Voting

[JReducation]

I have to break this down.

Suppose candidate A favors a life sentence for abortion and the death penalty for rapists,

candidate B favors the $100 fine for abortion and is against the death penalty in general.

Candidate B represents the greater good. He deserves the Catholic vote.

If I believe that society can be protected from rapists without resorting to executing them, **am I allowed to vote my conscience **and choose candidate B, even though he is considerably softer on abortion? If you say yes, then I promise - no more hypotheticals.

Catholics may vote their conscience as long as their conscience complies with Catholic moral teaching. We do not have the luxury of saying that we don’t have access to the fullness of truth, nor do we have the authority to say that the Church’s moral teachings are incorrect while our moral judgments are correct. This does not require an infallible statement from the pope. This requires submission to legitimate moral authority.

Sometimes we don’t understand it. Sometimes we may disagree.

The key, as our Holy Father Francis taught us is to listen to the teachings of the Church beginning with the premise that we are always wrong and the Church is always right. Therefore, even if we disagree, we know that we are in disagreement, because we are wrong, not the Church. This places the burden of us to correct our thinking.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Thank you, Br. JR. That was very well said.

 

[JaneGrey]

Evil, like everything else, has a hierarchy. The killing of an innocent is always more grave than the killing of a criminal, even though we should avoid both. Just because we can does not mean that we should.

If we take the killing of innocents, the murder of the unborn child is always more grave than killing a person who has been born.

Between two people who are born, the killing of a defenseless person is graver than one who can defend himself.

The bottom line, the Catholic Church has ruled that the killing of the unborn child is never morally justifiable, under any circumstance. It is always the gravest evil against a human being and a sin punishable by automatic excommunication. Pope John Paul II not only decreed this, but he invoked his apostolic authority as the successor of Peter to bind all Catholics.

**When it comes to voting, if you have one who is pro-war and one who is pro-abortion, voting for the pro-war candidate is the greater good, because people can defend themselves in a war. ** An unborn child cannot defend himself.

The other situation that may arise is that you have two pro-abortion candidates. One is pro-abortion with restraints and limitations. The other has fewer restraints or none at all. Voting for the one who has more restraints is the greater good, because more children will be protected than if the other candidate wins.

To answer the question about two pro-murder candidates, the question is whose position will do less harm. Less harm is the higher good. It’s not the desired good, but it’s closer than the other position. This also happened in the last election. Many people put the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan against abortion, believing that they were saving more lives. The truth is that they were not choosing the higher good, because the unborn cannot get out of harm’s way. A person in a war stands a better chance of finding shelter for him and his loved ones than a person in the womb.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

With respect, that makes little sense. You really think that innocent children and civilians can defend themselves in the types of wars we have seen recently? Seriously? I would argue that merely having been born does not make one more capable than an unborn child to adequately defend oneself from all types of harm.

 

[JReducation]

With respect, that makes little sense. You really think that innocent children and civilians can defend themselves in the types of wars we have seen recently? Seriously? I would argue that merely having been born does not make one more capable than an unborn child to adequately defend oneself from all types of harm.

I understand what you’re saying and so does the Church. Innocent people should never be hurt in any way. The difference between the two is that the child in the womb can neither defend himself nor has anyone to defend him.

The person (child or adult) in a war has a better chance of surviving than a child in a womb. The chances of the child in the womb are zero. There is no possible way for him or her to survive an abortion. The person outside the womb has a chance greater than zero. Even if it’s one in a million, one is greater than zero.

Giving someone that one in a million chance is a greater good than the zero in a million. The perfect good would be not to kill anyone. Sometimes we take the great good in the hope of moving one step closer to the perfect good.

I hope that makes more sense.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF