Catholic Exchange

Morality: Principles versus Expediency and Calculation

I am a Roman Catholic seeking to be faithful. The past year has been a tremendous one in my quest to understand the politics of our Nation. It began with the perplexing ambiguity of the rationale for increasing vast amounts of money, new agencies and legislation for security after 9/11 while at the same time leaving our southern border with Mexico wide open! From there I discovered a powerful body of writings that argue for the return to a Constitutional Government that would be much smaller and correspondingly less costly. I also came to the thoughts and writings of Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, Will Grigg, Murray Rothbard and more recently Chuck Baldwin during this time. Many issues have been of concern to me including the unnecessarily large federal government and most of its agencies and departments, astronomical deficit spending, government regulation of the free market, bailouts everywhere we turn — and at our expense — nation building, our global military presence, the drastically increased invasion of our privacy, moves towards a police state, the marginalization of religion from the public arena and always, always, the issue of abortion and all the life issues — issues in which I see both parties as being duplicitous in perpetuating problems and blocking real solutions.

Two men of outstanding integrity and solid Catholic morality have written recently about our duty to vote in keeping with the teachings of Christ: Archbishop Chaput in the book, Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life and Dr. Alan Keyes in the tract, 2-Party System: No Choice but Evil. I believe Dr. Keyes’ tract complements and fills out the thoughts of Archbishop Chaput. I was also impressed by Archbishop Burke, The Prefect of the Apostolic Signature, who recently stated that “pro-choice” politicians should not receive communion.

If you have not read them, I strongly encourage you to do so.  What becomes obvious is that we Catholics, and all Christians, have a morally grave responsibility to vote in keeping with our Faith — especially when it comes to the issue of life.  George Weigel’s article gives an excellent overview of Archbishop Chaput’s book. Dr. Keyes’ tract can be found here.

Points 4 and 5 of Archbishop Chaput’s book, as described in Weigel’s piece, resonate strongly with points made in Keyes’ tract. Dr. Keyes reminds us that our Declaration of Independence makes it clear that our rule of law and form of government is based on Natural Law, Natures’ God and our Creator. The Constitution could not have been written without this foundation. Another very important point is the one Keyes makes in showing that the blessings the Constitution is supposed to secure for us are also for “our posterity.” From the moment of conception every single human being in the womb is a citizen of the United States and granted the rights and protection of our Constitution — the supreme law of the land. I believe Dr. Keyes’ most powerful contribution is his rationale for making abortion a Federal, not a State, issue. This is a singular distinction and departure from pro-life Libertarians, one which I hope sparks some reevaluation in that camp. He points to Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the federal government to guarantee a republican form of government in all of the states. In other words, since a child from the moment of conception is a real human being, he is protected under the Constitution. The States must uphold the highest law of the land, which is the Constitution. If they don’t, it is the Federal government’s responsibility to intervene so that a republican form of government — the rule of law — is maintained.

In light of these foundational thoughts we come back to the moral imperative to protect life. That there is a responsibility to hold all life sacred as a matter of principle not expediency or calculation, hence the overriding concern that our elected officials must be individuals of strong moral and ethical conviction. Their flip flopping, taking positions to gain votes, or making excuses for immorality should sound an alarm in every voter. In supporting a candidate we make ourselves an accomplice and accountable for their immoral actions. We should also remember that we are just as responsible for failing to do good by not supporting a good candidate. I believe that this applies even if that candidate is “unelectable.”

In looking at the candidates with a sharply focused and clear moral vision it becomes obvious that the Republican and Democratic candidates cannot be supported. The case regarding Senator Obama is clear for many of us. However the reasons for not supporting Senator McCain may not be as clear. Dr. Keyes’ basic argument for not supporting Senator McCain is that Senator McCain’s position on abortion is one of expediency and calculation, not principle! This is pointed out with painstaking clarity by Dr. Keyes. McCain’s support for embryonic stem cell research shows that his pro-life position is not fully integrated. It is not one of principle. If it were, the Senator would realize that all innocent life — and I mean all — must be protected under the law. He would also not have blocked Bush’s judicial appointees or failed to support pro-life groups.

Embryonic stem cell research does not elicit the same emotional response that a partial birth abortion does. Keyes uses this to illustrate McCain’s use of calculation instead of principle. Destroying embryos for research is just as intrinsically evil as partial-birth abortion. This position of expediency and calculation (to win votes) betrays true moral integration and a lack of principle, making him unacceptable to a Catholic voter. Senator Obama’s positions are known all too clearly. Due to these realities neither candidate is a viable option for a serious Christian.

