Catholic Voting – It’s Time to Stand in the Breach
Had the Catholic electorate been well-schooled in their faith in the last two elections, we would not have gay marriage and some 343 radical anti-Catholic judges right now.
Yes, if it were not for Obama appointed judges, we would not have gay marriage, and every other anomaly that will now come, now that marriage is redefined. Most believe this is here to stay … much like the killing of millions of babies remains with us since Roe v. Wade … also a liberal Supreme Court, at the time. Oh, and parents? How are you feeling about young boys “claiming” to be transgender in order gain access to your daughters’ government school locker rooms?
Yes, it took Obama’s judges to make gay marriage law. There would have never been hope for a liberal media driven campaign for this, if the judges were not in place. Obama ran in 2008 in favor of Defense of Marriage Act, because that was where the country was only a few short years ago. Once the players were in place (Obama’s judges), the campaign to change the hearts of the low-information voters – overnight – was then child’s play.
What Should We Do? We Must Stand in the Breach!!
According to Catholic Moral Theology, it is acceptable and, in fact, good to do all we can to keep the worst candidate out of office.
From National Catholic Register:
The lesser-of-two-evils name does not, however, accurately reflect what the voter does in making such a voting choice. We can see this by looking at Catholic teaching about the elements of every morally good act (Catechism 1750-1761): the object (what is done), the intention (why it is done) and the circumstances (the when, where, how it is done).
The first of these is the object of the will: To what is the will directed in the choice being made? This object must always be good or the act is immoral at its root. What would be the object in voting for an imperfect candidate? It would be to limit the evil that a more extreme candidate would do.
St. Thomas Aquinas enunciated this principle in the Summa Theologiae, where he noted that the object of the will’s choice is the possible good, not the impossible good (ST I-II q13, a5). Applying this principle, Blessed Pope John Paul II taught in Evangelium Vitae (73) that it is legitimate for a legislator to vote for a more restrictive law regarding abortion over a less restrictive law. He wrote: “This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects, in order to prevent worse legislation from being adopted.”
This was not a new teaching by John Paul or applicable solely to legislators, but the application of long-standing principles of moral theology …
It is therefore quite clear from the moral theology tradition and specific magisterial teaching that a Catholic may vote for a candidate who does not wholly embrace Catholic teaching on the non-negotiable issues.
This can be done:
in order to limit the evil that would result if a worse candidate on these issues were elected;
provided that this is predominately the intention of voting (other good but lesser motives may also be present); and
that the other candidate is indeed worse, and any scandal caused by the appearance of voting for evil is corrected, such as by explaining Catholic teaching and one’s full adherence to it.
While I agree that there is much that can be said about the weakness of some self-professed conservative candidates in recent years, there is so much more that can be said about how our propensity to let “perfect be the enemy of good” has facilitated unthinkable evil into our land. Far too many conservative Catholics either stayed home or voted (in the general election) for a candidate with absolutely no chance of winning. What about our duty to keep the worst kind of evil at bay?!?!
“Thus I have searched among them for someone who would build a wall or stand in the breach before me to keep me from destroying the land; but I found no one.” Ezekiel 22:30
