Why is voting for Biden a mortal sin?

[c4csp]

Is it a mortal sin? Many will say yes and many here on this site will say no. I will not offer my opinion in this thread as if I have given many times. What I will say is that I believe things are extremely clear and we better be right because we must answer to God. I’m very content in how I will vote.

 

[NSmith]

I do think there is a lot of common ground. Everyone, no matter their creed, desires the good of their own nation. No one desires to support things they know to be evil.
I didn’t consider the concept of natural law in this case. Most people I know don’t admit that such a law exists, except for those friends and family that are protestant, but even then it usually extends mostly to the explicit statements of Scripture, and philosophy takes a more consequentialist or Kantian approach.

we better be right because we must answer to God.

Amen.

@StephenW BTW, what were some of the issues under Trump’s column? COVID handling? Immigration policy?

 

[StephenW]

If you will permit me to propose something here, I think it is important to maintain clarity on certain things. Voting in such a way as to cooperate with evil is objectively immoral. The question of sin, mortal or otherwise, is a different matter. Now, I think you could effectively argue that voting for Biden is direct cooperation with evil, and that voting for his opponent is the lesser of two evils. In that case, I think that one can argue that a vote for Biden is an objective evil because it is a direct cooperation with evil.

Mortal sin, however, is not merely the performance of an objectively grave, evil act, that is, an intrinsically evil act involving grave matter. The Catechism defines mortal sin this way: "For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be present: grave matter, full knowledge of the evil of the act, and full consent of the will (p. 889). This means that the matter itself could be grave (objectively evil), but the person not realize it. The act might be grave and the person realizes it, but he did not give full consent of his will. In these cases, there is no moral sin involved even though there is, objectively speaking, a gravely immoral act performed.

The problem is that there are a number of impediments to human freedom. Someone who is coerced into robbing a large sum of money from a bank knows that it is gravely wrong, but did not give full consent because he was being forced, say, by the criminals holding his wife and family hostage. So, the important thing, if I may, is to keep the objective nature of acts separate from a person’s culpability.

We don’t have to make judgements that this or that particular person is mortally sinning or not. We do have to make judgements about objectively grave evil acts. That is part of exercising our conscience, which we are obligated to do.

 

[c4csp]

Vote with prudence is all I can say. We have 2,000 years of Catholic history. Let us not be blindsided by the mole hill when the mountain is staring us in face.

 

[NSmith]

Let’s see what Archbishop McElroy said about racism in America:

So the idea is that race, immigration, poverty, and climate issues are of equal weight to abortion and thus Biden’s platform, which seems to you more fitting in these matters, is acceptable, despite his overt support for grave sin?
How is this not exactly the relativism that Pope Francis is warning against in the paragraph you quoted, only in reverse of his chosen example? The issues you defend seem paramount to you, and the plight of the unborn is thus set aside. Isn’t Pope Francis saying that you have to uphold all of those ideals equally?
How can we live in a world where some revel in the joys of life, while others are snuffed out before taking their first breath of air?

 

[NSmith]

I hate to break it to you, but the USCCB was essentially clear that voters can lose their salvation as a result of their vote.

1. It is important to be clear that the political choices faced by citizens not only have an impact on general peace and prosperity but also may affect the individual’s salvation. Similarly, the kinds of laws and policies supported by public officials affect their spiritual well-being. Pope Benedict XVI, in his recent reflection on the Eucharist as “the sacrament of charity,” challenged all of us to adopt what he calls “a Eucharistic form of life.” This means that the redeeming love we encounter in the Eucharist should shape our thoughts, our words, and our decisions, including those that pertain to the social order. The Holy Father called for “Eucharistic consistency” on the part of every member of the Church:

I am trying at the same time to determine where my conscience lies, since I intend to vote for Trump essentially because of his willingness to oppose abortion, and I believe that we can overturn Row v. Wade if Trump has another 4 years, but also to engage my fellow Catholics in order to understand where I might be mistaken.
I don’t think any current candidate, especially Biden/Harris, could make significant strides in the struggle against poverty, or in race relations, or in climate change. Even if those issues are proportional to the evil of abortion in theory, the competence of the candidate to accomplish the aims of Catholic social doctrine is important, and unfortunately I don’t see the Biden ticket as accomplishing any significant improvements in those areas, particularly after the performance under Obama, which did nothing for the same issues. However, I do see Biden’s potential presidency cementing another decade or two of murder.