The conclusion is obvious. Candidates from the two major parties are not acceptable. For most Americans this is unheard of and extremely hard to accept. Nonetheless, I believe we are forced to this conclusion when being honest about the political realities of this election cycle. This leaves an alternative that is a radical departure for most of us, which is to vote for a third party candidate or a write-in. Accepting this as the only option that keeps intact our integrity as Catholics has become clear for a few, but needs to be understood by many more.

There are two ideas or arguments out there that are cunningly deceptive and dangerous. They are, in my opinion, harmful and evil deceptions. These two ideas rob us of our moral strength, integrity and any real possibility for substantial change. I beg you to reject the “lesser of two evils” argument. Nor should you fall prey to the “you’re throwing your vote away” argument. The simple reason is they are not true.

Now is the time to act to bring about real change that will break the stranglehold our two party system has over us. Presenting such low-caliber, unacceptable candidates should be met with the outrage it deserves. As one pundit puts it, there should be a third choice “none of the above!” This position expresses the deep dissatisfaction many voters have with the “choices” presented thus far. If you’re one of them, please do not dismiss your dissatisfaction. So many times in life we ignore that gut feeling. There always seems to be an argument or some reasoning convincing us we aren’t right, that we’re being to idealistic or impractical, that our protest won’t make a difference. There are lots of them out there; you probably know them better than I. I suggest we ignore them.

Where does that leave us? With a third party candidate or a write in. Voting for an alternative candidate sends a much louder message than most realize. Both parties are deathly afraid of having their base “siphoned” off and with good reason.

One possibility is to register with one of the alternative parties, Constitution or Libertarian, or with Alan Keyes. Send them a little money if you can. Just having their enrollments going up will send a message. Put some fear into the two-party system today. You’ll feel good about yourself.

The Church does not want to tell us who to vote for and with good reason. Her guidelines however make it clear to this Catholic what my options are. I cannot support a candidate who encourages, supports or allows abortions or the destruction of embryos — both are murder. That eliminates both mainstream candidates for me. And while many are enamored of the first woman VP pick by the Republican candidate for President it should be remembered that you are not voting for her presidency, but his. She has also made it very clear that when she differs with him on key policy issues she will defer to him as president.

This two-party system is dealing death. I say, let’s vote for real change.

Comments

25 responses to “Morality: Principles versus Expediency and Calculation”

  1. Arkanabar Ilarsadin Avatar

    Mr. Bois’ strategy is especially effective if your party follows the Karl Rove school of political science: that one should not even bother to court voters from the other party, but rather concentrate only on getting as many members of one’s own to vote as possible.

  2. cpageinkeller Avatar
    cpageinkeller

    I share Mr. Bois views and his passion for life, liberty, and limited government, BUT he presents a false choice.

    Voting for a third party candidate is, in essence, a vote for Barak Obama and will result in his election. Obama’s election will effectively end the debate on all pro life issues and result in the appointment of several (probably three) pro abortion judges to the Supreme Court and many more to the Federal bench in the lower courts. Yes, election of Obama will END all debate for decades.

    We have seen this scenario play out before: Ross Perot’s candidacy was responsible for the election of Bill Clinton and his judicial choices with whom we still suffer. Voting for a third party candidate, therefore, is a “feel good” for an individual, the unintended consequences of which is the achieve precisely the inverse of the desired outcome. In a national election, in is not an effective political strategy.

    John McCain is less than perfect. He does however believe that “life begins at conception,” a thoroughly Catholic position. He has publicly embraced this position on a number of occasions (Saddleback Debate most notable). Certainly the logical flaw between that position a embryonic stem cell research will become apparent to this highly logical politician.

    I believe the REAL choice is between a candidate who is an abomination in all regards (Obama) and one with some flaws (McCain). McCain best fits our Catholic perspective, and he has selected a running mate (Sarah Palin) who is vigorously pro-life by both word and deed. McCain and Palin represent our best hope for turning our nation back to a pro life course. I am convinced that this is a critical change of course without which we will be unable to regain the full benefits of limited Constitutional government. In short we shall not benefit from God’s blessings until we abandon our DEATH WISH (Fr. John Corapi).

    Rerspectfully,

    Carey P. Page, M.D.

    P.S. All the third party candidates are flawed in one manner or another, too.

  3. elkabrikir Avatar
    elkabrikir

    Ditto to Dr Page

    Furthermore, this article makes for excellent academic discussion, but obfuscates the issue of what action should be taken by responsible Catholic voters.

