Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics

[SoCalRC]

Correct-and that is line with teaching. of course if one feels that voting for one who supports Rape/Incest abortions is co-operating with evil they exercise their option to not vote. What they cannot do, and still be in line with Catholic teaching, is make the quantum leap to voting for the abortion on demand candidate claiming there is no difference between the two on abortion.

But this omits one aspect. Many Catholics here include a ‘viability’ test. They do not vote for the most pro-life candidate available, they instead limit themselves to only major party candidates.

This concept, political expediency, does not seem to be present in the explanations of licit applications of proportional reasons that we have from the ordinary.

It raises a difficult question. If, for one example, one accepts the math of Ridgerunner’s original post, but then chooses to vote for a less moral candidate for the purposes of political expediency anyway, complicency becomes less remote. That is because the proportionality is no longer between evil choices and inaction, but between acceptance of evil and political objectives.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

This has been my major concern with that guide as well. At the USCCB site, the Vatican’s doctrinal note on voting from 2002 is linked to as well.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

The Doctrinal Note lists 9 examples of non negotiable principles (see #4) in voting. The CA guide lists 5, with only two complete overlaps. More concerning, having condensed the list it immediately makes recommendations that compromise on it (including abortion).

My outlook is similiar to Ridgerunner’s. Why should we compromise on intrinsic evil when we are already a significant portion of the population? Where I differ from Ridgerunner is his seeming assertion that intrinsic evil is a zero sum game, that we much prioritize and pick and choose. Again, I agree with the doctrinal note from Rome:

If you compromise on the inalienable rights of the human person, you are undermining our Catholic teaching on abortion and right-to-life even as you attempt to do good. In other words, if you want to further your belief that something is non negotiable, do not negotiate on it!

I rarely agree with what you present in your posts, but you’re right on target with this one. Mapleoak and you are correct - voting with “electablilty” as the excuse is EXACTLY why we are stuck with these bad candidates in the first place.

Everyone that has the “lesser of two evils” mentality - read Pope Leo XIII’s Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae. Comprimising on faith in any way, unless absolutely necessary is not a course of action that can be taken. Voting for a candidate because he is more “electable” is no excuse for supporting evil.

 

[SoCalRC]

One would vote to limit evil, which is a moral good. One is not formally cooperating with evil in such a case.

But again, how can we know the choice is licit when, in the aftermath, the harm is directly measurable but the good is not?

If one accepts Ridgerunner’s math, the compromise itself may, in fact, be perpetuating evil by deluting numerical political might.

This is why I find these sorts of compromises dubious either way they are applied.

 

[fix]

But again, how can we know the choice is licit when, in the aftermath, the harm is directly measurable but the good is not?

We know it is licit because the Church provides the moral logic. Would it better to have less murder or more murder?

If one accepts Ridgerunner’s math, the compromise itself may, in fact, be perpetuating evil by deluting numerical political might

This is why I find these sorts of compromises dubious either way they are applied.

The time to change things is prior to the election. Once the election is here and only one of the two is going to win we may decide to limit what is about to happen.

 

[dmelosi]

If one accepts Ridgerunner’s math,

Is the math wrong?

 

[fix]

I rarely agree with what you present in your posts, but you’re right on target with this one. Mapleoak and you are correct - voting with “electablilty” as the excuse is EXACTLY why we are stuck with these bad candidates in the first place.

Everyone that has the “lesser of two evils” mentality - read Pope Leo XIII’s Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae. Comprimising on faith in any way, unless absolutely necessary is not a course of action that can be taken. Voting for a candidate because he is more “electable” is no excuse for supporting evil.

Worded as you have it seems impossible. When is it licit to compromise the faith?

The point is that one is not compromising the faith, or sinning, when they accept it is needed to limit more evil from happening.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Worded as you have it seems impossible. When is it licit to compromise the faith?

The point is that one is not compromising the faith, or sinning, when they accept it is needed to limit more evil from happening.

Exactly. It’s never licit to compromise the faith, and everytime we vote for a candidate who supports evil because he is more “electable” than someone who supports less evil (or no evil at all), we are engaging in such a compromise.

 

[estesbob]

I rarely agree with what you present in your posts, but you’re right on target with this one. Mapleoak and you are correct - voting with “electablilty” as the excuse is EXACTLY why we are stuck with these bad candidates in the first place.

Everyone that has the “lesser of two evils” mentality - read Pope Leo XIII’s Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae. Comprimising on faith in any way, unless absolutely necessary is not a course of action that can be taken. Voting for a candidate because he is more “electable” is no excuse for supporting evil.

It is an admirable attitude. However the reality is that if we adhered to what you propose all pro-life voters in the country would have to sit out the election or vote for fringe candidates who have no chance of being elected. We would end up with all elective offices being held by those who are pro-abortion .

I do, however, see where you are coming for. If Giuliani had been nominated I would written in the name of Rick Santorum. I draw the line at Rape/Incest. You have a more restrictive philosophy. The Church supports both of our views.

