This priest’s 1952 doctoral thesis shows why it is better to vote for the lesser evil

[Michie]

Fr. Thomas Cranny submitted his doctoral dissertation 'The Moral Obligation of Voting' to Catholic University of America in 1952, and it includes a chapter on 'conditions under which one may vote for unworthy candidates.'

Continued below.

This priest's 1952 doctoral thesis shows why it is better to vote for the lesser evil - LifeSite

Fr. Titus Cranny submitted his doctoral dissertation 'The Moral Obligation of Voting' to Catholic University of America in 1952, and it includes a chapter on 'conditions under which one may vote for unworthy candidates.'

www.lifesitenews.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

Fr. Thomas Cranny submitted his doctoral dissertation 'The Moral Obligation of Voting' to Catholic University of America in 1952, and it includes a chapter on 'conditions under which one may vote for unworthy candidates.'

Continued below.

This priest's 1952 doctoral thesis shows why it is better to vote for the lesser evil - LifeSite

Fr. Titus Cranny submitted his doctoral dissertation 'The Moral Obligation of Voting' to Catholic University of America in 1952, and it includes a chapter on 'conditions under which one may vote for unworthy candidates.'

www.lifesitenews.com

I couldn't resist a reply.

The scenario here is between bad candidate B and even worse candidate A. No other options other than not voting at all, at least as proposed in the article about the doctoral thesis. I have three theology degree doctoral theses on my bookshelf and they are all excellent works, but, sadly I have nothing at all by this author. So I don't know if he looked at the morality of voting for a write in candidate. So, from the article, A or B. In that scenario we should all be voting for B. You can vote for B to stop candidate A. In that one scenario.

But in a scenario where A (really bad) and B (almost as bad) and C (not bad but not polling well) are candidates, a scenario not mentioned in the article as far as I could find, I think we have a duty to vote for the least worst candidate. IMHO if A wins, it is not at all my fault. It IS the fault of people who voted for A. I have not cooperated with evil in not voting effectively against A. I have not formally or even remotely cooperated in evil. I have, in fact opposed evil. But if B wins, and I voted for B to stop A, I would have at least remotely cooperated in the evil of electing B. The solution is to vote for C. Those who vote for A or for B are morally complicit in who they have voted for. That can't be helped.

Going back to pre-election preparation for a messy election aftermath. Pantry stocked, cars gassed up, ready to hunker down. On Tuesday I work as an election judge in my precinct. My vote for Peter Sonski and Lauren Onak will be lost in the noise. Oh well. America will have spoken. We will get the government we deserve.