    Go to http://www.priestsforlife.org to see what Father Pavone suggests.

    Thank you for defending all life from conception to natural death. It is THE foundational principle

  4. Mickey Addison Avatar

    Yep…agree with my fellow commenters above: a vote for one of the third party candidates, no matter how noble, has the effect of electing Sen Obama; which is a greater evil (because of his anti-life policies) than electing Sen McCain who has an, ahem, “imperfect” record on life issues.

    I would also offer the following…it is possible that both men have badly formed consciences, rather than being coldly calculating in order to get votes. While I don’t deny that political calculation is a part of political life, I think it is a sin against charity to assume that because a person advocates an evil choice, they are an evil person. Doing evil is not the same as being evil, notwithstanding the evil people in the world.

    When “breaking ties” as we have in the life issues in this campaign, I think we need to look at two things: intent and party platform.

    Intent is clear in the voting records of both major party candidates…Sen Obama intends to defend “abortion rights” (as if there were such things) at all costs. Sen McCain intends to defend life (albeit from an imperfect position vis-a-vis his abhorent support for embryonic experimentation).

    Further…the Democratic platform is unambiguous in its advocacy for enslavement and murder of anyone who is weak, infirm, or voiceless (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic experimentation)….the Republican platform is explicit in supporting the fundamental right to life of everyone from conception to natural death.

    Since the part sets the agenda, and the party supports and elects candidates…and since the second order effect of voting for a third party candidate is to elect a Democrat in most districts and national elections, then we have to conclude that a third party vote accomplishes no good.

    Wish a third party vote mattered, but it doesn’t…and wishing doesn’t make it so. As my Daddy always said, “Wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first.”

  5. Jim Avatar
    Jim

    I agree with the previous posts. Further, I think the article suggests a tendency to place too much emphasis on a political solution to the problem. What the the author desires politically cannot be supported by the current culture we find ourselves in. Such a political agenda now would backfire by causing many to believe that an idealogy was being forced upon them. While conceding the important role that the political process plays in the battle for a Culture of Life, we must work more with the culture first. It is from the culture that our political reality springs. People really do seem to get the government they deserve.

  6. ciskanik Avatar
    ciskanik

    The Church does not tell us exactly who to vote for, or even in this case, to vote for a third party candidate or write in, with good reason. I liken this situation to the following scenario. While imperfect as an analogy, I think it gets the point across. Imagine that a bus has plummeted off the side of a bridge into a river. You are an observer on the river bank. You know that you cannot save everyone from drowning, so you have two choices: either stand on the bank and do nothing because it is unacceptable to you not to save everyone, or jump in and save those you can. What would you do?

  7. RageMedia Avatar
    RageMedia

    The author is neglecting the practical fact that a third-party vote is equal to no vote thanks to the two-party system and the electoral college. We the people do not elect the president, groups of party people in the electoral college do.

    Secondly, we are culpable not only for our actions but for the results of those actions. If we split the “pro-life” vote and allow Obama to be elected, those who voted for the third party (As in the case of the Perot vote) will have helped the worst candidate come to power.

    Remember two things: we are called to both do good AND limit evil; and that one can sin by omission as well as by action.

  8. Dave Avatar
    Dave

    I have to agree with my fellow posts. In a strategic long term view, uplifting a valuable thrid party can be beneficial .. and though I tend to be more libertarian in my economic beliefs, I am more republican in my social agenda (especially with pro-life). So one must choose when to leverage that third party, and I don’t believe it is now.

  9. ed Avatar
    ed

    I’m curious if the author has ever supported a mainstream presidential candidate because to my knowledge every one has supported abortion in the cases of rape and incest (which is inherently evil) and should by his logic have been ruled out (including Reagan and Bush).

  10. dennisofraleigh Avatar
    dennisofraleigh

    In the event of the election of the Obama/Biden ticket what we will face as Catholics faithful to the Magisterium and who know what an “intrinsic evil” is when we see one, what we face over the next four-to-eight years is a “perfect storm” of human carnage on a level never seen in this country, even taking into account the most brutal months of the U.S. Civil War. With an Obama/Biden ticket backed by solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress we face the gruesome prospect of our worst nightmares fulfilled:

    **Passage of Freedom of Choice Act (read Barbara Holt’s article in today’s Catholic Exchange)…

    **Blank check taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell research…

    **Massive expenditures to Planned Parenthood Federation for all of their eugenic-based “family planning” programs (and that includes funding for PPFA’s twisted “sex ed” curriculums in the public school system)…

