impose the idea that we are a democracy but in fact we are a Republic and as such voting is not a right.

This is unbelievable to me. Am I seriously the only one who has a problem with this?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

This is unbelievable to me. Am I seriously the only one who has a problem with this?

Yes, you are. Voting is not a right.

Since all rights come from God, in order for voting to be a right, democracy would have to be a divinely ordained form of government. Which it isn’t.

 

[mosher]

I totally disagree. You are just playing around with words.
If all candidates support abortion you must NOT vote for any of them even if you agree with the policies and views of a particular candidate excluding abortion.
That is not choosing good and tolerating an evil. That is choosing evil with the intention that the candidate has good policies (you agree with) that you would like to see enacted.
You must NOT vote for any person who proposes or endorses something that is considered a grave act (like abortion) by the Church.

I don’t play with words they are not as fun as my food.

Least harm and the acceptance of an evil for the sake of a greater good is always morally permissible. For instance, you take two candidates. Let’s call then Nancy Pelosi and Colin Powell. Both are running for the same office. Nancy has a position of life that is pure pro-choice while Colin Powell has a position that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape and incest. In this case it is permissible to vote for Powell over Pelosi because his position will do less harm than the alternative. However, the intention for voting for Powell must not be because he supports limited abortion but rather that his position will do less harm than that of Pelosi.

Hi Mosher:

I didn’t miss it. There are some things that can never be accepted. This rule presupposes that there will always be cases where choosing the alternate of two unacceptable evils is required. An evil in a candidate is a deficiency, as he has freely accepted it in principal, and in this case, assists it’s cause by being a carrier to others through infection. This acceptance has made his character and ability to make moral choices suspect. In times of national crises, or imminent war, a stable person is required at the helm. The misconception is that there is no other recourse. We can call it off and try for a better batch.

The error is that it is the oness of the selector to solve the issue by accepting bad choices available, but the reality is the candidates need to resolve issues in their own life first, then unblemished, present themselves for selection. The voters are obliged to choose, but they are also responsible to weed out the unaccepted. This is not even an exception to the rule scenerio. The Devine law overrides civil. We are never to select evil as an alternative. Two evils are a singular evil, as they are allied to each other in intent, ie: our demise.

AndyF

This is unrealistic. Not only are they human and flawed as anyone else but they (as with anyone) will never completely agree with your positions on matters. If one paints themselves into a wall as this description does then you will be forced to “no vote” in every election ever held. This would be an omission because you could have contributed to there being less harm done by public policy than more harm depending on how you vote. When you, I or the other are perfect and always capable of right judgment then check your pulse … because you are dead.

 

[LilyM]

Yes, you are. Voting is not a right.

Since all rights come from God, in order for voting to be a right, democracy would have to be a divinely ordained form of government. Which it isn’t.

Doc, atheists and agnostics don’t fight for human rights because they believe they come from God. Human rights come from something inherent in the condition of being human, whether one believes in a creator God or other deity or not.

And those rights absolutely include voting rights. Adult human beings absolutely need to be allowed to protect the OTHER rights they may have by being guaranteed a say in the institutions that legislate in regard to them.

The decisions of politicians affect everyone’s lives in myriad ways - this is true for the unpropertied as well as the propertied. For that reason alone all mentally competent and law-abiding adults, in my admittedly humble but hardly controversial opinion, have an absolute right to a vote as to what said politicians do that affects them.

Any particular reason, you think, why people are flocking to countries that have universal suffrage and away from those that don’t? They understand the vital importance of every adult having a vote. People have fought and died and suffered (including my ancestors and probably yours) because they also understood it.You don’t seem to.

 

[mosher]

Doc, atheists and agnostics don’t fight for human rights because they believe they come from God. Human rights come from something inherent in the condition of being human, whether one believes in a creator God or other deity or not.

And those rights absolutely include voting rights. Adult human beings absolutely need to be allowed to protect the OTHER rights they may have by being guaranteed a say in the institutions that legislate in regard to them.

The decisions of politicians affect everyone’s lives in myriad ways - this is true for the unpropertied as well as the propertied. For that reason alone all mentally competent and law-abiding adults, in my admittedly humble but hardly controversial opinion, have an absolute right to a vote as to what said politicians do that affects them.

Any particular reason, you think, why people are flocking to countries that have universal suffrage and away from those that don’t? They understand the vital importance of every adult having a vote. People have fought and died and suffered (including my ancestors and probably yours) because they also understood it.You don’t seem to.

What I think you miss is that according to the natural law Democracy is the lowest form of government right under Dictatorship. A Republic, however, is the second highest position directly under a Monarchy which is the highest, and to use the words of Thomas “the most noble” form of government. Extended to Catholic Moral Theology we would only modify the Natural Law Hierarchy slightly to say that not just any Monarchy but rather a Catholic Monarchy is the highest form and directly under is the Republic.

Under no form of government that finds itself in the higher portion of the hierarchy of governments is there a right to vote.

 

[LilyM]

What I think you miss is that according to the natural law Democracy is the lowest form of government right under Dictatorship. A Republic, however, is the second highest position directly under a Monarchy which is the highest, and to use the words of Thomas “the most noble” form of government. Extended to Catholic Moral Theology we would only modify the Natural Law Hierarchy slightly to say that not just any Monarchy but rather a Catholic Monarchy is the highest form and directly under is the Republic.