 

[NSmith]

I do think it is important not to disregard the plight of the poor by saying they will always be with us, no matter if it is true. But I understand that wasn’t your point at all. I just wanted to mention that we should certainly care for them as well.

 

[StephenW]

[This post is in two parts because of its length]

Part I

It may be correct, in some respect, to say that, “No one desires to support things they know to be evil.”

People, however, do desire and knowingly, and freely choose evil. That is the definition of sin. I would agree with you, however, if you mean to say that everyone desires what they perceive to be good.

The problem is that what one perceives to be good, desirable, to my advantage, serves what I want (however you want to put it) is not always objectively good. We fallen human beings often get confused about what is good. And out of weakness of will, and the disorder we experience in our passions, we often do evil. For example, sex is good; created by God for the union of man and woman in marriage and for the generation of new human life. Because of our disordered passions, however, we often set the pleasure of sex in an order above commitment and procreation. The good that we perceive is the pleasure. The pleasure involved in sex is, in fact, good, but we engage in evil when attaining this pleasure outside of marriage and openness to life (i.e. disordered use of sex).

Regarding the natural law, it is not a Christian thing, per se, but it does have to do with how things are made. I can see that if you don’t believe there is a creator, then there would be no natural law, because without a creator nothing has any intrinsic meaning. As the materialists often say, “You are nothing more than electrical-chemical reactions”. Observation and reason, however, shows this statement to be absurd.

One can see that there is a difference between a tree and human being. Taking a hatchet to a tree is vastly different than taking a hatchet to human being. This is not simply a social norm, or chemical reaction in your brain, but it is due to the objective nature of a human person, which can be observed.

My cat is not going to do transcend things, like recognize the good, the true and the beautiful. I will never come home and find him painting a replica of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in my den. He will not be composing a symphony or writing poetry or even enjoying any of these things, or contemplating philosophy and theology or great works of literature.

[Continue in Part II below]

 

[StephenW]

[Continued from Part I Above]

Part II

We can observe what a human being is and his transcendent nature, which cannot be explained by chemicals. As such, we know what violates the nature of a human person. The common man can and should have a grasp of the natural law. Yes, the natural law does come from God because he is the creator of all things. The pocket watch has a meaning and a purpose, but that was given to it by its creator. We are the same way. God created us with a meaning and a purpose. We can observe the meaning and purpose of the watch; it does not require a revelation that is beyond our ability to observe and reason in order for us to know the watch and its purpose. Even more so, we can do this with human person.

Tying this back to the election, then, it is a matter of using reason to understand the evils involved and whether or not voting for one or the other is the morally right thing or not.

I don’t have a list typed up regarding Biden and Trump. What I have considered is the evils that one or the other advocate-- what they stand for. Trump, from what I can determine, has not problem with homosexual marriage and homosexual behavior. He is not over aggressive supporting it, but he does support it. In 2016, he said that people should be able to use whatever public bathroom they want, which I take as approval and support of transgenderism. Things like Covid-19 handling is a question of competency in my thinking and not a matter of advocating intrinsic evils. Covid-19 will eventually pass (God willing). Immigration laws are, I agree, messed up. This is more about congress than the president. If you are thinking about things like the wall, this is not an objective evil. It may or may not be prudent and it may or may not be causing harm; it is very difficult to tell. Thus, anyone can legitimately debate this issue. One cannot, however, legitimately debate intrinsic evils, like those advocated in the Democratic platform.

I must go now. Need to sleep. Glory to Jesus Christ!

 

[StephenW]

Very well stated.

 

[HarryStotle]

lwest:

No, you don’t have to give a detailed explanation to me but someday you will have to give one to Jesus.

Not if I vote my well-formed conscience. You don’t get it. If my conscience tells me to vote against Trump and for Biden, I would have to answer why I didn’t follow my conscience and substituted the advice of others.

Even if the “advice of others” is more reasonable, more morally sound and rebuts every thought thread of your “well-formed” conscience?

If there is no room for questioning your well-formed conscience based upon the advice of better formed consciences, that might be an indicator of something other than a well-formed conscience. A conscience that presents itself as infallible in the face of all evidence and logic may not be well-formed but more like a hardened one.

What is the difference, would you suppose, between a heart of stone and a heart of flesh that the OT prophets railed against? Wouldn’t someone who is “hardened” in their own sense of being right pose some obstacle for God attempting to enlighten that heart? Wouldn’t you suppose the Pharisees believed themselves to be in possession of absolutely well-formed consciences?

