The prickly Catholic vote ["bargaining with evil" vs "sitting the election out"]

In the days immediately following Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, the Catholic blogosphere was all abuzz with excitement, but it was also filled with a lot of hand-wringing over the Wisconsin congressman's alleged attachment to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Now, I'm not talking about liberals in Catholic clothing like James Salt of Catholics United and other likeminded posers who are engaged in a two-front war against both Jesus Christ and capitalism; rather, I'm referring to otherwise sensible commentators who sincerely love the Lord and His Church.

Over the last couple of weeks, speculation about Paul Ryan's Catholic bona fides seems to have died down. Perhaps this is due, at least in part, to the sobering sense of perspective provided by Cardinal Timothy Dolan who suggested in a recent interview that Joe Biden's self-proclaimed devotion to the Catholic faith (for which precious little evidence exists) is a cause for celebration in the Catholic community.

I mean, think about it — if Joe Biden has any reasonable claim to the name "Catholic" then surely it's more appropriate to chant Santo Subito in Paul Ryan's general direction than it is to question his commitment to the Faith!

In any event, far more troubling than the Ryan doubters are those respectable Catholic voices that are suggesting that it may be more morally responsible to sit this election out than to cast a vote for "the lesser evil" Mitt Romney.

As for how much less evil Romney represents, there seems to be more than a little confusion on this point. I have no interest in giving a point-by-point overview of Romney's positions as compared to those he is alleged to hold; one need only visit the candidate's website to find that out. Those who do will also discover that Romney, like every other candidate that ever ran for office, is not perfect, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

While I agree that there is a systemic problem evident in American politics, the "stay at home" proponents have misdiagnosed the core malignancy: The sad reality is that bargaining with evil isn't primarily a Republican problem; it's a Catholic problem.

Remember; it was only some thirty months ago that the USCCB was eager and willing to hand over the keys to the U.S. healthcare system to a homicidal maniac save for a few empty promises (read, compromises).

This isn't the situation in America alone; rather, a willingness to compromise with evil in order to get along with the power brokers of the world is a problem throughout the entire Church — from the people in the pews in San Francisco all the way up to the red hats in the Holy See. (Which reminds me, requiem in pace, Cardinal Martini.)

Prelates who are at odds with the teachings of the Church, I'm afraid, are just the tip of the iceberg.

You see, with the promulgation of the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae in 1965, the Catholic Church officially adopted a pluralistic approach to religious freedom, the inspiration for which was drawn in large measure from the U.S. Constitution. As a result, rather than calling up on the State (as once they did) to recognize the Social Kingship of Christ and the exclusive rights of the Catholic Church, our prelates now ask for nothing more than a place at the table; behaving as if the Law that comes to us from Truth incarnate is of no more consideration than the lies being proffered by the false gods and idols of the heathens and heretics. That, my friends, is the mother of all compromises!

[I've written at length about religious liberty post-Vatican II in the past. Those unfamiliar with this very important topic would do well to explore it more deeply.]

It's only right for faithful Catholics to desire a politician who is willing to proclaim the whole truth without compromise; i.e., a statesman who not only resembles Christ the King, but is willing to proclaim Him. (That is, after all, the whole truth, isn't it?) I get it. Let's be realistic though; this simply is not going to happen in a world where even the Bride of Christ doesn't dare hint at the Sovereign rights of Her divine Spouse in the public square.

To put it another way, what these good people are longing for is a candidate who is arguably more Catholic than the pope! Hey, I do too, but it's a pipe dream to believe that sitting this election out (and let's be honest, paving the road for the Evil One's candidate of choice in the process) is going to make that happen.

That said, let's assume that abstaining from this election will in fact bring us closer to a political party of unassailable morality and a candidate to match. Ask yourself, if this was a present reality today, does anyone in their right mind really believe that the electorate at large would embrace it?

No, of course not! Such a movement would undoubtedly wither and die before it ever has a chance to blossom for the simple reason that the Church hasn't sufficiently fertilized the fields in many decades. How much more will this be the case after four more years of State imposed immorality? Heck, at that point a Christ-like candidate might reasonably expect to be imprisoned or worse!

Perhaps the most glaring oversight in the idea of voter abstinence as a vehicle for positive moral change is that it fails to account for the fact that evil most often takes hold of man and society incrementally, and even more importantly, the same can be said for God's grace.

Look, there's none among us who would neglect to seize an opportunity to aid a friend in ridding himself of an attachment to serious sin, even if only incrementally if that's the best he could do, in favor of keeping silent until he descends to rock bottom whence a glimmer of hope for a more complete conversion of heart might exist.

The very proposition sounds silly, doesn't it? Well, make no mistake, the same principle applies in the way we treat the upcoming election. Embracing the opportunity to cast a vote that positively addresses the evil in our midst (not to mention the increase in evil that is promised) even if only by degree is a vote for the good; it is not in any way a vote in favor of the evil that remains.

On the other hand, abstaining from the process altogether, no matter how well-intentioned it may be, is a calculated risk that is so unworthy of serious consideration based on the grave circumstances in which we find ourselves today (wherein the spread of evil in society is quickly approaching critical mass) that it is indefensible from the standpoint of reason alone.

