C
caroljm36
Guest
This is weird–I thought Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts and that he was definitely pro-life??
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Mattapoisett64
Guest
Trouble is, he’s not running again. On the Republican side is his female lieutenant governor who has taken a “choice” position.This is weird–I thought Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts and that he was definitely pro-life??
S
SeekerJen
Guest
Also agreed. I’m done voting for at least the near future. I don’t see any point, all the candidates are the same once they get into office.I wouldn’t necessarily agree with you. I agree that few people would agree with all policies of a candidate and that is not a problem if the issues do not involve grave matter. Voting for the lesser of two evils is not the way. If all candidates are pro-abortion (MURDER) then Catholics should not vote for any of them.
L
Lrning
Guest
I’m faced with this very same situation. The party candidates for Governor in IL are all pro-death. Someone on this board let me know about a pro-life write-in candidate. You might try searching to see if there is a pro-life independent candidate running in your state. Even though I know this candidate probably cannot win, when I cast my vote I will be sending a message to the Reps and Dems. It’s a more detailed message than simply writing “Donald Duck” since the party candidates will know that this independent is pro-life. They will know the reason they lost my vote. It might not count for much, but lets me sleep better than casting a vote for a pro-death “lesser of two evils” choice.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
In a case where ALL the candidates are Pro-abortion one should vote for the one that is LESS pro-abortion.
In other words–if one candidate was against partial birth abortions and the others were for them then you should vote for the one who was against partial birth abortions because he would be for a SLIGHTLY LOWER number of MURDERS!!!
The Catholic Church has always taught that one has the responsibility to vote for the Lessor of evils when the only choices are of evils!
The reason ALL the other things a candidate may be for or against do not rise to the level that abortion does is because abortion is INTRINSICALLY evil!
Being in favor of capital punishment or supporting the Iraq war–while they MIGHT be wrong are not CERTAINLY and INTRINSICALLY and self evidently wrong!
The only way you could support a candidate that was for ALL forms of abortions would be if the only other choice was for genocide of a greater number of people than the abortionist.
In that case it would be permissable to vote for the abortionist if he was in favor of murdering less people!
In other words a time where it would be OK to vote for someone who supported abortion would be if the ONLY other candidate they were running against was Hitler!
But in any case where it would be permissable to vote for a WRITE-IN candidate–then voting for ANYONE who supported abortion would always be WRONG!!!
In other words–if one candidate was against partial birth abortions and the others were for them then you should vote for the one who was against partial birth abortions because he would be for a SLIGHTLY LOWER number of MURDERS!!!
The Catholic Church has always taught that one has the responsibility to vote for the Lessor of evils when the only choices are of evils!
The reason ALL the other things a candidate may be for or against do not rise to the level that abortion does is because abortion is INTRINSICALLY evil!
Being in favor of capital punishment or supporting the Iraq war–while they MIGHT be wrong are not CERTAINLY and INTRINSICALLY and self evidently wrong!
The only way you could support a candidate that was for ALL forms of abortions would be if the only other choice was for genocide of a greater number of people than the abortionist.
In that case it would be permissable to vote for the abortionist if he was in favor of murdering less people!
In other words a time where it would be OK to vote for someone who supported abortion would be if the ONLY other candidate they were running against was Hitler!
But in any case where it would be permissable to vote for a WRITE-IN candidate–then voting for ANYONE who supported abortion would always be WRONG!!!
T
thistle
Guest
Can you refer me to the teaching of the Church that says we should choose the lesser of two evils. I don’t believe such a thing exists.In a case where ALL the candidates are Pro-abortion one should vote for the one that is LESS pro-abortion.
In other words–if one candidate was against partial birth abortions and the others were for them then you should vote for the one who was against partial birth abortions because he would be for a SLIGHTLY LOWER number of MURDERS!!!
The Catholic Church has always taught that one has the responsibility to vote for the Lessor of evils when the only choices are of evils!
The reason ALL the other things a candidate may be for or against do not rise to the level that abortion does is because abortion is INTRINSICALLY evil!
Being in favor of capital punishment or supporting the Iraq war–while they MIGHT be wrong are not CERTAINLY and INTRINSICALLY and self evidently wrong!
The only way you could support a candidate that was for ALL forms of abortions would be if the only other choice was for genocide of a greater number of people than the abortionist.
In that case it would be permissable to vote for the abortionist if he was in favor of murdering less people!
In other words a time where it would be OK to vote for someone who supported abortion would be if the ONLY other candidate they were running against was Hitler!
But in any case where it would be permissable to vote for a WRITE-IN candidate–then voting for ANYONE who supported abortion would always be WRONG!!!
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Look at it this way: We as Catholics have a MORAL obigation TO VOTE!
That does not go away if there are only EVIL alternatives.
Under such circumstances a Catholic will best exercise that MORAL obligation by picking the lessor of the evils.
If you can write in any one you SHOULDN’T pick the lessor of the evils.
The fact that you DO vote for the lessor of the evils does not mean that you ENDORSE them.