 

[VonDerTann]

If there is no room for questioning your well-formed conscience based upon the advice of better formed consciences, that might be an indicator of something other than a well-formed conscience. A conscience that presents itself as infallible in the face of all evidence and logic may not be well-formed but more like a hardened one.

–This is actually a very good point, and one I’ve espoused in other contexts.

Maybe it’s a bit off topic, but we all need people to go to for sound advice. Those people must be people who have both the wisdom to give good advice and the courage to tell us directly when we are erring. Too many people have no one to go to who fits both bills - and they replace getting good advice with simply doing what they want to do. Going a step further, some might argue that the church itself has become an unreliable giver of sound moral advice - in light of, say, the McCarrick scandal; pachamama, whatever.

The abilities to question whether we’re proceeding correctly, and the ability to self-correct (I did X and it went wrong; I should do Y next time) are largely untaught and missing from many lives.

 

[pnewton]

It is not. Anyone who says it is should never be listened to for anything, ever again. They do not speak for the Church, God or anyone but the RNC. It is possible, in the narrow situation that you vote for him to keep abortion legal that it is a sin. That is all.

 

[HarryStotle]

My cat is not going to do transcend things, like recognize the good, the true and the beautiful. I will never come home and find him painting a replica of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in my den. He will not be composing a symphony or writing poetry or even enjoying any of these things, or contemplating philosophy and theology or great works of literature.

My cat once hacked up a hair ball that looked respectably like this piece from a Manchester art gallery. Would that be an adequate response to your position that you would never come home to find your cat creatively engaged in producing a work of (modern) art? Okay, I’ll concede that transcendent beauty is something else entirely. Apparently, modern artists have given up trying to attain that standard. (Kind of like Democrats have given up entirely on trying to nominate a viable political candidate for president. )

 

[ConcernedConvert]

At this point we are all well aware that his stance on abortion alone, is 100% contrary to church teachings. As is his support for pro LGBT legislation.
By knowingly voting for these positions you are personally perpetuating or endorsing the continuation of sin.

 

[christofirst]

All these threats and talk of mortal sin. And yet here comes Cardinal Joseph Tobin announcing that a Catholic could in good conscience vote for Joe Biden.

Cardinal Tobin: A 'person in good conscience' could vote for Biden | National Catholic Reporter

From the article: "I think that a person in good conscience could vote for Mr. Biden, " said Tobin. “I, frankly, in my own way of thinking, have a more difficult time with the other option.”

This takes some of the steam out of the old “Trump is the lesser of two evils” argument. The Cardinal is apparently troubled by the incumbent, as are many of us.

He also rejected the idea that we must be single-issue voters.

 

[PaulinVA]

Even if the “advice of others” is more reasonable, more morally sound and rebuts every thought thread of your “well-formed” conscience?

I am constantly evaluating my position. Posters here just can’t understand why I don’t come to the same conclusion they do. Could it be that they need to reevaluate their position and theirr support for Trump?

If there is no room for questioning your well-formed conscience based upon the advice of better formed consciences, that might be an indicator of something other than a well-formed conscience. A conscience that presents itself as infallible in the face of all evidence and logic may not be well-formed but more like a hardened one.

Once again, you’re assuming that you’re right and I’m wrong. We don’t know that is true, do we? That’s why I use mine and you use yours.

Wouldn’t you suppose the Pharisees believed themselves to be in possession of absolutely well-formed consciences?

Well, I guess that’s better than the posters comparing me to someone who’d support HItler, but just as offending.

 

[Soubirous1]

not completely opposed to is another way of saying for abortion. you are for or against, there is no gray.

 

[Shakuhachi]

if it were Biden against Romney or Cruz and any of the other dozens of Republicans i would agree. But Trump is a game changer and brings so many so many other evils and dangers that we cannot dumb this down to just a few easy issues.

 

[goout]

Adamek:

So you could also have voted for Stalin and Hitler

In the first place, this is a false equivalence. In the second place, Stalin was not subject to voting by the masses in any meaningful way, and Hitler was not either after he rose to power, which was before the real crimes against humanity got started.

You might want to consider that;
in the US and much of western culture, the crimes against humanity are well underway to the most horrific degree imaginable,
and at the same time,
you still have the option to vote for or against certain policies and platforms that promote the barbarism plaguing us.

I just thought this stood out in juxtaposition to the picture of helplessness that you portrayed.