    **Ripping up the “Mexico City” policy, enabling taxpayer dollars to fund overseas eugenic population control programs (i.e. the setting up of mobile killing (abortion) units in poor communities all over the developing world)…

    **Repeal of Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)and passage of its evil twin, something like a “gay marriage civil rights act” placing same-sex unions on the same level as traditional marriage. Doubt my word? Check this out:
    http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=4018

    **Fast track appointment of dozens of abortion-friendly Federal judges on the Circuit, Appeals, and Supreme Court levels…

    I would take issue with Kent Bois’ assertion that neither candidate is worthy of our vote because neither scores 100% on the Catholic scale of moral theology. Our bishops have counseled us that when faced with two candidates for office and neither has a perfect pro-life record it is not only permissable, but advisable, to choose him (or her) who will probably do the least harm while serving in office (and is likely to get elected). (I wish I could remember what USCCB document I read that in. Maybe it came from the Holy Father or Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict XVI). Anyhow, that teaching is a reasonable teaching.

    We also have to weigh in the ultimate consequences of our vote. And I don’t share Mr. Bois’ smug assertion that our vote for a third-party candidate will “send them a message.” The last “message” like that (remember Ross Perot?)gave this country eight years of the Clintons.

  11. elkabrikir Avatar
    elkabrikir

    The in between elections at the grass roots level and during the primaries are where we “send them a message” and that’s where I voted for my favorite 100% pro life candidate: Alan Keyes.

    As RageMedia said, with the two party system and electoral delegates doing the voting, a vote for a 3rd party candidate will allow evil to flourish in this case.

  12. kent4jmj Avatar
    kent4jmj

    Thank you all for adding to the discussion but many of the posts seem to lack objectivity, relying more on opinion and personal beliefs. I think we should all be much more interested in having the Church guide us informing our consciences so that we can act as our Lord would have us.

    In light of that I submit the following for further reflection and prayer.

    Veritatis Splendor

    “But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception.

    …do not allow for any legitimate exception. !

    They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.”

    U.S. Catholic: Faithful Citizenship

    “Respect for the dignity of every human being is a foundation for Catholic teaching about “faithful citizenship.” The statement explains the necessity of opposing actions that are intrinsically wrong, such as abortion and euthanasia, because these actions involve directly and
    intentionally ending an innocent human life.”

    The bishops warn of two temptations for Catholics in public life. “The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life…is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.”

    Some may use this one part to justify supporting a candidate.

    The document says, “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons,”

    The question then boils down to this; by voting third party I MAY be throwing the election to Obama therefor I am obliged to vote for the lesser of two evils, McCain. BUT is it True? Does this reasoning actually justify voting for a candidate in spite of “unacceptable position.”

    For those that want to vote McCain the burden of proof is yours to show that how you can do that when it is in clear opposition to the teachings on intrinsically morally evil acts and how they must always be opposed.

    I can understand that all will have an opinion, informed to lesser or greater degrees, but none will be able to answer the question for me because you will not represent the Church. Probably in the same way that I do not satisfy you for the same reason. Still for a discussion at this unofficial level the points I have made would need to be answered using the teachings of the church. It would seem to me that further clarification of an official nature is desperately needed.

    Sincerely,
    Kent C. Bois

  13. mrteachersir Avatar
    mrteachersir

    Kent,

    Several bishops have already weighed in on this issue, in particular, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as well as the USCCB.

    Benedict XVI used the phrase: “proportionate reasoning”, which many American bishops have publically stated means that you can vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsically evil act when the opponent supports more intrinsically evil acts.

    For example: if Candidate A supports abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, that Candidate supports two intrinsically evil acts. Candidate B supports limited embryonic stem-cell research. This person is supporting less evil, and could potentially lead to less evil. Therefore, a Catholic does not sin (and can in good conscience) in voting for Candidate B, especially when there is no other candidate (with a chance of winning) that opposes both of those acts.

    Throw into the mix the fact that our candidates have running mates. Candidate A’s running mate also supports abortion “rights” and embryonic stem-cell research. Candidate B’s running mate does not support either. In the event that Candidate A or Candidate B is somehow unable to serve, their running mates would then assume the presidency, thus, we are potentially voting for them as well.

    The fact that the American bishops, our successors to the Apostles, have already taught this means that our logic isn’t just an opinion.

