Why is voting for Biden a mortal sin?

[VonDerTann]

Since I apparently lack eyes and a brain, I’d love for you to identify exactly who Trump’s (alleged) influencers are - especially since “Russian collusion” has been exposed as a hoax and one of Trump’s appeals to millions of voters is his not being beholden to special interests.

But since you muted, I guess we’ll never know.

 

[Shakuhachi]

This document has no authority. And is again an abuse of priestly power. He presents his opinion as Church teaching.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Which Church leaders?

We use the authority structure of the Church - the Pope, one’s bishop, one’s priest. For matters specific to a nation, there are national councils of bishops.

Correct, and those currently in positions of leadership are bound to the authority of Scripture and Tradition - which you did not mention. That means the “authority structure” of the Church cannot reinvent Catholicism or revise it by adding novelties of their choosing in order to promote some form of modernism or in order to safeguard funding or secure standing with the state.

There have been times in the past when the hierarchy (even a majority of it) wandered off into heresy and had to be recalled to its proper function by individual saints and the laity. The Arian heresy was an example when about two thirds of Catholic bishops bought into the heresy and promoted it. Athanasius, a contingent of holy priests and bishops, and much of the laity bolstered orthodoxy and pulled the Church through. The fact that some or even many priests and bishops espouse some position does not make it, ipso facto, correct. The question is whether it aligns with the received teaching (Scripture and Tradition) of the Church which is founded on the teaching of Christ and the Apostles and guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[HarryStotle]

This document has no authority. And is again an abuse of priestly power. He presents his opinion as Church teaching.

What precisely did the document contain that was an “abuse of priestly power?”

Seems ironic that you, an individual, are claiming the power and authority to categorically declare the writing of a priest as having “no authority.” So you have subsumed to yourself some kind of authority to declare that others have “no authority” without any reference to anything he wrote? Where is your cogent rebuttal of the points he makes?

This is the problem with appeals to authority or lack thereof. It is totally devoid of clarity and explanation.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Seems you missed the point, which was that even theologians “with standing” disagree with each other just as “favourite lay theologians” do. Ergo, it is still up to each of us to decide which theologian “with standing,” that disagrees with other theologians “with standing,” that we, for compelling reasons, agree with.

Yes, this is the role of prudential judgement.

Not just the role of prudential judgement. It is also the role of moral judgement, and moral judgements outweigh prudential judgements because the former involve obligations while merely prudential judgements involve selection of preferential outcomes, not obligatory ones.

There is sleight of hand going on here when the word “prudential” is smuggled into a moral question. The trickery makes it appear that the moral imperative has magically turned into a personal preference without any morally obligatory answer.

 

[Shakuhachi]

The article states.

“To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.”

The guiding document on this is called “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”.

The document says clearly that a Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy that promotes an intrinsically evil act such as abortion “if the voter’s intent is to support that position” (No. 34). But the same document goes on to say, “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons” (No. 35).

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-ac...ng-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-title

 

[christofirst]

I missed that part. Read it too quickly. Thanks for pointing out that error.

 

[CTBcin]

As many good priests have said, voting for Biden would be a serious sin.

It isn’t. At least, not necessarily.

 

[pnewton]

Correct, and those currently in positions of leadership are bound to the authority of Scripture and Tradition - which you did not mention.

I answered the question.

I do not buy the comparison to Arianism that pops up any more than the idea that everything is Nazis. There is always an underlying elevation of one’s own individual interpretation, be it of Scripture or Tradition, that transcends the one under accusation, something I do not think many lay people are competent to do. Remember that Arian was opposed by a bishop and a saint, neither of which am I.

I think in this case it is sufficient that the moral guidelines for voting are established. If anyone should be questioned, it would be the one who exceeded moral guidelines, and the Church’s teaching on conscience.

 

[pnewton]

Has anyone on CAF actually changed their mind regarding their intended vote or political party preference based on another member’s arguments?

I have, somewhat, but it has been over a course of years. When I joined, I not only voted Republican, but supported them. This site is only a reflection of the change in the party probably, but I can no longer in good conscience support that party. The abandoning of the pro-life position for a more exclusive anti-abortion position is only part of the reason. I will still vote mostly Republican, as they almost always the better candidate, but Republican support here has convinced me of the absolute necessity for an eventual third party, that is, if we are going to heal the divide we have.

Somewhere up thread the question was asked about arguments for voting for Biden. I did not have time to respond earlier. But now I would like to point out for those that want genuine dialogue that it is regretful that open dialogue has been made difficult here. The bullying of others (flagging, condemning to Hell, personal attacks, etc.) has limited me on political dialogue. I cannot imagine I am the only one. I am sorry for those who desire honest, intellectual discussion, but there are too many that would rather wound another person than listen to him.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Not just the role of prudential judgement. It is also the role of moral judgement, and moral judgements outweigh prudential judgements because the former involve obligations while merely prudential judgements involve selection of preferential outcomes, not obligatory ones.

There is sleight of hand going on here when the word “prudential” is smuggled into a moral question. The trickery makes it appear that the moral imperative has magically turned into a personal preference without any morally obligatory answer.

Who to vote for does that have an “obligatory” moral position, merely a “preferential” one, so prudential judgement should be used.

Again, that begs the question by merely asserting that voting is purely a prudential matter. That would imply that voting never can be determined as the result of moral issues being at stake. That would be untrue, for example if a dictator prone to genocide were a candidate. You wouldn’t insist genocide is purely a prudential question where the possible good done by the sociopath is to be weighed against the deaths of innocent people, would you?

