Voting Dilemma

[teak421]

You so far have simply refused to deal with the issue I’ve raised. Your response here is another example of that. It is moral to make the best of a bad situation even if the best isn’t very good. I have cited the Catechism and a Church document to make the point that sometimes it is acceptable to choose the lesser of two evils and to do things that have double effects - one bad and the other good. This is what the Church teaches and you ought to at least try to understand those points. Restating the issue in a way that changes the point under discussion is an evasion, not a response.

Ender

Please answer the question and do not side step… Why do you get a pass for collectivity voting for a member of congress who supports abortion, but the actual congressman who you collectivity voted into office does not get that same pass? You judged him or her as immoral in a previous message. Both person’s believes their “intentions” are good? What is the diff? You also mentioned “effect” to counter the CCC statement… tell me, what difference is the “effect”… your (with the collective) vote and the vote(with the collective) of the congressman will increase evil. Why is the congressman immoral and the person voting for said congressman not?

• Michael

 

[Petergee]

The Church also teaches that one does not promote or do evil even if good comes from it… I can spend a few minutes finding the exact CCC section if you want, but I’m sure you’ve read it…

I simply can not with my vote promote the evil of abortion… if both candidates promote abortion (no matter what the degree) I simply can not vote for them.

See pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 73.
ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/UNJUSTLW.HTM

*“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” *

A similar principle applies to the citizen in the voting booth.

 

[teak421]

You so far have simply refused to deal with the issue I’ve raised. Your response here is another example of that. It is moral to make the best of a bad situation even if the best isn’t very good. I have cited the Catechism and a Church document to make the point that sometimes it is acceptable to choose the lesser of two evils and to do things that have double effects - one bad and the other good. This is what the Church teaches and you ought to at least try to understand those points. Restating the issue in a way that changes the point under discussion is an evasion, not a response.

Ender

I’m restating YOUR OWN LOGIC. Read your own messages, or will I have to cut and paste AGAIN to prove what you said.

Look Ender, you have your views and I have mine… its cool… I AM trying to understand your point but frankly it doesn’t make sense to me. You are not consistent in your application of what is immoral or not (congressman voting for abortion is immoral and person voting that congressman into office is not immoral). Makes no sense to me… We read the CCC differently, and that’s fine. I’ve not seen a compelling reason for me to vote for someone who supports the destruction of the unborn, regardless if its one million less or not. Evil is evil. You ask me to understand your point, why don’t you attempt to understand mine?

• Michael

 

[teak421]

See pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 73.
ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/UNJUSTLW.HTM

*“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” *

A similar principle applies to the citizen in the voting booth.

Thank you for posting… reading now. The section you are dealing with is elected officials, not someone like myself… I’m just a “joe”.

• Michael

 

[teak421]

See pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 73.
ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/UNJUSTLW.HTM

*“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” *

A similar principle applies to the citizen in the voting booth.

In reading the document what’s your opinion of this statement?

It is not morally possible to collaborate in the creation or application of a seriously unjust law, for example, those which permit or promote abortion or euthanasia (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, nn. 72-74).

Do you think the voting public “collaborates” with congresspersons who create laws that allow abortion when we vote them into office knowing their position on abortion?

• Michael

 

[teak421]

See pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 73.
ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/UNJUSTLW.HTM

*“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” *

A similar principle applies to the citizen in the voting booth.

Oh my goodness that document is good!! Thanks again, will need to really spend some time on it… this is simply not an issue that can be decided here in argumentation…much too important, so I WILL SHUT UP and read not only that document but the Encyclical.

Here’s the link to the actual encyclical: goo.gl/8Hxr

Maybe after we all read the documents we can start again?

• Michael

 

[teak421]

Oh my goodness that document is good!! Thanks again, will need to really spend some time on it… this is simply not an issue that can be decided here in argumentation…much too important, so I WILL SHUT UP and read not only that document but the Encyclical.

Here’s the link to the actual encyclical: goo.gl/8Hxr

Maybe after we all read the documents we can start again?