I can understand how appealing waiting in joyful hope for the coming of a candidate who resembles our Lord Jesus Christ might be, but it simply isn't logical.

To start with, Catholics need to recognize that America still represents a new paradigm to Earthly government, and that the church will be most satisfied by embracing this paradigm instead of trying to hold onto a old, failed order. That is, in European history, the church adapted to the feudal concept, that there is an elite, hereditary nobility that rules over a much larger peasantry. Unfortunately, the nobility, to assure its power, adopted a philosophy:
“The hereditary nobility is the nobility because they are predetermined by heaven to be nobles; just as the peasants were predetermined to be peasants. And since the nobility is sanctioned by heaven, their laws are *also* sanctioned by heaven. So if you disagree with their laws, you are opposing heaven as well”....
....In any event, the Catholic church in many ways is still hung up with the idea of embracing the Catholic nobility, which in the US are absolute scum, like the Kennedy family. Those “real” Catholics in power, who are ethical, are careful not to create the impression that they are beholden to the church, or will grant the church special favors, but only that they will behave in a “moral” manner, to the teachings of the church....

....in the final analysis, in future the church should embrace good Catholics, who as men want to write the laws of other men; as opposed to “social Catholics”, who cling to wealth and power by virtue of heredity and assumed elitism, despising the important values of the church, yet parading their Catholicism like harlots on street corners.

Thanks for posting this!

Your reply is predictable and a standard willardite talking point. Selecting the lesser evil is still selecting evil. All the moreso when there are other candidates running on second party tickets who aren’t pro abortion.

How much of the blood of the innocents is a “fair” price to pay so we can elect someone with an “R” after their name?

How many abortions are acceptable to you as a “compromise.” Let’s not talk in platitudes. Let’s pick a number. Is it 10,000? 100,000? A few million?
______________________________________________________________

I’m sorry your argument can too easily be turned around.

First, as of now there are millions of abortions, likely every year. The president on his own can do nothing about that, he can only sign a bill that then becomes law. If Obama care is killed at least we won’t be paying for abortions. In my opinion reducing by 1 abortion, that is saving even one human life, is an accomplishment. I am working to save at least one, not throw a tantrum and turn my head and watch millions die.

Second, Obama supports more than abortion, he supports infantcide. We have to remove him and install something better.

Third, how much blood of the innocents is a fair price to pay for your desire to only elect someone who is perfect. You have never voted for someone who is perfect. Possibly you have voted for someone who is perfect in one or a few areas but there are no perfect people, all of us are sinners. Any sin is a perversion to God. Any sin adds to the paiun of The Savior. So sit there in your ivory tower and not vote because there are no perfect candidates. I will hold my nose and happily vote for something better than Obama. Actually the more I learn about Romney the less I think I will have to hold my nose. He appears to be a good man, something rare in politics. I think that is why he chose Ryan, because he saw that he too was a good man.

But since you seem to think that selecting the lesser pro-abortion candidate is a morally laudable act… let’s put some numbers to it. How many abortions are acceptable to you as a “compromise.” Let’s not talk in platitudes. Let’s pick a number. Is it 10,000? 100,000? A few million?

My number of abortions would be zero, but what exactly can a President do to affect that? Did abortion numbers go up or down during the eight years of Clinton? Up or down during the eight years of Bush? Up or down during the past four years of Obama?

I do not take this topic lightly, but I am not going to place my decision in President based solely on this topic because history has shown that Congress and SCOTUS will not act and these are the two entities that need to act, not President.

This is NOT a "two evils" election. This is not to elect someone with an "R" after their name. This is an election to get OBAMA OUT! And if you do not see the potential evils of another four years of Obama, I'm sorry.

The founding fathers were aware of the paradox.

They were well of the fact that the heavenly laws you obey can be extremely different from the heavenly laws your neighbor (a Muslim) obeys, as well as those of the guy down the block (a Hindu).

At the time religions weren’t so diverse in the US, but still, various Christian sects often bitterly fought and tried to suppress each other.

This was a great reason to create an inviolable Bill of Rights that everybody had to follow, but at the same time the law, *as long as it did not conflict with the Bill of Rights*, should generally conform to the desires of the majority.

They even included agnosticism and secularism into the mix, as well as busting up the creation of the law at several levels, both within the federal government, and between the federal and state governments.

The two examples you cite both “broke the rules” to evade the constitution. Roe v. Wade was purely legislating from the bench, putting the desire of the majority (at the time) above the rules.

And gay marriage is popular nowhere, being forced through by corrupt state legislature and judges.

But if you compare these aberrations to the vast amount of good law that has been created in over 200 years, it is clear that they had the right idea, which goes back to my point of ethics vs. morality.

Morality is created by heaven and interpreted by religious people, but it is not universal. You would find it loathsome to be ruled over by someone else’s morality (such as your examples, again, whose proponents insist are both morally demanded).

But ethics, the law promulgated by the people, that goes through the meat grinder of the legislative process, may result in a law you don’t particularly care for, but it will not terribly oppress you or deny you your rights.

And, unlike someone else’s morality, the written ethical law can be changed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.