 

[Andy_K]

It is an admirable attitude. However the reality is that if we adhered to what you propose all pro-life voters in the country would have to sit out the election or vote for fringe candidates who have no chance of being elected. We would end up with all elective offices being held by those who are pro-abortion .

I do, however, see where you are coming for. If Giuliani had been nominated I would written in the name of Rick Santorum. I draw the line at Rape/Incest. You have a more restrictive philosophy. The Church supports both of our views.

And he we have the crux of the problem.

Had Guiliani been nominated, the pro-life vote would have gone third party (even though Guiliani was, however remotely, better than a pro-abortion Democrat) simply because he was supported such an incredible evil, correct?

The current line-up of candidates presents a similar dilemma. On various non-negotiables (be it abortion or other issues), the choices are all awful. Why doesn’t the “third-party” argument matter anymore?

When politicians support evil, we don’t reward them, no matter how much “good” they promise. If a candidate supports less evil than another, we are obligated to give them our vote.

Why does this logic work for one candidate and not the other, even when they both support grave non-negotiable evils?

It is time to stop the compromising. It is time to start truly voting as Catholics.

 

[frankadams]

This is the mental contortion I am talking about. Justifying voting for an avowed pro-choice candidate. One cannot possibly say there is no difference between someone who avowedly supports the serial killing of millions of unborn killed vs. someone who does not support this mass murder, but in a limited sense is passively supportive of (though an error itself) the killing of the unborn in limited circumstances.

Correct-and that is line with teaching. of course if one feels that voting for one who supports Rape/Incest abortions is co-operating with evil they exercise their option to not vote. What they cannot do, and still be in line with Catholic teaching, is make the quantum leap to voting for the abortion on demand candidate claiming there is no difference between the two on abortion.

Quantum leap is an understatement.

No one (and certainly not me) is "claiming there is “no difference between the two on abortion.” It seems that you are the ones who have made the “quantum leap” by saying that someone who reaches a different conclusion than you do in terms of “proportionate reason” therefore believes that there is “no difference” between the two.

Some however, may, after “careful consideration,” conclude that a DIFFERENT pro-choice candidate is "less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods," than the pro-choice candidate that YOU support. Our bishops spoke thusly…

“36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.”
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - USCCB, 2007

 

[estesbob]

And he we have the crux of the problem.

Had Guiliani been nominated, the pro-life vote would have gone third party (even though Guiliani was, however remotely, better than a pro-abortion Democrat) simply because he was supported such an incredible evil, correct?

The current line-up of candidates presents a similar dilemma. On various non-negotiables (be it abortion or other issues), the choices are all awful. Why doesn’t the “third-party” argument matter anymore?

When politicians support evil, we don’t reward them, no matter how much “good” they promise. If a candidate supports less evil than another, we are obligated to give them our vote.

Why does this logic work for one candidate and not the other, even when they both support grave non-negotiable evils?

It is time to stop the compromising. It is time to start truly voting as Catholics.

By voting Catholic I assume you mean following the teachings of the Church? The Church says it is permissible to vote for the candidate who is more pro-life than the other. When faced with a candidate whose views would allow for 500 dead babies a year and one who would allow 1.2 million dead babies a year I know where my vote goes.

 

[fix]

Exactly. It’s never licit to compromise the faith, and everytime we vote for a candidate who supports evil because he is more “electable” than someone who supports less evil (or no evil at all), we are engaging in such a compromise.

Sorry, but that is not the case. It would be if the voter supported abortion.

 

[estesbob]

believes that there is “no difference” between the two.

Some however, may, after “careful consideration,” conclude that a DIFFERENT pro-choice candidate is "less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods," than the pro-choice candidate that YOU support. Our bishops spoke thusly…

"

Only if the different pro-choice candidate is equally as restrictive as the other candidate. You cannot, for instance, Justify voting for candidate A, who supports abortion on demand, over Candidate b, who supports abortion only in cases of rape and incest.

The situation you describe, BTW, has not occurred in my lifetime and I have been voting since 1970

 

[Andy_K]

By voting Catholic I assume you mean following the teachings of the Church? The Church says it is permissible to vote for the candidate who is more pro-life than the other. When faced with a candidate whose views would allow for 500 dead babies a year and one who would allow 1.2 million dead babies a year I know where my vote goes.

Right, and we know that both candidates this year from both parties support abortion (though one less than the other - and this excludes other non-negotiable evils that both candidates also support).

The point is, there are third-party candidates who don’t support abortion AT ALL. Why do they NOT get the ENTIRE CATHOLIC VOTE in the election? Go back to the Guiliani example. He also qualifies as someone who supports less abortion than the Democrat, but is still so evil that he would not get your vote.

Why doesn’t this apply now? Is not “the lesser of two evils” completely separate from “electability?”

 

[estesbob]

Right, and we know that both candidates this year from both parties support abortion (though one less than the other - and this excludes other non-negotiable evils that both candidates also support).

The point is, there are third-party candidates who don’t support abortion AT ALL. Why do they NOT get the ENTIRE CATHOLIC VOTE in the election? Go back to the Guiliani example. He also qualifies as someone who supports less abortion than the Democrat, but is still so evil that he would not get your vote.

