Some in the combox on my previous post have accused me of being unfair to Mark Shea. Perhaps they are right. I really don’t have any insight into why Mark is taking the position that he is and it was probably rude of me to speculate in this area. From everything I have seen, Mark is Catholic first and partisan is certainly further down on the list. So my apologies to Mark and our readers for this aspect of my post.
With that said, I stand by my opinion that were Catholics to follow Mark’s lead and sit it out or to vote for a non-contending third party candidate increases the likelihood that the pro-death candidate and the pro-death party are victorious in November. The ramification of that victory could mean many more deaths over generations. To me that qualifies as cooperating with evil, even if unintentionally.
Again, apologies for the stupid speculation. But please, please don’t sit this election out.
September 19, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Patrick,
I read both your blog and Mark’s daily. I agree with you 100% and as a Catholic we have a right to vote for the lesser evil. In this election the contrast, while seemingly insignificant in principle, is enormous in reality. The simple fact is that electing McCain over Obama will probably save millions of lives. That being the case, in my opinion we have a duty to vote in this election.
September 19, 2008 at 6:27 pm
What strikes me about this sort of post is that it’s all opinion, very little support from Church teaching. If sitting out the election is cooperation with evil, then show it. You can’t just say that someone is cooperating with evil and leave it at that.
September 19, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Thanks for doing the right thing in issuing an apology.
For the record, I expect to vote for a third party candidate because I believe conservatives in general and pro-lifers in particular have been played by the GOP, and I am ready to take a firmer line. If I lived in a swing state I might reconsider this; living in a state likely to vote for McCain only increases my confidence that the best way for my vote to count is to be with neither of the leading parties.
My wife intends to vote for McCain with a clear conscience. I respect her choice, and she respects mine.
Romulus
September 19, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I’m voting for the Catholic Magisterium Party’s candidate this November! Oh, wait… There isn’t such a thing.
September 19, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Todd wrote:
“The simple fact is that electing McCain over Obama will probably save millions of lives. That being the case, in my opinion we have a duty to vote in this election.”
Well stated, Todd. Thank you.
Unfortunately, there are some folks who seem to value the worth of their so-called high-minded principles over the seemingly insignificant worth of unborn infants. Voting Republican might make some people feel “unclean” like lepers among the progressive saints comprising their circle of friends.
No fingers are being pointed but by now most adults in this country should have a pretty clear idea of just whom they will vote for as President in November.
I hope that those who vote the wrong way even if “sincere” do not suffer from post-election insomnia.
September 19, 2008 at 7:32 pm
The simple fact is that electing McCain over Obama will probably save millions of lives.
I very much doubt it.
September 19, 2008 at 8:40 pm
All of the third-party options, I am sorry to say, are horrid. Churck Baldwin, who on the surface has some great appeal, is also an individual who “doesn’t know” the full story behind 9/11, and has called for further investigations. And he’s the best of the third party lot. So anyone who wants to prove themselves as ritually pure by voting for some magical third party candidate, well, that route has its own problems as well.
September 19, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Patrick,
Humility is rarely appreciated by those that have a shallow faith.
Keep up the great blogging.
Your brother in Christ,
Tito
September 19, 2008 at 8:54 pm
“The simple fact is that electing McCain over Obama will… [at least contain the potential to] …save millions of lives.”
Nothing else in the election holds the weight that the abortion issue does. Social, economic, military issues, etc… are not on the same level. Whereas all of these issues can flux and ebb in life they still participate in life. However, life itself is not granted such freedom; it either is or is not. If we accept other issues over this great issue of abortion this election we are essentially placing a value on life itself. Once life is valued it is no longer invaluable or sacred. It exits the realm of universal objective sacredness and enters the realm of individual subjective judgment.
I think that Mark Shea is wrong (from what I have gathered from this blog). Votes like these are to be made in the primaries. Its kinda like running a training exercise while you are being attacked.
September 19, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Patrick, as a resident of California, I have often sat out elections. Why? Because there is rarely a pro-life candidate (let alone a pro-life Catholic candidate). Therefore, there have been elections where in all good conscience I could not vote for either the Republican or Democrat candidates, and I both resent and challenge the morality of those who would say this is somehow “allowing” a particular candidate to win.
If I were to vote for a pro-abortion Republican candidate, I would essentially be saying “I don’t support abortion, but I’m going to look the other way because I believe this is the lesser evil.” This will OBVIOUSLY have the effect of emboldening the NEXT pro-abortion candidate or worse, create an atmosphere where the accepted politics means you MUST be pro-abortion (which is the case here in California).
There are several political means to make one’s voice heard. And voting/abstaining is indeed one of them.
September 20, 2008 at 2:14 am
I agree that there are times when sitting it out IS the right thing to do, but as our Bishops wrote in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, this must be considered an “extraordinary step”. (Similarly, the CCC considers it a moral obligation to vote.) I think Red Cardigan covers all this.