If abortion is the mass killing of an identifiable group, and it is, then there is no prudential calculus in play. No possible good can weigh against actual evil.

 

[Sarcelle]

I was thinking of not voting but then I discovered the Solidarity party.

 

[pnewton]

Voting isn’t a prudential matter. Choosing who to vote for is.

Just remember that “prudential” does not mean morally neutral. It means using wisdom in applying morality. Morality is black and white. Prudence understands what that means in an fallen world.

 

[christofirst]

One reason I’m reluctant to fully discuss the factors that go into making my voting decisions here on CAF is that for many, no reason could possibly top outlawing abortion. I feel like too many here are eagerly waiting to pounce on my reasons and rip them to shreds.

But I don’t like the idea I see expressed here that if a politician says, “I’m against abortion,” while also standing against several moral issues which are also important to me, they should automatically get my vote as a Catholic.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Again, that begs the question by merely asserting that voting is purely a prudential matter. That would imply that voting never can be determined as the result of moral issues being at stake. That would be untrue, for example if a dictator prone to genocide were a candidate. You wouldn’t insist genocide is purely a prudential question where the possible good done by the sociopath is to be weighed against the deaths of innocent people, would you?

If abortion is the mass killing of an identifiable group, and it is, then there is no prudential calculus in play. No possible good can weigh against actual evil.

Voting isn’t a prudential matter. Choosing who to vote for is.

Here’s where the moral equivalence or “prudential” aspect regarding pro abortion candidates fall apart.

By supporting abortion, politicians are supporting and enabling citizens in the commission of an inherently evil act – the willful killing of an innocent human being.

If prudential considerations on the other side were proportionate to that – i.e., fostering murder of innocents – then those proportionate consideratons would need to involve the aiding and abetting of intrinsically evil deeds.

That would be a moral equivalence wherein a vote for an abortion supporting candidate would be proportionate to some other candidate supporting the commission of intrinsically evil acts by the population – as in anti-abortion politicians aiding and abetting the commission of some comparable intrinsic evil on the other side, thus morally justifying a vote for a pro abortion candidate.

So what intrinsic evil is being promoted by candidates in the other camp such that a vote for a pro abortion candidate would be warranted?

Provide a detailed analysis of those intrinsic evils being promoted by Republican candidates, so that we might be persuaded by your reasoning.

To be clear, since we are speaking of Catholic votes here, those intrinsic evils being aided and abetted by Republican politicians must be characterized as intrinsic evils by the Catholic Church.

Hint: poverty is not considered an intrinsic evil by the Church since it is embraced by many priests and religious as a path to holiness.

Absent spelling out those proportionately intrinsic evils being fostered and promoted by anti-abortion candidates you have no case, as far as Catholic voters are concerned.

 

[HarryStotle]

Thbolt:

Voting isn’t a prudential matter. Choosing who to vote for is.

Just remember that “prudential” does not mean morally neutral. It means using wisdom in applying morality. Morality is black and white. Prudence understands what that means in an fallen world.

Not quite. Prudence MAY mean using wisdom in applying morality, but it need not involve morality at all. It may involve pragmatic or practical considerations that are morally neutral but could result in benefit or loss that is neither moral nor immoral.

The CCC makes that clear.

1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; “the prudent man looks where he is going.” "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.

Prudence is concerned with practical reason. So while moral considerations are always overriding, there are many practical decisions and actions that are morally neutral because they do not necessarily lead to or detract from moral goods, but they could depending upon whether any specific moral dimension is in play.

 

[pnewton]

I equate “good” in the context of the catechism with moral. I do not know. Is there prudence in determining morally neutral actions, like what kind of ice cream to order? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[HarryStotle]

I equate “good” in the context of the catechism with moral. I do not know. Is there prudence in determining morally neutral actions, like what kind of ice cream to order? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Do you think eating too much once in a while or choosing not to exercise are prudential or moral questions? Is it necessarily morally wrong when we do not do things which are for our good?

 

[pnewton]

Do you think eating too much once in a while or choosing not to exercise are prudential or moral questions?

Yes.

1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it;

Even the catechism applies it to “true good” and “right means.”

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Do you think eating too much once in a while or choosing not to exercise are prudential or moral questions?

Yes.

Uh, that was an either / or question. “Yes” doesn’t specify.

HarryStotle:

1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it;

Even the catechism applies it to “true good” and “right means.”

Prudence is directed at our true good, but our true good is not a moral imperative for everyone. Morality relates to something like the natural moral law to which every natural human moral agent is bound by virtue of being a moral agent. The Catechism’s depiction of true good is a spiritual reality that we are guided to by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and includes the theological virtues of faith, hope and love along with the other cardinal virtues. Human beings qua human being are not morally bound to acting according to the theological virtues, even though those are to the ultimate good of each human person.

Note that in the Catechism the cardinal virtues are prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance. Each is depicted as a moral virtue, except prudence.1806 - 1809; i.e., Justice is the moral virtue that… Temperance is the moral virtue that… Fortitude is the moral virtue that…

However, with prudence the word moral is excluded. It just states (1806): Prudence is the virtue that.

Ergo, prudence can apply to moral determinations, as stated in 1806…

With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.

So while prudence can relate to moral determinations it need not. Part of applying moral principles “without error” is knowing when moral principles do and don’t apply regarding human activity.