Ladies and gentlemen, the nominees of the two parties are now determined. This will be a Trump vs Clinton contest. I just now finished watching Cruz's speech at the GOP convention. I voted for him and had hoped that he would be the nominee. Enough other people voted differently so now it is Trump who will be opposing Hillary Clinton.
There is no gainsaying that Trump has his warts. But now he is officially the GOP candidate and the only one who now stands between us and a Hillary presidency. No one, with a straight face and who pays attention to the facts of history, can pretend that Trump is just as evil as Hillary. I've written before regarding the intentions voiced by some good people to either 1) not vote at all in the presidential election or to 2) write in a "third-party" candidate. Either option will have the obvious effect of reducing the hurdle that Clinton would have to overcome to seize the White House. Please read from this anthology of posts.
In those posts I attempted to examine the question of voting versus not voting in the context of Catholic moral theology. Below are quotes from both Father Peter West and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, both speaking in terms of Catholic teaching. I found these on facebook, by the way.
From Father West: "Voting for Donald Trump is not doing evil in order to achieve a good end. Voting for him is not endorsement of everything he has said or done. Your vote is an exercise of power. If you exercise that power to limit evil you are doing something good. You are not doing something evil in order to achieve a good end. In Catholic moral theology a moral act must be evaluated according to the act itself, the intention and the circumstances. All three have to be either good or neutral. The act of voting is in itself good. If your intention is to limit evil, your intentions are good. The circumstances in this election is that a vote for Trump is the only way to stop the election of a corrupt, dishonest, pro-abortion, anti-family, extremely careless criminal. Voting for Donald Trump is therefore a good moral act because it limits evil insofar as it is possible at the moment."
From Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI): "According to the principles of Catholic morality, an action can be considered licit whose object and proximate effect consist in limiting an evil insofar as is possible. Thus, when one intervenes in a situation judged evil in order to correct it for the better, and when the action is not evil in itself, such an action should be considered not as a voluntary acceptance of the lesser evil but rather as the effective improvement of the existing situation, even though one remains aware that not all evil present is able to eliminated for the moment."
I believe these establish the case, from rigorous application of Catholic moral theology, that a vote for Trump will assist in limiting the evil of a Clinton presidency. If some of my #nevertrump friends remain unconvinced, would you please establish your case with your own examination of the question that applies Catholic moral theology to the question? Needless to say, "personal preference" and "gut feeling" is not going to cut the mustard. The discharging of our civic responsibilities demand utilization of reason and intellect for they are very serious matters.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well done and well said! Thanks and God bless you!
ReplyDeleteI've seen a similar posting by Janet Baker in the Defend Life newsletter using the same quotes by Cdl. Ratzinger and Fr. West. Where do these quotes actually come from? Please provide direct reference. Also identify yourself, Restore DC Catholicism for proper attribution. People of faith, Catholics and evangelicals especially are not necessarily cynical as inferred by Janet Baker when they express their dismay over the presidential candidate choices this year. I'm glad to see Trump has expressed somewhat of an apology for his past uncharitable comments. Actually some have been bold faced lies. He can be an SOB but the Clintons are an evil criminal enterprise. It is not cynicism driving some deeply concerned Christians to question that whomever we vote for President, the Lord Almighty's curse has fallen upon our nation because of the abominations we are perpetuating in America. The terrible choices we are confronted with is a sign of the time of reckoning. Yes, vote for Trump, but don't be surprised if President Trump disappoints. Yes, I believe, he will "lessen" the evil. That is the only endorsement I can give the man. What a sorry choice we're forced to make ... and I am ashamed and angry about being forced to make such a choice.
DeleteRight off the bat I can tell you that the quote from Father West comes straight from his personal Facebook page. I'll look up Pope Benedict's later. For too many people it truly is cynicism or a weird sort of pride that is causing them to throw logic and even morality in the trash to justify their utter childishness in refusing to vote for Trump.
