Question About Political Support

[billsannie]

Please note: I don’t intend any comparison between any politicians or heads of state and any others, living or dead. This is a completely hypothetical question but one that has some importance to me as I try to reconcile myself to possibly rejoining the Catholic Church.

Here goes: Suppose we had a Presidential candidate who was cruel, despotic, and a genuine, proven threat to our system. In other words, a psychopath who, given a very chaotic political and social situation, could and would install himself as dictator.

However, this candidate is ostensibly pro-life, at least as far as abortion goes. He promises to make abortion illegal across the land, and if possible, to influence other countries to end it as well. And he has the clout to do this. Mind, he’s no Catholic, even if he pretends to be. He’s doing this to get votes, but he will do it.

The other candidates are pro-abortion. At least one would likely be able to unite a troubled country and bring a level of peace and prosperity to the US. But he would make abortion available to any who wanted it, and ensure that this will be the law of the land for the foreseeable future.

I realize this scenario is unlikely to the point of adsurdity, but then I would never have believed the country could be in the position it is in now. Essentially I’d like to know whether anti-abortion concerns so much exceed all others that a Catholic would be bound to support a candidate who would end abortion, even if he, or she, was obviously a murdering nutcase who would kill many and generally destroy the country.In such an extreme situation, could a Catholic support a pro-abortion candidate?

 

[PassingSoul]

Please note: I don’t intend any comparison between any politicians or heads of state and any others, living or dead. This is a completely hypothetical question but one that has some importance to me as I try to reconcile myself to possibly rejoining the Catholic Church.

Here goes: Suppose we had a Presidential candidate who was cruel, despotic, and a genuine, proven threat to our system. In other words, a psychopath who, given a very chaotic political and social situation, could and would install himself as dictator.

However, this candidate is ostensibly pro-life, at least as far as abortion goes. He promises to make abortion illegal across the land, and if possible, to influence other countries to end it as well. And he has the clout to do this. Mind, he’s no Catholic, even if he pretends to be. He’s doing this to get votes, but he will do it.

The other candidates are pro-abortion. At least one would likely be able to unite a troubled country and bring a level of peace and prosperity to the US. But he would make abortion available to any who wanted it, and ensure that this will be the law of the land for the foreseeable future.

I realize this scenario is unlikely to the point of adsurdity, but then I would never have believed the country could be in the position it is in now. Essentially I’d like to know whether anti-abortion concerns so much exceed all others that a Catholic would be bound to support a candidate who would end abortion, even if he, or she, was obviously a murdering nutcase who would kill many and generally destroy the country.In such an extreme situation, could a Catholic support a pro-abortion candidate?

Msgr. Charles Pope - Community

True Catholicism cannot be tamed by any political party or interest group. True Catholicism will comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. It will annoy both the right and the left, and will also affirm them, it has no permanent allies or opponents. As it was with Christ, most every one will have reason to hate the Church, and some will come to love her. We are destined to be, with Christ, a sign of contradiction (Luke 2:34) that will often be opposed, for we do not simply fit into any on world agenda or party.
the Catholic Church Republican? Democrat? And what are you? As for me:

• I’m against abortion, and they call me a Republican
• I want greater justice for immigrants, and they call me a Democrat
• I stand against “Gay” “Marriage,” and they call me a Republican
• I work for affordable housing, and stand with unemployed in DC, and they call me a Democrat
• I talk of subsidiarity and they say: “Republican, for sure.”
• I mention the common good, and solidarity and they say, “Not only a Democrat, but a Socialist for sure.”
• Embryonic Stem cell research should end, “See, he’s Republican!”
• Not a supporter of the death penalty, standing with the Bishops and the Popes against it…”Ah, told you! He’s really a Democrat!…Dye in the wool and Yellow Dog to boot!”
  Hmm, and all this time I just thought I was trying to be a Catholic Christian. I just don’t seem to fit in. And, frankly, no Catholic should. We cannot be encompassed by any Party.

 

[po18guy]

So odd how the US Catholic Bishops were so silent before the election and are so outspoken now. Curious. Frankly, I’d rather that they mind the Church, which has enough problems of its own.

 

[1neophyte]

No.

 

[3_Dog_Night]

So odd how the US Catholic Bishops were so silent before the election and are so outspoken now. Curious. Frankly, I’d rather that they mind the Church, which has enough problems of its own.

Interesting, isn’t it.

To the original poster: No one needs to choose “the lesser of two evils” when it comes to voting for a political candidate – one can choose no evil at all. Perhaps a third party candidate, a write in candidate, or abstaining from voting might be the best choice of all. The Catholic Church will not tell its members for whom they should or should not vote but will provide general guidelines and instruction in the faith to help one make up one’s own mind.