• Michael

Also found a study guide, not sure how good it is… goo.gl/E7xh

 

[teak421]

You so far have simply refused to deal with the issue I’ve raised. Your response here is another example of that. It is moral to make the best of a bad situation even if the best isn’t very good. I have cited the Catechism and a Church document to make the point that sometimes it is acceptable to choose the lesser of two evils and to do things that have double effects - one bad and the other good. This is what the Church teaches and you ought to at least try to understand those points. Restating the issue in a way that changes the point under discussion is an evasion, not a response.

Ender

I apologize Ender for my tone… I get too carried away. Hopefully, we can review those documents and discuss in the future. I will try not to be so annoying…

• Michael

 

[Ender]

You are not consistent in your application of what is immoral or not (congressman voting for abortion is immoral and person voting that congressman into office is not immoral). Makes no sense to me… We read the CCC differently, and that’s fine. I’ve not seen a compelling reason for me to vote for someone who supports the destruction of the unborn, regardless if its one million less or not. Evil is evil.

The point is that no action of mine will change the fact that a person who supports abortion will be elected. Whether I vote for A, B, or C won’t change that fact. If I had a real choice between pro and anti-abortion candidates that would be different but the mere presence of an anti-abortion third party candidate does not present me with that choice.

Since nothing I do can possibly prevent this outcome I can bear no responsibility for it. I can, however, effect the issue in other ways so if there is any guilt involved on my part it would seem more likely to be from failing to do the good I can do rather than from accepting an evil I cannot prevent. You completely change the nature of the problem if you don’t acknowledge that the election of a pro-abortion politician is inevitable.

That the Church supports the lesser evil approach in this case was pointed out in an earlier post with a citation from a USCCB document addressing this specific situation:

When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter … may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position

Ender

 

[teak421]

The point is that no action of mine will change the fact that a person who supports abortion will be elected. Whether I vote for A, B, or C won’t change that fact. If I had a real choice between pro and anti-abortion candidates that would be different but the mere presence of an anti-abortion third party candidate does not present me with that choice.

Since nothing I do can possibly prevent this outcome I can bear no responsibility for it. I can, however, effect the issue in other ways so if there is any guilt involved on my part it would seem more likely to be from failing to do the good I can do rather than from accepting an evil I cannot prevent. You completely change the nature of the problem if you don’t acknowledge that the election of a pro-abortion politician is inevitable.

That the Church supports the lesser evil approach in this case was pointed out in an earlier post with a citation from a USCCB document addressing this specific situation:

When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter … may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position

Ender

If its inevitable than I will choose to sit out… at least for now.

I certainly want to continue this lively discussion, but I need to read the documents in question. This is more important than winning a sparring match on some forum, this is a heavy issue that I need to spend more time with. As of right now, my conscience will not allow me to vote for ANY pro-abortion candidate, but after I read the Church documents in its totality I may come away with a different opinion.

• Michael

 

[Ender]

I certainly want to continue this lively discussion, but I need to read the documents in question. This is more important than winning a sparring match on some forum, this is a heavy issue that I need to spend more time with. As of right now, my conscience will not allow me to vote for ANY pro-abortion candidate, but after I read the Church documents in its totality I may come away with a different opinion.

I have not made my arguments so as to justify supporting a pro-abortion politician. I have never supported one and can conceive of only one situation where I would: in just such a case as we are discussing, where both viable candidates are pro-abortion. For example, had Giuliani - a pro-abortion Republican - won the nomination instead of McCain I would still have voted for him over Obama - a pro-abortion Democrat - because he would have been less bad and done less harm (on this issue). In a primary election, however, I would never have chosen Giuliani over any of his opponents because (again, on this issue) he was the worst of the options.

Ender

 

[teak421]

I have not made my arguments so as to justify supporting a pro-abortion politician. I have never supported one and can conceive of only one situation where I would: in just such a case as we are discussing, where both viable candidates are pro-abortion. For example, had Giuliani - a pro-abortion Republican - won the nomination instead of McCain I would still have voted for him over Obama - a pro-abortion Democrat - because he would have been less bad and done less harm (on this issue). In a primary election, however, I would never have chosen Giuliani over any of his opponents because (again, on this issue) he was the worst of the options.

Ender

You and I have different views of what supporting means… That is what I need to clearly understand from Church teaching.

• Michael

 

[Adeodatus]

Well, after reading all of these, I’m inclined to vote for the independent, even though he has next to no chance.

Morally defensible position?