DeleteI cannot understand why there are so many 'Catholics' who will risk throwing the election to Clinton because 'their guy' didn't make it. Worse yet, why there are so many 'Catholics' that will actually vote directly for Clinton!!! Have they bought the lie that abortion and SS marriage etc are a 'non issue'? That 'social justice' trumps (pardon the pun) the life issue? Of which, btw, the Democrats do NOTHING anyway for the poor and marginalized except to drag them further down into poverty in order to control them. Are they still, unbelievably, banking on the Democrats to even the playing field when evidence has it they NEVER do, and ALWAYS make matters worse? Haven't these people figured out by now that Obama has done his best to bring this country down? The Democrat Party today IS NOT the Democrat Party of yesteryear....not even close!!
ReplyDeleteNo Trump is not my man, didn't vote for him in the Primary, voted for Rubio, BUT, I will hold my nose and vote for him. He at least has Mike Pence as his VP choice and he is TOTALLY pro life, and regardless a Trump Presidency would be 100 times less harmful than a Clinton Presidency. She would be Obama on steroids, if that is even possible. Mike Pence was correct in his acceptance speech: 'The Secretary of Status Quo'. I would add: 'The totally corrupt Secretary of status quo.' A vote (or non vote) for Trump is a vote for Clinton, and you are correct, it is the lesser (much lesser) of two evils. And.....I have lost all respect for John Kasich, Jeb Bush and all, that not only didn't bother to show, but are still slamming Trump publicly. Their arrogance, lack of maturity, and disinterest in the welfare of the country is staggering. LOL....and if Mitt Romney would have shown even a tenth of the fight against Obama that he did against Trump, we may not even be in this position today. These people are incredible losers.
ReplyDelete"Dear Restore DC Catholicism: I am not sure who Fr. West is, but his logic is atrocious. As for the passage cited here by Pope Benedict: it is not one that is properly applied to the conclusion, that you should vote for Trump. Other more radical versions of the same error, have gone as far as stating that it is our Christian duty to vote for Trump. I understand that the distinction is not so easy to see. But Fr. West should know better, he clearly needs a logic class. It is also an erroneous use of Catholic doctrine to try and put pressure on people to vote for Trump. Finally, the case of voting licitly for a bill that reduces abortion while not eliminating it, also does not apply to this case.
Sincerely,
Fr Marcel Guarnizo
Father West is a priest formerly associated with both Human Life International and Priests for Life before his bishop called him back to the diocese of Newark. His logic is atrocious? Why?
DeleteFr. Guarnizo, whom are you voting for?
DeleteJust asking, since I distinctly remember that you wrote an article criticizing Trump. Is it safe to assume you believe a vote for Hillary Clinton to be the moral thing to do?
In Father Guarnizo's defense, I can assuradly say that he would never cast a vote for Hillary. Long-time readers of this blog will recall that he is the priest in the Archdiocese of Washington who was expelled by the ADW because he denied Holy Communion to a practicing lesbian. Check out the blog postings from the middle of February 2012 on.
DeleteI guess Fr. Guarnizo didn't do enough damage here, so he's taken it to Townhall:
Deletehttp://townhall.com/columnists/frmarcelguarnizo/2016/07/30/donald-trump-and-the-demise-of-democracy-n2199918?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
Fantastic article-Trump needs to read this. The Catholic vote or the so-called Catholic vote will determine this election. For a fuller treatment of these points google "Hell vote yourself in" and "RETA." OR "sinvotedemocrat." [RETA=racial eugenic targeted abortion]. It is so interesting that the liberal democatholics have come to see that this time around [Hillary being Hillarydemon and all that] they cannot trot out the "seamless garment subterfuge" to get the pewsitters to vote for the Prty Of Death, so now they are saying "You cannot in good conscience vote for Trump." Implicit message: "You will be saintly and do an act of virtue to vote for Hillary." One key to this is the theological silence on RETA-google "RETA" and "theological silence." The theologians being silent must be democatholic theologians. Guy McClung, San Atnonio, Texas
ReplyDeleteExcellent article. I agree. Thank you and God bless you.
