Can Catholics Vote Libertarian?

[AMDG]

There is no way in heck I'm voting Republican.

Welcome to my miracle hoping world. Now just how can we save ourselves and remove evil King Ahab when every vote for a third party is a vote for the evil one.

 

[Needing_Grace]

Welcome to my miracle hoping world. Now just how can we save ourselves and remove evil King Ahab when every vote for a third party is a vote for the evil one.

That is illogical. It assumes that third party votes would have gone to abortion-profiteer Mitt Romney.

Sent from my iPhone using CF

 

[Vendetta]

Anyone that thinks for Romney is a good thing is just using the 'Anyone but . . . ' inane paradigm. That's how Neocon/closet-progressive sucker us in for voting craptastic Republicans like Nixon, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Cheney, McCain, etc.

Remember Republicans gave us Roe v. Wade and Abortion legalised in America. Don't trust them!

The Republicans are far-right and the Democrats are center-right. We're close to reaching a one party state on economics. We need a young politician (yes, a young one) who hasn't sold his soul to the Baby Boomers, and isn't a part of this faux partisan mire in which we find ourselves trapped.

 

[seekingfreedom]

The Republicans are far-right and the Democrats are center-right. We're close to reaching a one party state on economics. We need a young politician (yes, a young one) who hasn't sold his soul to the Baby Boomers, and isn't a part of this faux partisan mire in which we find ourselves trapped.

No worries...the stupid, old baby boomers will all be dead soon. Your generation will have it all figured out and the world will magically be a better place.

Divide, divide, divide..

 

[Virgil the Roman]

The Republicans aren't 'far right': if they were they would be overspending unto oblivion. They'd act and function more like Right-libertarians, Paleoconservatives, and Traditionalist Conservatives. Instead, they are nigh Right-wing Troskyites, i.e. 'Neo-cons'.

 

[Vendetta]

No worries...the stupid, old baby boomers will all be dead soon. Your generation will have it all figured out and the world will magically be a better place.

Divide, divide, divide..

What? No, we'll still be saddled with debt, and will never collect Medicare or Social Security.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Debt is destroying the dollar and will usher in a Second 'Great Depression'. We need to cut spending NOW. It cannot wait. Our country will find itself in serious tumult of terrible proportions if the Dollar collapses due to inflation and the Federal Reserve System destroying the value of our dollar.

 

[AMDG]

That is illogical. It assumes that third party votes would have gone to abortion-profiteer Mitt Romney.

I take it you have already read Brad Pitt's mother's letter advising anyone who is against abortion, and redefining marriage (instead of supporting it) and immorality to vote for Mitt Romney. She said that *any* voter staying home or voting third party is a vote for Obama. Looks like she may be right.

 

[Davidnic]

I take it you have already read Brad Pitt's mother's letter advising anyone who is against abortion, and redefining marriage (instead of supporting it) and immorality to vote for Mitt Romney. She said that *any* voter staying home or voting third party is a vote for Obama. Looks like she may be right.

Nah...instead of Brad Pitt's mom I usually read the Bishops who tell us that we should make a moral vote and not just accept an unjust alternative choice if we deem it insufficient morally. Since the Bishops are ok with a third party vote, as is the moral theology of the Church....I will go that way even if it opposes the magisterial authority of Brad Pitt's mother.

Catholics are free to cast any moral vote. And, since it needs to be clarified every election cycle, it is not immoral to vote for a third party rather than cast your vote for the best option to oppose an evil if that option has moral failings on their own.

The argument that vote for a third party is a vote for Obama is not one the Catholic Church makes or one that is supported by our moral theology concerning cooperation in evil.

Remember the story of Bel and the Dragon when she is approached by two elders who demand she sleep with them or they will witness against her that they saw her in fornication. She would not sleep with them and would rather be condemned by lies and be true to what she knew was right.

We can not mortgage our morality to what is wrong to stop what is wrong. I can not see how a vote for Obama can be justified as moral. Also with Romney there are issues that make that vote not possible, foremost his refusal to substantially renounce torture. So when you are faced with two intrinsic evils, you can not weigh them against each other. You can not support either. An argument can be made if it was intrinsic evil to a moral ambiguity or even something that is not intrinsic. But it seems so far that we have intrinsic evils on both sides.

So a third party is very valid because:

• A vote made in agreement with Catholic Moral Principles, Magisterial teaching on the specifics and a well formed conscience is always valid.