 

[peter26]

Personally I would vote for an anti-abortion candidate no matter what other views they had. Someone stands who is pro life and has any chance of getting at least a respectable number of votes, they’d get mine. Why? Because no dictator could kill at many people as abortion does.

 

[PassingSoul]

Personally I would vote for an anti-abortion candidate no matter what other views they had. Someone stands who is pro life and has any chance of getting at least a respectable number of votes, they’d get mine. Why? Because no dictator could kill at many people as abortion does.

Even a world Nuclear Holocaust ?

 

[peter26]

Even a world Nuclear Holocaust ?

Who stands on a platform of bringing about a nuclear holocaust?

 

[mVitus]

Who stands on a platform of bringing about a nuclear holocaust?

Let’s say they’re genocidal then. That could plausibly kill a ton of people and be used as a platform.

As to the original question, I don’t have a link to it right now but there is a voting guide for the Catholic conscience out there. And in light of proportionate reasons we may vote for a pro-choice candidate so long as we don’t vote them because they’re pro-choice.

To put that in the words of your example let’s call the dictator Dick and the other guy Otto.
Wrong: You know I really like Otto for his pro-choice stance. It’d be great to have that.
Acceptable: Dick is pro-life which is great, but there are so many things I disagree with him on that would be gravely unjust. I know Otto is pro-choice, but I cannot consciously elect someone who would oppress the poor and strip away every human dignity even if they are pro-life so while I reluctantly accept his pro-choice stance, he’s the moral option.

As for what proportionate reasons are in real world scenarios, I’m not sure. (More accurately I’m not sure enough to proclaim my personal understanding as law.) But you don’t have to elect Hitler reincarnated if they’re the only pro-life candidate in the field.

 

[PassingSoul]

Who stands on a platform of bringing about a nuclear holocaust?

You made a blank statement that no dictator could ever kill as many souls as Abortion. An all out Nuclear War would wipe out Civilization as we know it. What would the world look like in the aftermath ? You would back a Dictator and allow him broad powers to pick and choose who lives and dies on just being against Abortion.

 

[1neophyte]

You made a blank statement that no dictator could ever kill as many souls as Abortion. An all out Nuclear War would wipe out Civilization as we know it. What would the world look like in the aftermath ? You would back a Dictator and allow him broad powers to pick and choose who lives and dies on just being against Abortion.

You realize that this is pure nonsense, right? Can you give an example of such a person? Someone who is against abortion but in favor of wiping out civilization by a nuclear war? That person may exist in your imagination, but no such person exists in reality. If there is to be any rational discussion about this, you can’t introduce nonsense fantasies as possibilities to consider. It’s no different than asking something like, “Would you ever consider adopting a dog that was able to drive a car, knowing that there would always be a possibility that he could steal your car in the middle of the night while you’re sleeping and never return?” If you want to have a productive rational discussion, don’t introduce irrational imaginary ideas.

 

[1neophyte]

Acceptable: Dick is pro-life which is great, but there are so many things I disagree with him on that would be gravely unjust. I know Otto is pro-choice, but I cannot consciously elect someone who would oppress the poor and strip away every human dignity even if they are pro-life so while I reluctantly accept his pro-choice stance, he’s the moral option.

You’re leaving out the most important part, which is that abortion itself is gravely unjust, strips away every human dignity, and oppresses both the poor and the rich. If you cannot consciously elect someone who would strip away human dignity, you can’t consciously elect someone with a “pro-choice stance” and call it “moral.”

 

[mVitus]

You’re leaving out the most important part, which is that abortion itself is gravely unjust, strips away every human dignity, and oppresses both the poor and the rich. If you cannot consciously elect someone who would strip away human dignity, you can’t consciously elect someone with a “pro-choice stance” and call it “moral.”

Let’s go to the hypothetical, because the OP is curious about the extreme case. Whether or not the extreme case will happen is another discussion. So continuing with this hypothetical let’s imagine the following candidates. Joe is basically the anti-Christ except they’re pro-life with abortion. Moe’s morals are exactly like Christ’s except that he’s pro-choice. Electing Moe even though he’s pro-choice, as opposed to Joe, is the moral action. Now as you stated we’ll never get such an extreme, but it does do the job of demonstrating that there can be just reasons to vote a candidate even if they’re pro-choice. If you want to argue about the real-world cases we face, that’s a different discussion.