If it’s John Calvin versus Hitler and those are the ONLY two candidates then the Catholic is MORALLY obligated to vote for John Calvin!
What’s so hard to understand about the concept?
That does not go away if there are only EVIL alternatives.
Under such circumstances a Catholic will best exercise that MORAL obligation by picking the lessor of the evils.
If you can write in any one you SHOULDN’T pick the lessor of the evils.
The fact that you DO vote for the lessor of the evils does not mean that you ENDORSE them.
If it’s John Calvin versus Hitler and those are the ONLY two candidates then the Catholic is MORALLY obligated to vote for John Calvin!
What’s so hard to understand about the concept?
T
thistle
Guest
Sorry but I totally disagree with you and using your example you would not vote for John Calvin. A Catholic does not vote for the lesser of two evils and the Church does not teach that. You said in your earlier post it does teach that but you have still not cited the source for that teaching. You most certainly do not have a moral obligation to vote if all you can vote for is evil. That is just ridiculous. You have a moral obligation to vote provided at least one of the candidates is not supporting or advocating anything deemed grave by the Church.Look at it this way: We as Catholics have a MORAL obigation TO VOTE!
That does not go away if there are only EVIL alternatives.
Under such circumstances a Catholic will best exercise that MORAL obligation by picking the lessor of the evils.
If you can write in any one you SHOULDN’T pick the lessor of the evils.
The fact that you DO vote for the lessor of the evils does not mean that you ENDORSE them.
If it’s John Calvin versus Hitler and those are the ONLY two candidates then the Catholic is MORALLY obligated to vote for John Calvin!
What’s so hard to understand about the concept?
D
dranzal
Guest
While on a local level, voting for the “lesser of two evils” does not sound like an option, we need to consider that balance of power in the legislative branch is determined by party majority. If both local candidates are smelly, but one national party is better on issues than the other, perhaps we should vote for the smelly candidate in the preferred party to increase the chance of running things on a national level.
If someone who planned to vote R on the ballot has only a pro-choice R to choose from and therefore doesn’t vote, it effectively raises the chance of the D candidate to win and therefore increases the D numbers on a national level–giving them the power.
I, too, live in Florida and can’t figure out how a candidate who felt the way he did about the Schiavo case can call himself pro-life. It is too bad we can’t vote for Jeb again.
If someone who planned to vote R on the ballot has only a pro-choice R to choose from and therefore doesn’t vote, it effectively raises the chance of the D candidate to win and therefore increases the D numbers on a national level–giving them the power.
I, too, live in Florida and can’t figure out how a candidate who felt the way he did about the Schiavo case can call himself pro-life. It is too bad we can’t vote for Jeb again.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Answer me this Thistle: When Jesus had the MORAL OBLIGATION to pay taxes to Caesar and did so KNOWING that Rome was engaging in many activities that would be deemed by the current Catholic Church to be GRAVELY WRONG–was He doing wrong?
THE REASON why one can vote for the lessor of evils is because that is OK provided that there is SOME good that is mixed in with the evil!
Rome CRUCIFIED innocents which YES is as INTRINSICALY wrong as killing the unborn.
Under Rome’s overall rule King Herod slaughtered the INNOCENTS when Jesus was an infant!
Rome required people to submit to the Emperor.
Jesus knew ALL of this but still paid tax to Rome KNOWING Rome would use some of that money for EVIL things.
He was not wrong for doing so.
Similiarily a person could vote for the lessor of three evils–not because SUPPORTING evil is OK but because it is OK to vote for evil if there is some good mixed in.
Not everything that Rome did was BAD and we are obliged to SUPPORT our governments because they are an extension of God’s JUSTICE.
Now if Satan was running against Beelzebub and they were the only two choices then YES you shouldn’t vote for either because there would be NO good mixed in!
I’m sure Jesus would not pay tax to Satan or Beelzebub BUT He did paytaxes to Rome!
If Jesus can SUPPORT that which is not ENTIRELY evil don’t tell me that His followers can’t VOTE for a candidate who is the LESSOR of evils and is not ENTIRELY evil!
Now don’t get me wrong–I’m against voting for ANY candidate that is Pro-abortion. I only said that IF the ONLY candidates were all for abortion but 1 of them was against partial abortion that it would be ethical to vote for the LESSOR of the evils because there would be a MINUTE amount of goodness in that candidate–
Just like there was a MINUTE amount of goodness in Rome who Jesus paid tax to!
But in any case if there were three candidates like that and a person could ALSO wite in a candidate and vote for them then it would be WRONG to vote for the Lessor of evils.
It is only OK if write-in voting is not allowed–and if the ONLY choices are ALL evil and if the LESSOR of the evils does contain some amount of good.
THE REASON why one can vote for the lessor of evils is because that is OK provided that there is SOME good that is mixed in with the evil!
Rome CRUCIFIED innocents which YES is as INTRINSICALY wrong as killing the unborn.
Under Rome’s overall rule King Herod slaughtered the INNOCENTS when Jesus was an infant!
Rome required people to submit to the Emperor.
Jesus knew ALL of this but still paid tax to Rome KNOWING Rome would use some of that money for EVIL things.
