"Voting With a Clear Conscience"

[zab]

In reading Fr. Frank Pavone's guidance to voter's, it is clear that he is directing voters to "limit evil" rather than to vote for a third candidate who does have the right position. I understand his explanation that this is "morally acceptable." What I do not understand about his guidance is that he implies that it is not morally acceptable to vote for the other candidate who best represents the teachings of the Catholic Church because it seems that this candidate has little chance of winning. He has written elsewhere on this subject charging these voters with "What I have failed to do." We could ask the same of Fr. Pavone and other faithful Catholics and people of God why they failed to support the best candidate early in his campaign when there was more chance of building support. How is it that Fr. Pavone can judge the conscience of another?

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by zab

In reading Fr. Frank Pavone's guidance to voter's, it is clear that he is directing voters to "limit evil" rather than to vote for a third candidate who does have the right position. I understand his explanation that this is "morally acceptable." What I do not understand about his guidance is that he implies that it is not morally acceptable to vote for the other candidate who best represents the teachings of the Catholic Church because it seems that this candidate has little chance of winning. He has written elsewhere on this subject charging these voters with "What I have failed to do." We could ask the same of Fr. Pavone and other faithful Catholics and people of God why they failed to support the best candidate early in his campaign when there was more chance of building support. How is it that Fr. Pavone can judge the conscience of another?

Link please?

[zab]

Originally Posted by rlg94086

Link please?

Voting With A Clear Conscience by Fr. Frank Pavone

and

"For What I Have Failed To Do...Fr. Pavone On The Election"

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by zab

Voting With A Clear Conscience by Fr. Frank Pavone

Okay...

But by your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it's not the best strategy. But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer -- in the case described above -- is yes.

Cardinal John O’Connor, in a special booklet on abortion, once wrote about this problem, “Suppose all candidates support ‘abortion rights’? … One could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position. If all candidates support "abortion rights" equally, one might vote for the candidate who seems best in regard to other issues” (1990, “Abortion: Questions and Answers”).

In this context, the question also arises as to whether one is required to vote for a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position. The answer is, no, you are not required to vote for this candidate. The reason is that your vote is not a canonization of a candidate. It is a transfer of power. You have to look concretely at where the power is really going to be transferred, and use your vote not to make a statement but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.

Of course, our conscience may be telling us, “Don’t say it’s impossible to elect the candidate who doesn’t have a strong base of support.” Of course, it is possible to elect almost anyone if the necessary work is done within the necessary time. God doesn’t ask us to base our choices on “the possibility of miracles,” but rather on solid human reason. The point is that if there’s a relatively unknown but excellent candidate, the time to begin building up support for that person’s candidacy is several years before the election, not several months. What you have to ask as Election Day draws near is whether your vote is needed to keep the worse candidate (of the two, less acceptable but more realistic choices) out of office.

Fr. Pavone is speaking about whether choosing the better of the two major candidates is a moral choice or whether we are required to vote for a third party candidate instead. The answer is "no," we are not required to vote third party. This does not mean that choosing a third party candidate is immoral...just imprudent (my judgment and words, not Fr. Pavone's). I believe this is in response to the people who incorrectly state (not imply) that voting for a more perfect third party or not voting are the only moral choices.

Originally Posted by zab

"For What I Have Failed To Do...Fr. Pavone On The Election"

Again, I don't see where he implies that a third party vote is not morally acceptable. He explains his reasoning for the pragmatism of supporting the better of the two major candidates. He also explains that we should do the work to build up good pro-life candidates ("this takes years") and support them in the primaries. Once the general election comes, we have to make the best choice. In Fr. Pavone's opinion...and mine, you should look at the reality of election results and place your vote for the best major party candidate, rather than help to elect the worst major party candidate - from a life perspective.

[zab]

I don't have a problem with Fr. Pavone reminding people of their responsibility to vote. I just have a problem with the last paragraph:
"Then the general election season arrives, and we may find that we don’t like any of the names on the ballot. At that point, we have to shift our thinking and focus on “better” rather than “best.” The reality usually is that one of several unsatisfactory candidates will in fact be elected. So we use our vote to create the better outcome and to limit the damage. That’s the shift that some fail to make.

And we are still responsible for what we fail to do."

It seems like he is saying here that if I do not vote for the better of two not so good leading candidates, even though I support a candidate that best represents the teachings of the Catholic Church, then I have failed to vote responsibly.

[zab]

All of the above quotes I believe were appropriate for previous elections. But this election has been like none other. We have a candidate that came upon the scene in time to draw support from pro-life leaders particularly Catholic pro-life leaders and many of the failed to give an encouraging word of support for this candidate. They were in part responsible for the outcome of this election as well. Because many many people were searching for guidance on whom they as good people of God should support.