• It is an emotionally manipulative invalid moral argument, as well as opposed to Catholic Teaching, that in this instance that a vote not for someone is a vote for someone else.

• There are serious issues of intrinsic evils that make the above argument even less valid and also raise the same moral issues in relation the the vote trying to be coerced.

I am not commenting on Libertarian per se being the moral vote. But a third party can be argued as a very valid Catholic option. To argue otherwise is a political and not a theological argument. It is on the same moral ground to say that a vote for Obama is valid because of how it supports the option for the poor in Catholic theology. That is also an invalid argument because of the support of intrinsic evil. An intrinsic evil can not be weighed against other evils as prudential judgement. So it is not a matter of math, but morality.

So both those arguments are morally insufficient.

 

[AMDG]

I guess I'm commenting on survival.

BTW, don't think Obama has really renounced torture--at least not in rendition. Pretty sure the program is still going strong. He just does a real good job at distraction, "sleight of hand", and pretty speeches. He fools us. He then does a neat job of "torturing" U.S. citizens in some of his adverse policies (tell me that forcing people to choose between the love of their children or becoming destitute, as ObamaTAX will do, isn't torturous; tell me that promising Hispanics the moon only to snatch it away because there's no permanent solution isn't torturous to them; tell me that destroying the Catholic mission (and Catholics) isn't torturous to them; tell me that unborn babies aren't being tortured by the abortion procedure that Obama loves; tell me that being unable to provide for one's family because he has no job isn't torturous to him; and more.


Just hope that Obama doesn't get a second chance to destroy *all morality* and our very country because of this. You saw that ad on move.on.org of that girl slapping her hands happily saying that if Obama get's another term it's "Game on". She's right you know. Obama will not be restrained by the people (as if he ever was)--he can do *anything* then and the Bishops will watch sadly as he targets Catholics once for all and makes that declaration from one Bishop that he fully expects that his successor will die in jail and his successor to be martyred come true.

I think Boehner is right. This election is going to be a referendum on the Obama policies, restoring the country, bringing back fiscal responsibity and jobs, and stopping gridlock. We aren't being asked to *become* LDS. We are being asked to choose a leader who has experience, has actually turned things around and saved businesses, will actually lead, believes in Christian values of family and morality and is anti-abortion. Nothing more.

Besides, why do you want to help Obama lie once again? I mean he *said* that if he doesn't fix the economy in three years, he'll be a one term president. Help him keep his word. For Pete's sake. We *know* he has a problem with that. Afterall he said "not one thin dime in taxes" and right now we know that he duped us.

And in the respect that libertarians tend to be "limited government" types, and "stand on your own feet" and "we can do it ourselves" types, I think that they are about the U.S. ideal. Have a funny feeling that more U.S. people than want to admit it have some libertarian leanings. It's *not* synomous with *having no morals"--I think that may go to the Progressives (which seem to have taken over the Dems of today.)

 

[Davidnic]

Here are the parts of your post that are logical fallacies

I guess I'm commenting on survival.

Appeal to Emotion

The logic of the Church and Her moral teachings are survival. So to say you are commenting on survival and not (I would assume) on morality is to say the Teachings of the Church are not practical or relevant in the world. I was commenting on morality and theology as the Church teaches. You return with saying that you are commenting on survival. Are you saying that the moral teaching of the Church are impractical and not in line with what we need to do to survive. That would be the Relativistic fallacy.

BTW, don't think Obama has really renounced torture--at least not in rendition. Pretty sure the program is still going strong. He just does a real good job at distraction, "sleight of hand", and pretty speeches. He fools us.

Two Wrongs Make a Right

Intrinsic evils are not measured like points. Candidate X believes in 3 and candidate Y believes in 2 so it is moral to vote for Candidate Y. Does not work that way. If you think that I can give you a disturbing illustration of that line of thought that would falsely justify a democratic vote for Hitler. Since no sane person would argue that vote would be moral..it should be obvious that this line of reasoning is wrong.

He then does a neat job of "torturing" U.S. citizens in some of his adverse policies

Appeal to Emotion
Misleading vividness

(tell me that forcing people to choose between the love of their children or becoming destitute, as ObamaTAX will do, isn't torturous;

Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Emotion
Misleading vividness

Same three fallacies are used to oppose the Church on Contraception. "The Church is making people choose between the love of their children and having more and becoming destitute." It is wrong there and it is wrong when you use the three fallacies in this way.

tell me that promising Hispanics the moon only to snatch it away because there's no permanent solution isn't torturous to them;

Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Emotion
Misleading vividness

Bringing up Hispanics when the Republican Immigration position is so vastly at odds with Catholic Social Justice is also ironic as well as the above fallacies. Not that that justifies the manipulation game Obama is playing...but it is funny.

tell me that destroying the Catholic mission (and Catholics) isn't torturous to them;

Appeal to Fear
Appeal to Emotion
Misleading vividness
Implied Guilt by Association

No matter what his policies it does not make a vote for someone with other immoral polices valid. Leaving a third party vote a viable moral option.