Why doesn’t this apply now? Is not “the lesser of two evils” completely separate from “electability?”

The Church says that it would have been permissible to vote for Giuliani. I ,in good conscience should not do so. Like I said I draw the line at rape and incest. You are more restrictive. God bless you for it. I may be more pragmatic , you more idealistic, the fight against abortion needs both.

 

[Andy_K]

The Church says that it would have been permissible to vote for Giuliani. I ,in good conscience should not do so. Like I said I draw the line at rape and incest. You are more restrictive. God bless you for it. I may be more pragmatic , you more idealistic, the fight against abortion needs both.

Estesbob, I do not doubt your sincere pro-life commitment, but I can’t help but see a double-standard here.

Why are you willing to draw the line at Guiliani but not the current nominee? Both support abortion in some way. One does so more heinously than the other, yes. That is not the issue.

The issue here is that you would vote for a third party despite an obvious disparity in the evil promoted by two candidates simply because you had an alternative that was better.

I contend that this is precisely the attitude that applies for every election. It applied for one, it applies for all.

The third-party candidates don’t count simply if we don’t let them count. If the government allows them to run (and it does), we have no right to deny them consideration.

Do not compromise on any teaching of the faith unless you absolutely must. Such is not the case with the two mainstream candidates - both support evil, and third-party candidates are running that oppose them all.

Why not cast your vote for what is truly the “lesser of the evils,” or, more aptly put, the “good”?

 

[frankadams]

Only if the different pro-choice candidate is equally as restrictive as the other candidate. You cannot, for instance, Justify voting for candidate A, who supports abortion on demand, over Candidate b, who supports abortion only in cases of rape and incest.

The situation you describe, BTW, has not occurred in my lifetime and I have been voting since 1970

Where is “less restrictive” made a moral imperative? You have already used “electability” as a justification for voting for a pro-choice candidate? Where is that a moral imperative? What if a Catholic uses other factors besides electability in deciding which pro-choice candidate to vote for?

Are we reading this differently?

“36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.”
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - USCCB, 2007

After “careful consideration,” a Catholic can conclude that a different pro-choice candidate than the pro-choice candidate that you support is "less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods."

 

[estesbob]

Estesbob, I do not doubt your pro-life commitment, but I can’t help but see a double-standard here.

Why are you willing to draw the line at Guiliani but not the current nominee? Both support abortion in some way. One does so more heinously than the other, yes. That is not the issue.

The issue here is that you would vote for a third party despite an obvious disparity in the evil promoted by two candidates simply because you had an alternative that was better.

I contend that this is precisely the attitude that applies for every election. It applied for one, it applies for all.

The third-party candidates don’t count simply if we don’t let them count. If the government allows them to run (and it does), we have no right to deny them consideration.

Do not compromise on any teaching of the faith unless you absolutely must. Such is not the case with the two mainstream candidates.

I hope you do not question my pro-life commitment as I have counseled in a CPC for many years. Nearly everyone I work with shares my views on this.

As I said I draw the line at rape and incest. To be more restrictive, IMO, cedes the congress and the Presidency to abortion advocates. I want abortion stopped. IMO the best way is to accept a flawed candidate who supports , at the most, 500 abortions a year. Once we get 1,199,500 abortions eliminated we can concentrate on the other 500.

Giuliani, BTW, was in conflict with Catholic teaching on a lot more issues than abortion

 

[estesbob]

Where is “less restrictive” made a moral imperative? You have already used “electability” as a justification for voting for a pro-choice candidate? Where is that a moral imperative? What if a Catholic uses other factors besides electability in deciding which pro-choice candidate to vote for?

Are we reading this differently?

“36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.”
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - USCCB, 2007

After “careful consideration,” a Catholic can conclude that a different pro-choice candidate than the pro-choice candidate that you support is "less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods."

IYou have completely ignored the statements and articles I have posted to wave your personal interpretation of one line as if was the Sword of Excalibur vanquishing all arguments to the contrary,

Lets cut to the chase-do you think it would have been acceptable using proportionality to vote for John Kerry over George Bush?

 

[frankadams]

The Church says that it would have been permissible to vote for Giuliani. I ,in good conscience should not do so. Like I said I draw the line at rape and incest. You are more restrictive. God bless you for it. I may be more pragmatic , you more idealistic, the fight against abortion needs both.

Herein lies the rub. Why do you get to be “pragmatic” and not allow anyone else to reach a different “pragmatic” conclusion?

You wrote “The Church says that it would have been permissible to vote for Giuliani” as though that were a direct quote from Rome. It wasn’t! It was a pragmatic conclusion YOU reached about which pro-choice candidate to vote for.

Catholics in good conscience facing the dilemma of two pro-choice candidates may arrive at a different conclusion than you in the course of being “pragmatic.” Why do you insist they may not morally vote for that different candidate, but state categorically that your own vote for a pro-choice candidate is morally licit?