Why It Is Most Likely Immoral To Deny Your Vote To Trump

We've all seen and participated in some discussions in which Christians have said they won't vote for Trump because he's merely the "lesser of two evils".  When the political landscape has been rehearsed before them, they invariably say that they must be guided by their "consciences".  While there's some truth to that, they omit a large part of that picture.  We Christians, if we are to utilize our consciences properly, must ensure that we are forming and informing our consciences in accordance with Church teaching, particularly in accordance with the principles of Catholic moral theology.

In my most recent post on this matter I linked to a video by Michael Matt regarding this very topic and also linked to other attempts (here and here) to examine this matter through the prism of Catholic moral theology.  I call to attention a comment on that post to which I replied on August 5th.  In that comment I noted that Hillary's body count is growing; indeed, since that time there have been 4-5 additional "mysterious" deaths.  The quotation from Mr. Gruden that I cited is now even more relevant: "Can I in good conscience act in a way that helps a liberal like Hillary Clinton win the presidency?"

In that first link, I quoted from Father Peter West who cites three aspects of a human act.  All three aspects must be good or at least morally neutral in order for the act to be good.  If one of those aspects is evil, then the act is evil.  Those aspects are: 1) the inherent nature of the act 2) intention of the one placing the act, 3) circumstances surrounding the act.  He does a decent job explaining these.  The only thing I might elaborate on is the intention.  One can have a number of valid intentions to placing a vote.  Namely, one can vote for Candidate A because they believe that Candidate B would be worse than A, understanding that either Candidate A or Candidate B and no others will have a chance at victory.

I've also dealt with the Principle of Double Effect, a principle recognized by the Church since some acts can have both positive and negative effects..  There are four criteria that must be met under this principle for an act to be morally good.

1. The act itself must be good or at least morally neutral
2. The evil effect and the good effect must proceed equally from the act.  The good effect cannot be a result of the evil effect
3. The intention must be good; we may not directly will the evil effect.
4. There must be a proportional reason for tolerating the evil effect.  

In previous posts I've brought all these factors to bear on the question of casting a vote for Donald Trump.  So have others.  Even some #nevertrump folks believe that a vote for Trump is at least morally permissible.

However, just as the decision to vote for Trump must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny under the lens of Catholic moral theology, so too must the decision not to vote for Trump be subjected to the same rigorous examination.  It fails.  Right off the bat, looking at the fourth factor of the Double Effect principle, we see no proportional reason for tolerating the election of Hillary Clinton.  Bear in mind that she has promised to expand abortion, promote the gay agenda, fund Planned Parenthood, stack the Supreme Court with pro-aborts, and we see her body count ever-growing.  What "proportional reason" can be offered for tolerating that?

When I've posed that question to some (mostly on facebook discussions) the great majority of them will reply, "but at least I vote my conscience" as though that's a supreme good in and of itself.  I link now to an article found on American Thinker.  Mr. Lopez states, "Of course who wins the election is more important than your precious conscience or how you feel about voting.  Your country matters more than you do.  Has America become so weak and self-absorbed that people no longer understand what it means to say, 'It's not all about you, honey'?"  He has a very valid point.

The role of our conscience is to assist us in selecting acts that are in obedience to God.  That is why we need to form and inform them in accordance with Christ's teachings as revealed through Holy Mother Church (that includes Catholic moral theology).  It is a means to an end, the end being to please God.  We do not seek to assuage or please our own consciences for their own sakes.  If consciences are not informed by and subordinate to objective Catholic morality, they are not much more than pride and sentimentality disguised in sanctimonious veneer. When I hear some of the #nevertrump crowd say "no one can deter me from my conscience" and "I won't sell my soul" I have to suspect that they may well be turning their consciences into de facto idols.

I think for some of the #nevertrump crowd, their animosity towards Trump is a very strange sort of pride.  Allen West (himself a one-time candidate for president) has some words to consider.  He's correct about the tantrums being pitched by these "nevertrump" folks.  Don't we find it odd that they spend more time and energy kvetching about Trump than they do about Hillary?  In their disregard for any consequence of their trash-talking against Trump, they seem quite willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

I've asked this before and will repeat myself.  If there are objective reasons (as opposed to subjective resonations with consciences) why one thinks they can just let Hillary waltz into the White House by not supporting Trump, please advise.