I want to add, though, that in Evangelium Vitae Pope John Paul II’s amazing and powerful encyclical, he writes that “In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” (n. 73)
I would argue that the very same logic can be applied to voting for candidates as for laws. In fact, FC (op cit) says so: “When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.” (n 36)
So I don’t think that Mark Shea is right on this one. It is certainly not morally forbidden to vote for the candidate who is less evil.
September 20, 2008 at 3:50 am
Maryland belongs to Obama. Dems are 10-1 over Repubs here. My wife and I recently decided to form a new political party the Faithful Catholic Social Justice Action Party. Our candidate, American born and bred, Catholic convert, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton as a write-in candidate. If McCain had a chance here and MD were important to the outcome he would get our vote.
September 20, 2008 at 8:05 am
To quote Mother Angelica, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
September 20, 2008 at 9:51 am
Dear American friends,
I am Italian and I’m following apprehensively the events leading to your next presidential election.
I can understand Mark Shea’s dilemma but I urge all of you to consider the implications of Obama’s election not only on a national ground, but worldwide.
I guess we in Europe have more experience than you with the culture supporting Obama (as you know, powerful elites here strongly back him); we know the bad consequences, not in theory but in practice.
Granted that McCain’s position on embryonic stem cell research is wrong, but what do you think more probable: to convince McCain/Palin about the current mistake, or that Obama’s party will support the culture of life in the future?
What policy about life issues (and others) do you think the USA will play in the international camp, given the two different outcomes? What the USA position at the ONU?
You should know very well WHAT CULTURES the two candidates support and represent: please ACT accordingly, the result is too important for you and for us!
God Bless
September 20, 2008 at 3:17 pm
As I mentioned elsewhere, it’s good that the camp that knows that McCain is the lesser evil (which includes Zippy and Shea) is having this fight. Recall when Rudy was the nominee–there were howls of protest, and even a Catholics against Rudy blog. Did you see anything even remotely like that from Catholics in the other camp? Hardly. They were too busy trying to cram the square peg of leftist entitlements into the round hole of life issues while Hillary and Obama fought over who was the more pro-abortion candidate.
September 20, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Let me put the matter more starkly. In this election we will decide whether Roe v.Wade finally falls or stands forever.
There are 4 anti-Roe votes.
The most vehement pro-Roe votes on the Court are elderly or in frail health. One and likely two of them will retire.
They can be replaced by young, healthy pro-Roe judges who will maintain status quo for 50 years.
Or they can be replaced by judges of the Alito/Roberts model.
By sitting out, pro-lifers will be undermining 30 years of pro-life progress in this country just when we are on the cusp of purging ourselves of Roe. Do we want it gone or don’t we?
September 20, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Patrick,
I think you are right in calling Mr.Shea to the discussion table. I too feel his reasoning is wrong even given McCain’s support on stem cells.
Obama has told the nation his plans and closed the door to any dissent. McCain on the other hand is opening the door to discussion regarding stem cell research.
If Mr.Shea and other pro-life Catholics are comfortable with allowing Obama to be elected by not using their vote in an effective way then so be it. All it takes for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing. The Freedom of Choice Act will be passed and there will be no going back until the end of the republic.
September 20, 2008 at 5:16 pm
This reminds me of Revelation 3:16 (‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.’)
Any Catholic that does not vote against the evil of Barack Obama’s agenda by voting for John McCain (especially since he has selected an enormously pro-life vice-president) is not working on the side of life. Woe to those Catholics who feel the need to “say” something this election, by sitting out or voting 3rd party. Do you think the unborn would do the same?
McCain/Palin 2008
Net
September 20, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Let me put the matter more starkly. In this election we will decide whether Roe v.Wade finally falls or stands forever.
Possibly but probably not.
There are 4 anti-Roe votes.
There are two: Thomas and Scalia. We don’t really know whether Roberts and Alito are anti-Roe. As far as Roberts is concerned his statements during his confirmation hearings tend to make one think that he is not anti-Roe.
Or they can be replaced by judges of the Alito/Roberts model.
We don’t even know for certain what that model means for the pro-life cause.
By sitting out, pro-lifers will be undermining 30 years of pro-life progress in this country just when we are on the cusp of purging ourselves of Roe. Do we want it gone or don’t we?
What progress? 35 years of Roe v. Wade, 23 years of GOP Presidents (soon to be 24), and abortion is still the law of the land.
September 20, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Any Catholic that does not vote against the evil of Barack Obama’s agenda by voting for John McCain (especially since he has selected an enormously pro-life vice-president) is not working on the side of life.
So let me get this straight:
Someone who doesn’t vote for McCain, but starts a Project Gabriel in his town is not working on the side of life.
Someone who doesn’t vote for McCain, but adopts children with disabilities is not working on the side of life.
And on and on. See, I am highly inclined to vote for McCain, but when I read stuff like this–which is essentially equivalent to “If you don’t vote Obama, you are a racist.”– it makes me realize Shea and Zippy are on to something.