 

[1neophyte]

Let’s go to the hypothetical, because the OP is curious about the extreme case. Whether or not the extreme case will happen is another discussion. So continuing with this hypothetical let’s imagine the following candidates. Joe is basically the anti-Christ except they’re pro-life with abortion. Moe’s morals are exactly like Christ’s except that he’s pro-choice. Electing Moe even though he’s pro-choice, as opposed to Joe, is the moral action. Now as you stated we’ll never get such an extreme, but it does do the job of demonstrating that there can be just reasons to vote a candidate even if they’re pro-choice. If you want to argue about the real-world cases we face, that’s a different discussion.

Do you mean demonstrating just reasons to vote for a pro-choice candidate in the real world or in an imaginary world? Because as you say, they are two different discussions. In an imaginary fantasy world, I suppose you could justly vote for a pro-choice candidate, since there would be no real consequences, and no actual vote would even take place anywhere but in your own head. As for what is just in the real world where there are real consequences and real events that actually occur in reality, there is no way that support for something as unjust as abortion could ever be called just.

To put it another way, if I asked you if it would ever be just to vote for someone who advocated the reinstatement of slavery of black people, what would your answer be?

 

[mVitus]

If the other candidate was even worse, I’d go with the pro-slavery guy and work to keep slavery in the past by other means,

 

[1neophyte]

If the other candidate was even worse, I’d go with the pro-slavery guy and work to keep slavery in the past by other means,

Can you give an example of what might make a possible candidate worse than a pro-slavery guy?

 

[robertmidwest]

I realize this scenario is unlikely to the point of adsurdity,

Then why post it unless you are baiting?

but then I would never have believed the country could be in the position it is in now.

You’re post isn’t as hypothetical as you claim is it?

I don’t believe for a second that this anything but a anti-Trump/pro-abortion troll.

 

[mVitus]

Can you give an example of what might make a possible candidate worse than a pro-slavery guy?

If a candidate ran on a Nazi platform.
Or let’s say a candidate ran on an anti-religion communist platform.
Or let’s say their opponent was pro-euthanasia, pro-death penalty, and making promises towards an unjust war.

 

[1neophyte]

If a candidate ran on a Nazi platform.
Or let’s say a candidate ran on an anti-religion communist platform.
Or let’s say their opponent was pro-euthanasia, pro-death penalty, and making promises towards an unjust war.

What if there was a candidate who ran on a Nazi platform and was pro-death penalty, but in every other way was exactly like Christ, and was running against the anti-Christ? Would it be moral and just to vote for the Nazi, and just work against Nazism by other means, because the anti-Christ would be worse?

 

[PassingSoul]

You realize that this is pure nonsense, right? Can you give an example of such a person? Someone who is against abortion but in favor of wiping out civilization by a nuclear war? That person may exist in your imagination, but no such person exists in reality. If there is to be any rational discussion about this, you can’t introduce nonsense fantasies as possibilities to consider. It’s no different than asking something like, “Would you ever consider adopting a dog that was able to drive a car, knowing that there would always be a possibility that he could steal your car in the middle of the night while you’re sleeping and never return?” If you want to have a productive rational discussion, don’t introduce irrational imaginary ideas.

Adolph Hitler and even today the North Korean Dictator.

Gender roles and attitudes to women in Nazi Germany were largely shaped by the personal views of Adolf Hitler. The fuhrer had conservative and traditionalist conceptions of gender; they were probably influenced by his mother, a simple but caring housewife who had protected her son from his stern and sometimes brutal father. In Hitler’s mind, the natural role for women was domestic: they were best equipped to tend the home, to care for their husbands, to bear and raise children. Hitler believed women were kinder, gentler and more emotional than men. Because of this, they were not equipped to survive the turmoil and pressure of workplaces, business or politics. Hitler preferred women who were quiet, demure and motherly. He found it difficult to relax around women who were confident, outspoken, well educated or professionally successful. These attitudes were reflected in both Hitler’s Mein Kampf and some of his speeches: “Women are the eternal mothers of the nation”; “women are the eternal companion of men”; “the triumphant task of women is to bear and tend babies”; “men are willing to fight … women must be there to nurse them”. Hitler rejected ideas of gender equality. He described the push for women’s rights and equal pay for women as a communist plot. In a 1935 speech, the Nazi leader said that: ( sound familiar ? )

Of course you don’t believe that History can repeat itself. Even our President whose closest advisor is a White Nationalist and his Cabinet, Advisors are who are Authoritarian with Military Backgrounds doesn’t bother you in the least. A President who admires Dictators and says the US voting system is corrupt is a man who will not let go of power easily. So I would advise you to keep your narrow mind to yourself if you believe your opinion alone is all encompassing.