If he’s the only actually pro-life candidate, that’s what you have to do.

 

[Ender]

If he’s the only actually pro-life candidate, that’s what you have to do.

Have you read any of the preceding posts? I just quoted the USCCB stating explicitly that this is not so.

When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter … may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position (Faithful Citizenship #36)

You may state that you would never vote for a pro-abortion candidate under any circumstances but it is totally incorrect to claim that this is what a Catholic is morally obligated to do.

Ender

 

[Adeodatus]

Have you read any of the preceding posts? I just quoted the USCCB stating explicitly that this is not so.

When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter … may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position (Faithful Citizenship #36)

You may state that you would never vote for a pro-abortion candidate under any circumstances but it is totally incorrect to claim that this is what a Catholic is morally obligated to do.

Ender

Did you read what you quoted? Not that USCCB documents are actually binding (a separate discussion), but the fact is that in this case that we’re talking about, there are 3 candidates. 2 are pro-choice, 1 is pro-life. You have to vote for the pro-life one, on pain of mortal sin.

 

[Ender]

Did you read what you quoted? Not that USCCB documents are actually binding (a separate discussion), but the fact is that in this case that we’re talking about, there are 3 candidates. 2 are pro-choice, 1 is pro-life. You have to vote for the pro-life one, on pain of mortal sin.

Let me quote some more of that document.

A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position.

I’m voting for that candidate despite his position therefore this prohibition does not apply and the obvious implication is that there may in fact be valid reasons for voting for such a flawed candidate.
*
35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.*

The other morally grave reason in this case is to lessen the morally grave effect should the other - worse - candidate be elected. This is an explicit exception to the rule that one cannot vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil.

Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

This says support for an intrinsic evil *may *disqualify a candidate; it does not say that it *must *disqualify him.

Ender

 

[aurora77]

Never again will I use the lesser of two evils strategy in voting. The lesser is still evil. I understand the Church’s teaching, but it doesn’t matter when the outcome is the same–the encouragement of evil, in this case abortion.

I’ve come to believe that we either stand up for our principles, or we set them aside; no more wishy-washy voting. I would vote for option C, in the OP’s case.

 

[Ender]

I understand the Church’s teaching, but it doesn’t matter when the outcome is the same–the encouragement of evil, in this case abortion.

You understand the Church’s teaching but you reject it? Besides, the outcome is not the same: you are choosing more evil over less by rejecting an opportunity of to mitigate the problem. It is simply false to believe that when evil is only mitigated it is nonetheless encouraged.

I’ve come to believe that we either stand up for our principles, or we set them aside; no more wishy-washy voting. I would vote for option C, in the OP’s case.

When your principles make things worse it is hard to understand your enthusiasm for them. Nor is it a question - as the Church makes clear - of setting aside ones principles; voting for C - which does no good at all - can in no way be regarded as more principled an action than than voting to bring about all the good the situation allows.

Ender

 

[aurora77]

You understand the Church’s teaching but you reject it? Besides, the outcome is not the same: you are choosing more evil over less by rejecting an opportunity of to mitigate the problem. It is simply false to believe that when evil is only mitigated it is nonetheless encouraged.
When your principles make things worse it is hard to understand your enthusiasm for them. Nor is it a question - as the Church makes clear - of setting aside ones principles; voting for C - which does no good at all - can in no way be regarded as more principled an action than than voting to bring about all the good the situation allows.

Ender

Candidate A is clearly not going to do anything about abortion–he and B are the same. There is no practical or moral difference between being wishy washy on abortion and openly supporting it. You are not, then, voting for the lesser of two evils, but choosing between two people who have the same beliefs. I am not rejecting Church teaching.

In this case, my principles very clearly do not make things worse. A and B are the same–whomever wins, the outcome will be the same. The only clear choice is C; he is the only one who might actually take action.

 

[Ender]

You are not, then, voting for the lesser of two evils, but choosing between two people who have the same beliefs.

In your previous note you said:* “Never again will I use the lesser of two evils strategy in voting.”* Then, we were talking about there being a lesser of two evils difference between A and B. Clearly if there is no difference whatever between the two then I would agree with your choice, but you have resolved the dilemma by changing the conditions - which is less a resolution than an evasion.

Ender