He was not wrong for doing so.
Similiarily a person could vote for the lessor of three evils–not because SUPPORTING evil is OK but because it is OK to vote for evil if there is some good mixed in.
Not everything that Rome did was BAD and we are obliged to SUPPORT our governments because they are an extension of God’s JUSTICE.
Now if Satan was running against Beelzebub and they were the only two choices then YES you shouldn’t vote for either because there would be NO good mixed in!
I’m sure Jesus would not pay tax to Satan or Beelzebub BUT He did paytaxes to Rome!
If Jesus can SUPPORT that which is not ENTIRELY evil don’t tell me that His followers can’t VOTE for a candidate who is the LESSOR of evils and is not ENTIRELY evil!
Now don’t get me wrong–I’m against voting for ANY candidate that is Pro-abortion. I only said that IF the ONLY candidates were all for abortion but 1 of them was against partial abortion that it would be ethical to vote for the LESSOR of the evils because there would be a MINUTE amount of goodness in that candidate–
Just like there was a MINUTE amount of goodness in Rome who Jesus paid tax to!
But in any case if there were three candidates like that and a person could ALSO wite in a candidate and vote for them then it would be WRONG to vote for the Lessor of evils.
It is only OK if write-in voting is not allowed–and if the ONLY choices are ALL evil and if the LESSOR of the evils does contain some amount of good.
C
CatQuilt
Guest
Looks like it’s Deval Patrick for the Democrat candidate for governor of Massachusetts! He’s extremely liberal which works in Kerry-Healy’s favor.
I hope Ken Chase got the nomination for the Republican candidate for senator, running against Ted Kennedy!!! Chase is pro-life.
I hope Ken Chase got the nomination for the Republican candidate for senator, running against Ted Kennedy!!! Chase is pro-life.
T
thistle
Guest
This was your strong statement in an earlier post:Answer me this Thistle: When Jesus had the MORAL OBLIGATION to pay taxes to Caesar and did so KNOWING that Rome was engaging in many activities that would be deemed by the current Catholic Church to be GRAVELY WRONG–was He doing wrong?
THE REASON why one can vote for the lessor of evils is because that is OK provided that there is SOME good that is mixed in with the evil!
Rome CRUCIFIED innocents which YES is as INTRINSICALY wrong as killing the unborn.
Under Rome’s overall rule King Herod slaughtered the INNOCENTS when Jesus was an infant!
Rome required people to submit to the Emperor.
Jesus knew ALL of this but still paid tax to Rome KNOWING Rome would use some of that money for EVIL things.
He was not wrong for doing so.
Similiarily a person could vote for the lessor of three evils–not because SUPPORTING evil is OK but because it is OK to vote for evil if there is some good mixed in.
Not everything that Rome did was BAD and we are obliged to SUPPORT our governments because they are an extension of God’s JUSTICE.
Now if Satan was running against Beelzebub and they were the only two choices then YES you shouldn’t vote for either because there would be NO good mixed in!
I’m sure Jesus would not pay tax to Satan or Beelzebub BUT He did paytaxes to Rome!
If Jesus can SUPPORT that which is not ENTIRELY evil don’t tell me that His followers can’t VOTE for a candidate who is the LESSOR of evils and is not ENTIRELY evil!
Now don’t get me wrong–I’m against voting for ANY candidate that is Pro-abortion. I only said that IF the ONLY candidates were all for abortion but 1 of them was against partial abortion that it would be ethical to vote for the LESSOR of the evils because there would be a MINUTE amount of goodness in that candidate–
Just like there was a MINUTE amount of goodness in Rome who Jesus paid tax to!
But in any case if there were three candidates like that and a person could ALSO wite in a candidate and vote for them then it would be WRONG to vote for the Lessor of evils.
It is only OK if write-in voting is not allowed–and if the ONLY choices are ALL evil and if the LESSOR of the evils does contain some amount of good.
QUOTE
**The Catholic Church has always taught that one has the responsibility to vote for the Lessor of evils when the only choices are of evils!**UNQUOTE
I do not believe this and you have yet failed to show me any document where the Church teaches this. Is there a Church document supporting your strong statement or not. If not then you are doing the Church a grave injustice.
T
Thal59
Guest
The answer lies in the failures of us Catholics.
Considering the number of Catholics in this country, there should be plenty of Catholics running for public office who uphold the teachings of Jesus and the church. There certainly are enough Catholic voters to put those candidates in office.
But Catholics do go door to door to evangelize, nor are we active politically to the point of getting involved. We keep looking for someone else to represent us.
Maybe it’s about time we started taking our country back from the liberals by occupying the offices.
Thal59
Considering the number of Catholics in this country, there should be plenty of Catholics running for public office who uphold the teachings of Jesus and the church. There certainly are enough Catholic voters to put those candidates in office.
But Catholics do go door to door to evangelize, nor are we active politically to the point of getting involved. We keep looking for someone else to represent us.
Maybe it’s about time we started taking our country back from the liberals by occupying the offices.
Thal59
- Status
- Not open for further replies.