Under no form of government that finds itself in the higher portion of the hierarchy of governments is there a right to vote.

Sorry, as much as I respect St Thomas I cannot possibly agree with him or you on this.

God himself was incredibly reluctant to give Israel kings, remember … He foresaw, quite rightly, all the problems that monarchy entails as a form of government, and Israel’s foray into monarchy was disastrous.

I think we can safely say He knew better than St Thomas And given that Thomas never had a vote in his life, and that pretty much no-one in Europe had had in roughly a millennium, he didn’t know enough to appreciate the merits of democracy either.

 

[thistle]

I don’t play with words they are not as fun as my food.

Least harm and the acceptance of an evil for the sake of a greater good is always morally permissible. For instance, you take two candidates. Let’s call then Nancy Pelosi and Colin Powell. Both are running for the same office. Nancy has a position of life that is pure pro-choice while Colin Powell has a position that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape and incest. In this case it is permissible to vote for Powell over Pelosi because his position will do less harm than the alternative. However, the intention for voting for Powell must not be because he supports limited abortion but rather that his position will do less harm than that of Pelosi.

This is unrealistic. Not only are they human and flawed as anyone else but they (as with anyone) will never completely agree with your positions on matters. If one paints themselves into a wall as this description does then you will be forced to “no vote” in every election ever held. This would be an omission because you could have contributed to there being less harm done by public policy than more harm depending on how you vote. When you, I or the other are perfect and always capable of right judgment then check your pulse … because you are dead.

You NEVER vote for any candidate that supports abortion. End of story!!

 

[EBSSTF4]

Yes, you are. Voting is not a right.

Since all rights come from God, in order for voting to be a right, democracy would have to be a divinely ordained form of government. Which it isn’t.

The Church may disagree.

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:

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

 

[SeekerJen]

Yes, you are. Voting is not a right.

Since all rights come from God, in order for voting to be a right, democracy would have to be a divinely ordained form of government. Which it isn’t.

I still can’t believe this. Maybe I don’t belong in America, if this is the prevailing wisdom of the land.

 

[Julianna]

I still can’t believe this. Maybe I don’t belong in America, if this is the prevailing wisdom of the land.

Jen, this is just an example of the “extremist” view. If only those who own property were able to vote…we would have clearly a class system, like in the old days of castles and kings. How sad that would be. Yes, I am another who has a problem with that.

That’s the thing about extremists views…they can never benefit all of us…just some of us, and I don’t believe it would be considered American. It’s not the prevailing wisdom of the land. It’s just a far right extremist view point…means nothing really.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Doc, atheists and agnostics don’t fight for human rights because they believe they come from God. Human rights come from something inherent in the condition of being human, whether one believes in a creator God or other deity or not.

And those rights absolutely include voting rights. Adult human beings absolutely need to be allowed to protect the OTHER rights they may have by being guaranteed a say in the institutions that legislate in regard to them.

The decisions of politicians affect everyone’s lives in myriad ways - this is true for the unpropertied as well as the propertied. For that reason alone all mentally competent and law-abiding adults, in my admittedly humble but hardly controversial opinion, have an absolute right to a vote as to what said politicians do that affects them.

Any particular reason, you think, why people are flocking to countries that have universal suffrage and away from those that don’t? They understand the vital importance of every adult having a vote. People have fought and died and suffered (including my ancestors and probably yours) because they also understood it.You don’t seem to.

What atheists and agnostics “believe” is irrelevant. Rights come from God, whether they acknowledge it or not.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

The Church may disagree.

CCC

The new Catechism is not an infallible pronouncement. Insofar as it repeats previously proclaimed infallible dogmas, yes. Insofar as it invents novel doctrines and proposes them for belief…not so much.

And your quote doesn’t address my claim that voting is not a right. It merely states it is a moral obligation, which would not be binding on someone living in a nation that does not allow its citizens to vote.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

I still can’t believe this. Maybe I don’t belong in America, if this is the prevailing wisdom of the land.

Actually, you do belong in America. Americans are very much influenced by the Masons and deists who, under the influence of Enlightenment thinking, founded this country.

Of course, that line of thinking is very much at odds with traditional Catholic thought, which is why Pope Leo XIII condemned the heresy of Americanism.

 

[EBSSTF4]

The new Catechism is not an infallible pronouncement. Insofar as it repeats previously proclaimed infallible dogmas, yes. Insofar as it invents novel doctrines and proposes them for belief…not so much.

And your quote doesn’t address my claim that voting is not a right. It merely states it is a moral obligation, which would not be binding on someone living in a nation that does not allow its citizens to vote.

How about we reinstitute the Alabama “Literacy Test”

It seems to be right up your alley.

crmvet.org/info/litapp.pdf

 

[Dr.Bombay]

How about we reinstitute the Alabama “Literacy Test”

It seems to be right up your alley.

crmvet.org/info/litapp.pdf

That is an ad hominem attack. You obviously cannot answer my well-reasoned argument.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Ah, the good old days…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Jim]

St. Padre Pio went out of his way each election to leave the monastary to go and vote. It was the only time he ever left: thecatholic.org/2004_may/News_Fight_For_Life.htm

It’s interesting, though, Dorothy Day (who isn’t a saint, but whose cause was put forth by the late, great Cardinal O’Connor) even after her conversion remained an anarchist and according to several sources never voted: spot.colorado.edu/~chernus/NonviolenceBook/DorothyDay.htm