tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2932989044385275551.post7685856243569735326..comments2024-02-26T20:14:24.821-06:00Comments on Father Talks Too Fast: The Practical Principles of Political PrudenceFr. Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16406376933563447526noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2932989044385275551.post-15389512763190287882020-01-19T21:56:15.077-06:002020-01-19T21:56:15.077-06:00I found it very clarifying . I wish every Catholic...I found it very clarifying . I wish every Catholic voter read this . Thank you Father ..! Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06590790797546262694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2932989044385275551.post-13009375733305083102012-10-30T19:15:09.514-05:002012-10-30T19:15:09.514-05:00Correction in #5, "whether or not"Correction in #5, "whether or not" Fr. Faulknerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406376933563447526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2932989044385275551.post-1089701168806891812012-10-30T19:12:29.515-05:002012-10-30T19:12:29.515-05:00Not quite. (Unless I explained it wrong or phrased...Not quite. (Unless I explained it wrong or phrased it poorly. Always a possibility.)<br /><br />Rather: <br />1) One must always vote their conscience.<br />2) That conscience needs to be well formed and informed.<br />3) Ratzinger affirms the obvious that to vote for someone who supports an intrinsic moral evil *because* they support that moral evil is cooperation and participation in evil, and is therefore illicit. <br />4) However, given that all politics is a practice of political prudence and proportionality, it would be acceptable for a good Catholic to vote—in spite of the candidate's support of an intrinsic evil—for that candidate, in the face of "proportionate reasons". [See Ratzinger, nota bene.]<br />5) *The decision* to be pondered, evaluated, and debated then is whether it not there exists proportionate grounds for such a vote. <br />6) In my opinion as a private citizen and an amateur student of moral philosophy, in America today it's very unlikely that such proportionate grounds are present. <br />7) Other private citizens must make their own conclusions on that.<br />8) However, *I* do not think it is likely that a candidate's position on war,the death penalty, immigration, healthcare, poor-relief, the environment, the XL pipeline, job creation or education are proportionate reasons, because there can be (and is) a great amount of room for debate as to what is the best or most moral position on those issues, while there is no room for debate (at least not within the Catholic Natural Law tradition) as to whether or not abortion and euthanasia are morally acceptable. [See Ratzinger, #3.]<br />9) So, perhaps there are people who wrestled with themselves and examined their consciences and then voted for Sen. Ted Kennedy with a clear conscience. So be it. But, as you can imagine, I would wonder if they'd previously heard or really considered #8 above—probably by no fault of their own either. <br />10) So...in short: thoroughly educate yourself and inform your conscience, and then vote according to it.<br /><br />Hope that helps clarify a bit. Fr. Faulknerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406376933563447526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2932989044385275551.post-17288281818561517342012-10-30T14:28:42.401-05:002012-10-30T14:28:42.401-05:00So, according to the Church's ethical teaching...So, according to the Church's ethical teaching as you understand it, the Catholic voter in present-day America should base their vote solely on abortion/'life issues'? You specifically disclaimed that position several times, but that does seem to be what you're advocating in practical terms.<br /><br />Thanks for posting these, though - I just listened to all three back-to-back.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com