No doubt he is attacking many aspects of the Catholic faith and religious freedom in general. But that does not require a vote for Romney. Other moral alternatives of opposition are morally viable.

tell me that unborn babies aren't being tortured by the abortion procedure;

Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Emotion
Implied Theological Guilt by Association


No matter what his policies it does not make a vote for someone with other immoral polices valid. Leaving a third party vote a viable moral option. Also implying that Catholic will be participating in that by not voting for Romney. There is no way a vote for a third party constitutes Direct or Remote Material Cooperation in sin. Leaving the third party vote a moral option.

tell me that being unable to provide for one's family because he has no job isn't torturous to him; and more.

Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Emotion
Misleading vividness

No matter what his policies it does not make a vote for someone with other immoral polices valid. Leaving a third party vote a viable moral option.

Just hope that Obama doesn't get a second chance to destroy *all morality* and our very country because of this.

Appeal to Fear
Appeal to Emotion
Guilt by Association

Presentation the discussion as if it is the end of days should he be reelected. Or that all morality will be destroyed so the intrinsic moral failings of the other vote should be ignored. Ironically the same set of fallacies and line of argument used by liberals to justify the Obama vote.

We aren't being asked to *become* LDS. We are being asked to choose a leader who has experience, has actually turned things around and saved businesses, will actually lead, believes in Christian values of family and morality and is anti-abortion. Nothing more.

Appeal to fear
Misunderstanding cause and effect

No one said we were asked to become LDS this is an implication that people are afraid we will become LDS to vote for him.

]Besides, why do you want to help Obama lie once again?

Appeal to Spite
Guilt by Association

That the man is a liar is not up to me to correct. He lies and people should not vote for him. But that does not change that it is moral to vote for a third party. A vote for a third party, morally allowed by the Church as an option, is not an aid to Obama lying.

Your line of reasoning and fallacies for a vote are the exact same as the Liberal ones..just different words and issues...but the same justifications and fallacies.

A third party vote is a moral option. Nothing is going to change that barring a massive revelation that changes the moral landscape.

Even if Romney supported no intrinsic evils it would only be prudentially wise to vote for him, not morally necessary. Trying to change morality to suit political opinion is wrong.

Even when prudentially wise it must be considered what his actual pro-life commitment is and if that meets the moral benchmark as judged by a well formed conscience in union with Church teaching.

Now none of this says a vote for Obama is moral. I can, in no way, see a moral Catholic vote for someone so aggressive in pushing abortion rights. But that does not mandate a vote must be for Romney.

You keep addressing this as if a vote for a third party is a vote for Obama. That the only way to oppose him is to buy into the same limited need to choose the unjust alternative choice logic that created the issue to begin with. If someone believes that aboriton continues, greatly in part, due to the two party system when each one locks up votes by not changing hot button issues because it will lose them voters...then they can freely, morally, honestly and keeping with Church teaching on what we must do...reject your reasoning.

 

[AMDG]

Fear? You are darned right I'm scared stiff! And I have a sneaking suspicion that you should be too. You've already noted that your own premiums have gone up. And I'm sure you too have heard the Bishop's "my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr." You see what's happening around you. This may be our last chance to stop it.

Appeal to emotion? Yes. Of course, you have said yourself that the Bishops' appeal is also to emotion and you say that is fine. Why do you think my appeal to emotion disregards the Bishops?

Misleading vividness? Is it? Or is it just vividness in pointing out a truth?

Appeal to pity? Well yes, *someone* needs to take pity on the people. (I would think that it would be God Himself, but *we* have already "kicked" Him out of our public institutions--our public lives. Why do you think He will come and have pity on us when *we*, as a nation, have turned away from Him?)

Guilt by association? No. The action was done and it was Obama's choice.

Misunderstanding cause and effect. No. We are *not* being asked to become LDS. (I myself, would shrink from that as I could not live one second without the Eucharist.) We are only being asked to chose a leader who has demonstrated experience (there is no religious litmus test in the Constitution). The fact is, one person holds and shows greater respect for morality than the other choice. (Read the LDS Articles of Faith and see if that isn't true. There are several that seem to address this situation.)

