Remote Cooperation and Voting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Totustuus1213
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Totustuus1213

Guest
I read recently that buying a product (like clothing, or coffee) from a company that supports something morally objectionable qualifies as remote cooperation and therefore is not sinful. But this got me thinking about voting. If a person votes for a candidate that supports something morally objectionable but votes for them not because of their objectionable stance, but rather the stances which are honorable (because most political candidates are a mixed bag these days) does this also qualify as remote cooperation or direct cooperation? Also, how do we as Catholics weigh which stances are more morally objectionable when most candidates support anti-life and anti-family agendas? Even Trump supports the LGBT movement and late-term abortion in the cases of a non-viable fetus according to “On The Issues”. So, how do we vote accordingly?
 
Last edited:
Totustuus1213 said:
but votes for them not because of their objectionable stance, but rather the stances which are honorable (because most political candidates are a mixed bag these days)
Click to expand...
This is exactly what the US Bishops speak of in “Faithful Citizenship”.


I’d suggest you read the entire document, here are key paragraphs:
  1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
  2. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
 
Thank you so much for your reply. Do you know what is meant by “truly grave moral reasons”? Do the Bishops offer further guidelines on what this means or is it up to the individual to decide according to their conscience?
TheLittleLady said:
Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons,
Click to expand...
 
There is a document and a study guide, but, in general we know that grave means “very serious”.

For me, there are many grave reasons that impact my vote, I am not a “single” nor a “5 issue” voter.

Entire set of resources

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...ciences-for-faithful-citizenship-document.cfm

ETA. Sometimes I understand something by seeking the opposite thought.

Voting for someone for a shallow reason would be voting for someone because they like your football team, are handsome, are simply a member of your preferred party, etc. IMHO
 
Last edited:
Regrettably, much voting in our society falls under the categories “the least of several evils” or “damage control”. These are the principles I use when going to the polls:
  • Abortion is, and remains, far and away the largest issue. If it weren’t for abortion, I would actually skew pretty liberal (universal health care, very low tuition for public higher education, generous benefits to families, etc.). However, things being as they are, I vote pro-life.
  • Adapting William F. Buckley’s principle, I vote for the most pro-life candidate who actually has a chance of winning.
  • I normally cross over and vote in the primary of the party I oppose (my state allows this), to choose the least objectionable candidate who could actually win.
  • I will sometimes vote third party if neither candidate is desirable, or if the lesser-objectionable major party candidate, whom I would otherwise support, is “safe” in my state and my vote can’t be foreseen to make a difference in the electoral college. I support the idea of multiple parties and would like to see the US move towards this.
The electoral college is not perfect, but it is no more inequitable than the idea of “proportional representation” in European parliamentary democracies (where, through complicated formulas I’ve never quite figured out, minor party candidates get a certain number of seats regardless).

It is too bad that we don’t have Catholic monarchies throughout the world who can rein in their parliaments if they go astray. Even Catholic King Baudouin in Belgium had to abdicate for a day when his parliament voted in abortion. If that monarchy had worked the way monarchies should work, he could have merely nullified the law by appealing to the higher Law of God.
 
Last edited:
In most modern constitutional monarchies, if a Sovereign was to intervene directly via their Reserve Powers, it would likely lead to the end of the Monarchy. Constitutional Monarchies walk a fine line, intervening openly only during extreme moments like constitutional crises, or when their Parliament is unable to pick a government after an election or a vote of non-confidence.

The whole point of a Constitutional monarchy is to create a non-partisan stability at the very top of the political system. If a Catholic Monarch (or indeed any Christian Monarch like Queen Elizabeth II) were to veto abortion legislation, save under the advice of their government, it would lead to a Constitutional crisis, which would almost certainly mean the government resigns and either the Monarch has to pick a new government from Parliament (if one can be found), or via new elections. And what happens if this hypothetical Monarch then again tried to intervene, and the next government resigned?

Doubtless Constitutional Sovereigns will quietly intervene. As Bagehot put it, a Constitutional monarch has the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. Going beyond that would in many cases lead to the dissolution of the monarchy in question. It isn’t the 17th century any more. Most monarchs, at least in the Western world, simply do not possess the power to impose their wills. They can’t pass legislation, and any proclamation in their name, save for some rare instruments (like Royal Warrants and some honors) is inevitably penned by the government.
 
niceatheist said:
It isn’t the 17th century any more. Most monarchs, at least in the Western world, simply do not possess the power to impose their wills.
Click to expand...
That is quite right. And that’s where the problem lies. In a true, Catholic monarchy, the sovereign would not merely lead, he would rule. There’s a difference. There might be parliaments, or advisors, or what have you — to do the nitty-gritty and keep the king from having to micro-manage — but the ultimate authority would lie with the king.

What we have now, noble as the concept is, are mere figureheads.
 
And it would be like Reconquista Spain, which was so severe that it made even Papal legates shiver.

Thanks, I like freedom more than your notion of the pure Catholic state
 
Well, in the case of remote formal cooperation, that means you agree with the position—for example, you vote for someone who favors legal abortion because you think abortions should be legal. This is a higher level of guilt.

Material cooperation is different. In voting for a president, you are very remote from the evil (a procured abortion). If you vote for someone in spite of the fact that they favor liberal abortion laws and you are against abortion, then your cooperation is material, not formal. Translation: You are not as culpable in this situation.

Intent matters.
 
Ok here is a scenario: A republican candidate is for late term abortion in some cases but otherwise is pro-life but a democrat candidate is against late term abortion but is pro choice. Which one is less morally objectionable: Killing fully formed humans with severe disabilities or tiny humans in early stages of gestation?
 
What’s the quote from him saying he supports late term abortion?

This is a dishonest attempt at false immoral equivalency
 
Last edited:
The assertion was Trump supports late term abortion, not that a piece of legislation has a specific exception buried in a footnote.

If he supports late term abortion, please provide the quote of him stating that.

There is no such quote because this is an attempt to confuse and obfuscate.
 
A “ban on late term abortion” would be a piece of legislation. If President Trump was pushing one, I am sure the same sources who told you that can provide you the number of the House or Senate legislation.

Every piece of legislation I have read in the past 10 years that relates to late term abortion has included exceptions. If you will specify WHICH “ban” you are referencing, you might want to know if that bill contained exceptions. It might, as it did for me, change your political thinking.
 
No such legislation since he merely “pushed for ban” 2 months ago during State of Union Speech

But that’s besides the point. President doesn’t write laws. Congress does. President merely expresses his intent for the legislation which is what is key and his intent was clear as:
**Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth.****These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the governor of Virginia where he basically stated he would execute a baby after birth.To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb.
Click to expand...
His intent is clear. To go digging for legislation he didn’t write in order to suggest he supports late term abortion is to mislead at best and to intentionally deceive at worst.
 
Last edited:
So, he was just talking, not actually supporting legislation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top