    We also cannot forget what happened to Bush 41 in 1992. The candidacy of H. Ross Perot essentially split the Republican vote, and ushered the Clinton era. Likewise, Ralph Nader’s presence in the 2000 election essentially tipped the scales to Bush 43. This figures to be an extremely important election. None of the third party candidates have elicited enough national notice to have the two main parties assume their platforms (as happened after 1992 and 2000).

    Elkbrikir is correct. It was in the election of 1994 that the conservative Republicans took over the House and Senate. Although that did not translate to a Republican victory in 1996, the groundwork was laid for a Republican victory in 2000. In 2006, the big-spending, liberal tendencies of Republicans handed them a defeat (to even bigger-spending Democrats). Notice it was after this election that Bush changed course in Iraq: he understood that “more of the same” wasn’t going to cut it. We spoke through the ballot box and he listened.

  14. Lucky Mom of 7 Avatar
    Lucky Mom of 7

    I agree with the author about rationalizing a vote for a death-oriented candidate. They both are. He’s right. McCain advocates murdering babies, too.

    In regards to Sarah Palin, who is uncompromisingly pro-life, if McCain is elected, she will be president of the senate. She’ll be the tie-breaker. That may make the difference. I’m voting for McCain.

    May God have mercy on us. He destroyed Sodom for less.

    Lucky

  15. kent4jmj Avatar
    kent4jmj

    mrteachersir
    “Benedict XVI used the phrase: “proportionate reasoning”, which many American bishops have publicly stated means that you can vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsically evil act when the opponent supports more intrinsically evil acts.”

    This elevates the discussion a great deal, thank you.

    Three questions come to mind. 1. Could you save me some time by giving me the source for “proportionate reasoning” so I can see in context. 2. Many American bishops implies some would disagree which leaves the question unresolved in a definitive way. 3. Would Benedict XVI interpret it the way you are proposing? I’m not sure.
    The reason I am so concerned is that there is often a lack of clarity on moral issues from the church. The pontificates of JPII and BXVI make that abundantly clear as they both spend considerable time and energy addressing such issues for years now. Bishops individually, regionally or even at the National level have a certain weight but may not be correct on individual issues such as the one being discussed. They have been unable to get an English translation right yet and have not been able to resolve many liturgical issues for example.

    Maybe this is the end of the discussion and answers my questions, “you can vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsically evil act when the opponent supports more intrinsically evil acts” If it is then no one is bound by the reasoning I put forth and is free to choose a third party candidate based on other criteria. But forgive me for being skeptical.

  16. mkochan Avatar
    mkochan

    On Monday in the Today space we are running an article that goes into detail aboiut this question of proportionate evil. One example I have heard is that if candidate A was pro-abortion, and candidate B was against abortion, but promised to nuke Toronto by executive order the day after he was sworn in, you could vote for candidate A. In other words the evil you are preventing by voting for candidate A has to be proportionate to the evil he promotes. The nuking of a friendly government’s city full of innocent civilians is proportionate to the evil of abortion. There are very few things proportionate to the holocaust of the unborn, however — that is why all the scenarios about it are so extreme.

  17. caferrell Avatar

    I think that this is a terrific article and I agree with the author on every point. I believe that we are enjoined by our Faith to vote for life and against death. I believe that we have a responsibility as Catholics to vote for the candidate who is most dedicated to the protection of human life, without considering the size and political clout of whatever political organization that candidate may belong to.

    We are enjoined to vote for life. We are not directed to be political savants that weigh electoral probabilities before we cast our votes. That is not the pure way of our Faith, it is very worldly calculation.

    The two major candidates do not give us the opportunity to vote for life. Instead they make us choose what type of death to vote for. Will I vote for a man who may oppose abortion and may oppose euthanasia but will definitely favor unjust war and capitol punishment, or should I do some sick calculation and prefer the candidate that may not use the American military to kill as many innocent civilians but will make certain to kill a million unborn babies.

    I cannot in good conscience vote for the lesser of two evils when an option exists to vote against death in all cases. I am not God. It is not my duty to calculate what may happen after the votes are cast. Thankfully that is His responsibility. It is my responsibility to be faithful to his teaching and therefore I will vote for a third party candidate that favors life without exceptions.

  18. […] “Morality: Principles versus Expediency and Calculation” Article by Kent C. Bois, found at http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/09/26/113989 […]

  19. terrygeorge Avatar
    terrygeorge

    the teaching of our bishops makes it clear that we can vote to build a pro-life society piecemeal when it cannot be accomplished all at once. The sort of in house sniping demonstrated in this article is one of the biggest reasons why pro-lifers are not more successful. The biggest complaint offered against McKain is his supposed support of ESCR, even though he would keep it extremely limited to the point of NO NEW EMBRYONIC DEATHS. Don’t lie about McKain’s position (and then paint yourself as morally above him).