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by zab

I don't have a problem with Fr. Pavone reminding people of their responsibility to vote. I just have a problem with the last paragraph:
"Then the general election season arrives, and we may find that we don’t like any of the names on the ballot. At that point, we have to shift our thinking and focus on “better” rather than “best.” The reality usually is that one of several unsatisfactory candidates will in fact be elected. So we use our vote to create the better outcome and to limit the damage. That’s the shift that some fail to make.

And we are still responsible for what we fail to do."

It seems like he is saying here that if I do not vote for the better of two not so good leading candidates, even though I support a candidate that best represents the teachings of the Catholic Church, then I have failed to vote responsibly.

Again, Fr. Pavone is not saying that the choice is immoral...just that the worst candidate may be elected because you chose to support a candidate who won't be elected due to the constraints of our election system and reality. You do have some responsibility for the choices you make, therefore you would have to take partial responsibility for helping to elect the worst candidate. He believes that "God doesn’t ask us to base our choices on 'the possibility of miracles,' but rather on solid human reason."

[zab]

Originally Posted by rlg94086

Again, Fr. Pavone is not saying that the choice is immoral...just that the worst candidate may be elected because you chose to support a candidate who won't be elected due to the constraints of our election system and reality. You do have some responsibility for the choices you make, therefore you would have to take partial responsibility for helping to elect the worst candidate. He believes that "God doesn’t ask us to base our choices on 'the possibility of miracles,' but rather on solid human reason."

You are not the one to judge. I can say that you have to take responsibility for not supporting the clear pro-life conservative from the beginning, not letting it get to this point.

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by zab

You are not the one to judge. I can say that you have to take responsibility for not supporting the clear pro-life conservative from the beginning, not letting it get to this point.

Um...no...you can't say that, as I did support a "clear pro-life conservative" in the primaries.

[zab]

Originally Posted by rlg94086

Um...no...you can't say that, as I did support a "clear pro-life conservative" in the primaries.

Aren't you breaking board rules by shouting? There is no need for that.

[Biggie]

I agree completely with Fr. Pavone's assessment, Robert's summary of it above and with his conclusion as well.

It is clear that the Catholic vote is desperately sought by the anti-life party in this election, hence the selection for VP. If that vote cannot be mastered, then the next best alternative would be for the Catholic vote to be nullified by a wasted third party vote or by a no-vote. Their concern is justified. A solid pro-life Catholic vote would be determining.

The knowledge that a solid pro-life Catholic vote would win out is painful enough considering the percentage of that vote that is cast anti-life. Those committed to vote pro-life should not suffer confusion as to how that vote is most effectively cast.

[zab]

Biggie,
I have no problem with people holding the views that you and Robert and Fr. Pavone hold as long as you don't start blameing the wrong people for a possible loss of the election. I am a person with high morals who supports a candidate with high morals. He makes sense.

[CatsAndDogs]

Originally Posted by zab

I don't have a problem with Fr. Pavone reminding people of their responsibility to vote. I just have a problem with the last paragraph:
"Then the general election season arrives, and we may find that we don’t like any of the names on the ballot. At that point, we have to shift our thinking and focus on “better” rather than “best.” The reality usually is that one of several unsatisfactory candidates will in fact be elected. So we use our vote to create the better outcome and to limit the damage. That’s the shift that some fail to make.

And we are still responsible for what we fail to do."

It seems like he is saying here that if I do not vote for the better of two not so good leading candidates, even though I support a candidate that best represents the teachings of the Catholic Church, then I have failed to vote responsibly.

It's a matter of humility (and what isn't!).

What is your goal? To vote for a candidate (of your personal liking), or to affect pro-life policy?

You surely aren't solely intersted in trying to make a veritably impossible thing happen, over affecting pro-life policy, are you?

You may use your "free will" as you will (d'uh!), but as soldiers in the ranks of an army direct their "fire" toward where the enemy is MOST LIKELY to come from, we ARE in fact being irresponsible with our little "rifle" if we choose to shoot where the enemy isn't.

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by zab

Aren't you breaking board rules by shouting? There is no need for that.

I wasn't shouting...I was highlighting that section to stand out from the rest of the bolded quote. ALL CAPS is shouting (and I wasn't shouting there either...that was for demonstration. )

[CatsAndDogs]

Originally Posted by zab

Biggie,
I have no problem with people holding the views that you and Robert and Fr. Pavone hold as long as you don't start blameing the wrong people for a possible loss of the election. I am a person with high morals who supports a candidate with high morals. He makes sense.

To hope for an impossibility is very heroic, but when doing so guarantees that sin is promoted, how is that action not promoting sin?

What is your opinion of promoting sin because "I'm right!"?