ReplyDeleteI'm voting Trump for the reasons you state here, but most especially because Trump has recently included in his agenda a proposed repeal of the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which we ought to consider if we truly are Catholics and Americans.
Here's what Deacon Keith Fournier says about the Johnson Amendment, to which I agree:
"The Johnson Amendment 'absolutely prohibits' 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups from 'directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office' or making 'contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position.'
"The Johnson Amendment makes exceptions for 'certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner … voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives,' provided they do not favor or oppose some candidate or group of candidates.
"Sounds reasonable, right? In fact, the Johnson amendment has proven to be a dangerous tool, allowing political appointees at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to determine when moral issues become political issues -- and effectively censor churches and religious organizations with the threat of crippling penalties and loss of tax exempt status.
"The IRS is the sole interpreter of ambiguous phrases in the law’s provisions. For example, the law 'allows' voter registration and education drives. But what constitutes 'evidence of bias' and 'favoring a candidate'? Who decides? Whomever the current president has appointed head of the IRS will make the final call. How much scrutiny do you think that urban churches like that of Rev. Jeremiah Wright (Obama’s old pastor) came under over the past eight years? Remember how Obama’s IRS aggressively targeted Tea Party groups for audits. Was the IRS fair to morally conservative churches? I can tell you from first-hand experience: it was not."
http://conservativenews247.com/article/view/291565/Trump-is-Right-Repeal-the-Johnson-Amendment-That-Muzzles-Pastors
The Johnson Amendment is the main reason why our priests hardly preach on the evils of abortion and same-sex unions because those issues have become politicized.
Thing is, despite the Johnson Amendment, Democrat candidates have freely preached and campaigned in Black Churches all these years - and gotten away with it.
It's just not fair. I think it's time the Johnson Amendment got deleted.
I agree and I listened to his acceptance speech on repealing the Johnson Amendment. We would really find out what side of the faith Pastors were on if this were to materialize. A good number of them, I suspect however, would be touting the Democrat platform and their so called 'social justice' issues. It would be a revealing turn of events, and more separating of the sheep from the goats.
DeleteMyself, I'd rather go down fighting the evil of Hillary Clinton than join my cause to a man who has spent his adult life grinding underfoot little people to make a fast buck and publicly advocating for the most dissolute moral behavior - and whose sole lodestar is whatever is best for Donald Trump.
ReplyDeleteAs Alexander Hamilton once said: "If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures."
I am not going to tear into fellow traditional Catholics who have sized things up and decided to vote for Trump in order to stop Hillary. I do understand their concerns. What I *do* resent is attacks on those of us who have made a different decision, whether that's to vote third party, or not vote at all. For those frustrated with those of us who have so decided, please: stop the hectoring and the condemnations.
We are attempting to examine the issue of voting through the prism of Catholic moral theology. That is a prism that should guide all our decisions. If one does not do all one can to stop the known evil of Hillary Clinton, then yes, they share responsibility and guilt because of a sin of omission: that is, not doing all they can (voting) to stop her. May I suggest that your characterization of our examination as "hectoring" and "condemnations" is a symptom of a stung conscience that may not be properly formed?
DeleteThe Catholic Voting Block, to paraphrase, has largely stayed home the last two election cycles and Obama has been elected and reelected because of it; using the assumption that Catholics would vote not for a left-wing i dialog that has "no" restrictions on abortion and would instead vote for a pro-life candidate ( albeit "a Mormon") or even a moderate republican candidate. Now we have arrived once again at the threshold of another election cycle... Will they "stay home" once again?
ReplyDeleteWhat are our choices.... one bombastic, insulting, shoot-from-the-hit, non-politician billionaire businessman who has been or both sides of many important issues to voters and on the other side... The consummate "politician" who has been in or around public office for the past 30 years. A person that was "careless" at best or is unapologetic and self-serving at worst with our national security and used her public office, (holding one of the most important position in our Government) as a "personal cash register".. or so it seems. Not the best two candidates I will admit but please "Catholics" don't say home this time... vote your conscience which will hopefully agree with your religion's precepts. Don't stay home...VOTE!