Appeal to spite. No there too. I am not judging Obama a liar. He has done it to himself. He told folks "vote for me because I will not raise your taxes one thin dime". Obama then had his solicitor general argue before the Supreme Court that the ACA was legal because of the taxing ability of the U.S. government. The ACA was then declared a TAX by the Supreme Court and therefore legal. Obama has chosen to TAX people more than "one thin dime". The Supreme Court ruling makes Obama a liar. (Argue with the Supreme Court about that but I don't think it will do any good.)

And Obama said himself that if the economy is not fixed in three years, he will be a one term president. Look around you. The economy fixed yet? Looks to me as still tanking--and thanks in part to ObamaTAX, it will only get worse. But Obama is running for a second term. Sounds like Obama does need help to keep his word.

No, a vote for a third party is not morally objectional...normally. However in *this* coming election when every vote for a third party can be seen as a vote *for* Obama, well... If we continue to have the destructiveness of ObamaTAX (when all we need to repeal it is 4 more votes in the Senate, holding on to House, and a Obama failing to win the election) we have only ourselves to blame. If there continues to be no jobs in the economy because we chose inexperience over a businessman who has actually saved businesses then we too only have ourselves to blame.)

And it must be remembered that luckily for us this time, we can actually vote the non-negotiables of our Catholic Faith and *still* vote in the two party system and not have to go to a third party in order to address them. The choice has been made very stark this time.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Vote Green Party.

I always do in local elections and when I'm sure the my vote isn't going to effect the outcome the electoral college.

(Minnesota is solidly blue and hasn't been in play, like, forever - Reagan NEVER took Minnesota)

 

[MKJ]

Vote Green Party.

I always do in local elections and when I'm sure the my vote isn't going to effect the outcome the electoral college.

(Minnesota is solidly blue and hasn't been in play, like, forever - Reagan NEVER took Minnesota)

If your Greens are anything like the ones here, they come closest to Catholic and Christian perspective than the other parties at the most basic level. They are by far the closest to a Distributist approach.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

If your Greens are anything like the ones here, they come closest to Catholic and Christian perspective than the other parties at the most basic level. They are by far the closest to a Distributist approach.

They look close.

 

[Davidnic]

No, a vote for a third party is not morally objectional...normally. However in *this* coming election when every vote for a third party can be seen as a vote *for* Obama

Your opinion. Which would, as illustrated, be incorrect. I believe the same thing was said last time. A vote for a third party was a vote for Obama.

No, a vote for Obama is a vote for Obama. A vote for a third party is a vote for a third party.

And you might want to examine the statement: "No, a vote for a third party is not morally objectional...normally."

You are pretty close to moral relativism there. Your personal assessment of political reality color by political opinion does not change the objective moral nature of an act. It may change your personal view of it in your own prudential judgement of your own vote. But it does not change the nature of the act. Circumstance can not change the good or evil of an act, it can only increase or diminish the bad or good nature of the objective act itself. So actually the statement should end at: "No, a vote for a third party is not morally objectional." Because the only thing that can change it would be an intrinsic evil in the third party (Changing the objective act) or evil intention in the vote (Changing the intention)..such as to intentionally further abortion. But there are three components to a moral act: Object, Intention and Circumstance. And circumstance can not change the good or evil of an act...only object or circumstance can.


A third party vote, unless something radically changes, is moral for a Catholic in the presidential election of 2012. Our Bishops do not say otherwise. They oppose many of Obama's policies but they have not, and will not, say that a vote for a third party is a material cooperation in sin and therefor immoral. And that is what they would have to say if you are to be right. It is possible a Bishop may voice that as private opinion. But I would be very shocked to see there be a Magisterial statement that agrees with your assessment since it would be very much against Catholic Moral Theology unless some game changing massive revelation happened between now and November.

So no matter your arguments...a third party vote is still a moral option for Catholics.

 

[AMDG]

If Obama gets a majority of the electoral votes, whether or not he actually get's the votes or a third party splits the votes between several "third" parties, write-in votes (as a once election officer, I've seen angry folks even write in "Mickey Mouse" *and* I know that even these are counted) or Romney, he wins the election.