    Come November 8th, either Obama or McKain will be president elect (unless God intervenes otherwise, in which case this whole conversation is moot). Pick the one who will be most in line with pro-life morals! DO NOT SQUANDER THIS OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A REAL, POSITIVE CHANGE AT THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL!!!! We are just ONE VOTE away from being able to overturn Roe V Wade. Pick the candidate who will put a strongly pro-life woman in the highest role-model position any woman has achieved in our country, and prepare her to potentially succeed him into the presidency.

    don’t throw away your vote and allow an extreme pro-abortion candidate to be elected who even goes beyond partial birth abortion to allow born babies to die!

    for the Love of God and the innocents

  20. Cooky642 Avatar
    Cooky642

    caferrell, your position is very sweet and nice, but it is NOT Catholic! The Holy Father and Bishops have told us repeatedly that the “Seamless Garment” theory (which is what you wrote is called) is WRONG! There are FIVE “life issues” about which we are to form our voting opinion: abortion, euthansia, embryonic stem-cell research, cloning, and homosexual ‘marriage’. And, if you’ll excuse my paraphrase, “the greatest of these is abortion”! Mr. Obama supports every last one of the 5 “life issues” we are to consider; Mr. McCain supports only one, and is “waffling” on that, the last I heard.

    You are quite right that God can make something for “our good and His glory” out of our mistakes and even our willful disobedience, even when it’s New Age.

  21. Thomas L. Young Avatar
    Thomas L. Young

    I believe that Dr. Page is right on; a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Barak Obama.

  22. kent4jmj Avatar
    kent4jmj

    It seems that the tide of opinion has turned to the argument stating that if we have only two choices between candidates that hold morally intrinsically evil positions then we are to vote for the lesser of the two.

    There is one glaring problem with this. We do not have only two choices. We are not locked in to Obama or McCain. No one is holding a gun to our heads saying we have to vote for one of these two and no one else. The ballot will have other options available. You do have a choice. Whether a third party could win is irrelevant. We have a choice and a chance to “oppose” a clear moral evil, to fight against it. The use of moral “expediency” in the arguments above is troubling. Would that we were guided exclusively by Principle.

  23. mkochan Avatar
    mkochan

    Kent, I disagree with you, but I think your position is a valid option for a Catholic to take in good conscience. I look at it this way: we have a moral duty to oppose the evil that Obama has already promised to perpetrate. While a vote for a third candidate opposes that evil, it does so more symbolically than practically. Since it also may end up having the opposite effect — that of helping him instead of restraining him — I cannot in good conscience take that kind of chance with the lives at stake. Believe me the attitude of “a pox on both their houses” toward the two major parties is certainly one I sympathize with, though.

  24. kent4jmj Avatar
    kent4jmj

    Mary I understand what you are saying as well as the posts above and I am really heartened by the fervent desire of all, that abortion would stop. At the same time I know in my heart that if all the people in this country who are who are dissatisfied with our choices for president, and that number is considerable, would just stop and change busses things would change immediately.

    There is a revolutionary spirit in the air and it is growing. The ground swell of protest against the bailouts is one sign of it. The stopping of the illegal amnesty movement earlier in the year was also a sign of it. When good people finally say enough of the madness, greed and complete moral bankruptcy of our elected officials, when they see that they are not alone in their disgust and that radical change is needed then we will get our country back.

    Ron Paul who was portrayed as tin foil hat kook is now on all the major stations explaining what is really going on. And his explanations are catching hold because they are true and backed up by at least twenty years of predictions about bubbles and the Federal Reserve.

    My passion for what I believe is a failed two party system is strong and so I fight as best I can hoping against hope that I will never have to say “I told ya so.” Thanks for posting my article. I am truly grateful for having been given the chance to share my beliefs on these matters. Again Thank You!

  25. mkochan Avatar
    mkochan

    Kent, THANK YOU for writing such a thoughful piece that engendered so much discussion. It is not my belief that as an editor I have to AGREE with everything we run — as long as it falls within what is allowed us in our Christian freedom as Catholics. I appreciate you making it possible for us to air a different point of view and I am very gratified with the elevated tone that our readers brought to this animated discussion.

Leave a Reply