Go back and review the Bishops' ad about the "Test of Fire" and the non-negotiables the ad mentions--life, marriage, freedom. The Candidate, Obama, fails on every non-negotiable. He is against life--for abortion, wants babies that happen to survive one to die, and as ObamaTAX notes, puts a target on the elderly for rationing and euthanasia. (I'm one and "assisted suicide" is legal in my state, so I'm really, really scared.) ObamaTAX has that cap for special needs children which will effectively deny them some of the care they need too (and just might help convince parents to "do away" with the baby in the womb, so that they won't come under that and save money in the bargain. (That Independent Payment Board is suppose to cost costs...) Now to the second Bishops' non-negotiable, marriage. Obama wants to redefine it into something it is not. He wants to make a mockery of it. He already has decided on his own to not defend DOMA. Now for the third of the Bishops' non-negotiables freedom, or shall we say religious freedom. Obama has already attacked that. What more can he do when he has a free rein?

You say that last election it was the same. Well I disagree. Yes there were some Bishops that saw what the danger was and tried to warn, but most liberals said that the warning was not from the entire group of Bishops and were successful in getting even the Hispanics to ignore the warning. Well now it is a warning of the *Bishops*, and the Black Preachers. The Bishops have come out with the non-negotiables of Life, Marriage, and Freedom. All else are second-tier concerns.

The Bishops say that Catholics can make a difference in this election *IF* they vote the non-negotiables. If Obama wins, the non-negotiables are "toast" and no other Catholic concern matters. And at least the LDS will respect other religions (as seen by #11 of the LDS Articles of Faith.) But of course, the religion of a candidate should *not* be an issue of the election--or at least that's what the Constitution indicates. (And it certainly didn't matter to the media last election--the media didn't make a big thing about Obama sitting 20 years in the pews soaking up the beliefs of Black Liberation Theology--which is totally against Catholic teaching and the late Pope John Paul II, who is well on his way to sainthood, spoke against it.)

 

[Davidnic]

Never said you could vote for Obama morally. Just that Catholic Moral theology and the Bishops do not say, as you do, that a vote for a third party is a vote for Obama.

Voting the Non-negotiable issues indeed makes it morally impossible to vote for Obama, but it does not morally require someone to vote for Romney. Nothing you said or can say will make that a Catholic position. It is your political view.

You can vote for life, marriage and freedom with a third party. You can also make the argument that although Romney is better than a vote for Obama it is not the best vote to make since there are other options.

Why focus on telling Catholic not to vote their conscience in union with the teachings of the Church and to compromise their values? Why not focus on telling them not to vote in a manner that is immoral, no matter who that is for?

So what is the logic of those who say a Catholic must vote for Romney but only focuses on guilting faithful Catholic to betray their consciences?

Is it because it is easier to guilt and scare a conservative or moderate Catholic than to take the time to change the heart of one who will make a vote that supports abortion and opposes religious freedom?

So rather than hold our values as something we will not compromise we are supposed to compromise them because the other end of the spectrum already has? Really?

 

[Davidnic]

You say that last election it was the same. Well I disagree.

Actually, I said I believe the same stuff was said last time. And it was, by you. I can provide the links.

In 2008 you said voting for a third party was a wasted vote and a vote for intrinsic evil. You referred the bishops in misunderstanding of their instruction then as well as now.

 

[AMDG]

Davidnic, I never said that the Bishops said that we must vote for Romney. I just said that Obama will win if the votes are split into various third parties or between write-ins. (Sad, but true. It's happened before in an election. A third party with Ross Perot split the votes and by doing so allowed the opposite party candidate to win the election.) Sooo if Obama (and his horrid immoral and definitely anti-Catholic policies) are to be defeated, we can't have a repeat performance.

Of course Obama could miraculously becomes Catholic, stop his attack on the Catholic non-negotiables, and even repeal the evil ObamaTAX and replace it with something that actually works. The nation would *love* him and he would secure his place in the hearts of the citizens. Of course that's as likely to happen as a third party winning the election and unseating Obama.

BTW I really, really liked Santorum or even Gov. Perry and was really really saddened that the choice was not either, but as my husband noted, "we are *not* being asked to become LDS. We are just asked to vote the non-negotiables." Patriotism insists that we vote for the most experienced *leader* and one that likes the country. Concern for our fellow man dictates that the *leader* we vote for has experience in saving failed business and will restore the U.S. and will repeal and replace the bad law of ObamaTAX. That *we* have to repeal ObamaTAX was told to us by Supreme Court Justice Roberts (and we know if *we* are to do it, we must insure that "not one thin dime" Obama will *have* to go. We will *have* to hold on to the House and win only four more seats in the Senate.