Can a Catholic Vote for the "Lesser of Two Evils"?: Roberto de Mattei Weighs In on U.S. Election

[Michie]

Catholics and the U.S. Presidential Elections: Donald Trump clearly is the choice from a Catholic perspective - by Roberto de Mattei

There is a Catholic doctrine of the lesser evil that can be summarized in these terms:

1. One can never positively and directly commit even the slightest evil;

2. to avoid a greater evil, one may tolerate a lesser evil committed by others, provided one does not approve of it as such and remembers the existence of a greater good to strive for.

This doctrine is fundamental for orientation in a confused age in which the notion of the principle has been lost: “Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu”(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-IIae, q. 18, a. 4 ad 3).



In light of this principle, a Catholic can never vote for or approve an abortion law, even a minimal one, but he or she can vote for a candidate who is not an integral anti-abortionist. That is why it is permissible for an American Catholic to vote for Donald Trump, whose positions on abortion, as Edward Feser notes, leave much to be desired . In fact, Trump is in favor of keeping abortion legal in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment of the mother, and merely treats state murder as a purely procedural matter, relating to the government, central or local, that should regulate it. Moreover, the Republican Party platform at the Milwaukee convention last July 8 did not include a reference to a nationwide ban on abortion for the first time in 40 years. However, Trump does not make abortion a flag, unlike his opponent Kamala Harris. Harris' socialist and egalitarian agenda includes restoring the constitutional right to abortion, which was enshrined in Roe v. Wade in 1973, and overturned by the Supreme Court's June 24, 2022, decision. Moreover, during the 2019 primaries, Kamala announced that she would pass on her first day in the White House. the Equality Act, to guarantee all forms of rights to the Lgbt world (on the subject, see her book The Truths we hold. An American journey, Vintage, 2021, pp. 112-120).

Continued below.

Can a Catholic Vote for the "Lesser of Two Evils"?: Roberto de Mattei Weighs In on U.S. Election

Catholics and the U.S. Presidential Elections: Donald Trump clearly is the choice from a Catholic perspective - by Roberto de Mattei There i...

lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com

 

[mourningdove~]

@chevyontheriver

Chevy, I'd like to ask you a question. You seem to be abit of a political historian.

Historically, has the Republican party been the pro-life party?
(Has it been pro-life, since abortion was legalized in America?)

I ask because I watched a fiery video last nite on TheRemnantVideo (Michael Matt) channel on YouTube.
In it, Matt appears "furiously" opposed to the GOP (Trump's) current platform on abortion.
He is so opposed to it, that he doesn't intend to vote for Trump, if the platform isn't changed.
(And he is recommending that others take the same stand.)

Matt even went so far as to say that he and his family are willing to die as martyrs ... for the pro-life cause ... rather than to vote for a candidate that supports abortion in any way. Period. (He's not accepting the "lesser than two evils" argument when it comes to abortion.)

It appears obvious that Catholic pro-life voters are really all 'torn up' (divided) about the GOP's current platform. I understand the disappointment.

Reading the comments under Matt's video, we've got persons agreeing with him, others agreeing with advice given by Fr. Ripperger, others agreeing with Thomas Aquinas, others agreeing with Frank Pavone, etc. The Catholic pro-life movement seems majorly divided on this issue. I think Trump is in much more trouble with pro-life voters than he realizes. I don't see how he wins the election without their consolidated backing.

After watching the video, it did make me wonder if Catholics have always been able to count on the GOP to be pro-life?

And other than in the 2016/2020 elections, have previous GOP platforms been more pro-life than the current platform?

 

[chevyontheriver]

@chevyontheriver

Chevy, I'd like to ask you a question. You seem to be abit of a political historian.

Historically, has the Republican party been the pro-life party?
(Has it been pro-life, since abortion was legalized in America?)

I don't think so. They were glad to get pro-life voters but they seemed to pay lip service to the pro-life cause rather than do anything about it. Reagan? Maybe a little. Bush 1? Not at all. Not until Bush 2 was there any perception in me that the party was really was pro-life. Trump? I think he concluded that he better give the pro-life people a bone finally. Now, since he gave us a bone he can ignore us again.

I think the old Democrats were pro-life and meant it. People like Humphrey. But then in the 1980s Democratic Party orthodoxy became pro-abortion and finally has no room for anything else. Now there is no room at all for a pro-life person. Which is why I think that it is wrong for a Catholic to be a Democrat after about the year 2000.

I think the Republicans were always a bit open to abortion. Moderately, quietly, but solidly. I think changes only occurred as pro-life people were pushed out of the Democratic Party and looked for a place to go. And the Republicans were eager to get a few more votes.

I ask because I watched a fiery video last nite on TheRemnantVideo (Michael Matt) channel on YouTube.
In it, Matt appears "furiously" opposed to the GOP (Trump's) current platform on abortion.
He is so opposed to it, that he doesn't intend to vote for Trump, if the platform isn't changed.
(And he is recommending that others take the same stand.)

Matt even went so far as to say that he and his family are willing to die as martyrs ... for the pro-life cause ... rather than to vote for a candidate that supports abortion in any way. Period. (He's not accepting the "lesser than two evils" argument when it comes to abortion.)

It appears obvious that Catholic pro-life voters are really all 'torn up' (divided) about the GOP's current platform. I understand the disappointment.

I'd be with Matt I guess. Trump is nowhere near being a convinced pro-life person, and it's showing.

Reading the comments under Matt's video, we've got persons agreeing with him, others agreeing with advice given by Fr. Ripperger, others agreeing with Thomas Aquinas, others agreeing with Frank Pavone, etc. The Catholic pro-life movement seems majorly divided on this issue. I think Trump is in much more trouble with pro-life voters than he realizes. I don't see how he wins the election without their consolidated backing.

Trump has shot himself in the foot by alienating pro-life people. Some of us see him as nonetheless the better alternative. Others, maybe who were never fond of Trump, see him as just having excluded himself from being able to earn their vote.

I get it about choosing the lesser of two evils, but this is the evil of two lessers when there is at least one better choice out there. For me I was never excited about Trump, and the one thing where I could almost get excited about him he blew.

After watching the video, it did make me wonder if Catholics have always been able to count on the GOP to be pro-life?

No. They used to be able to count on the Democrats to be pro-life. Back when the Democrats were all about looking out for the 'little guy'.

And other than in the 2016/2020 elections, have previous GOP platforms been more pro-life than the current platform?

The platforms of the GOP have since at least 1980, trended more pro-life. Now they have receded from that. Still better than the D platform but I think that's damning with faint praise.

 

[mourningdove~]

I don't think so. They were glad to get pro-life voters but they seemed to pay lip service to the pro-life cause rather than do anything about it. Reagan? Maybe a little. Bush 1? Not at all. Not until Bush 2 was there any perception in me that the party was really was pro-life. Trump? I think he concluded that he better give the pro-life people a bone finally. Now, since he gave us a bone he can ignore us again.

I think the old Democrats were pro-life and meant it. People like Humphrey. But then in the 1980s Democratic Party orthodoxy became pro-abortion and finally has no room for anything else. Now there is no room at all for a pro-life person. Which is why I think that it is wrong for a Catholic to be a Democrat after about the year 2000.

I think the Republicans were always a bit open to abortion. Moderately, quietly, but solidly. I think changes only occurred as pro-life people were pushed out of the Democratic Party and looked for a place to go. And the Republicans were eager to get a few more votes.

I'd be with Matt I guess. Trump is nowhere near being a convinced pro-life person, and it's showing.

Trump has shot himself in the foot by alienating pro-life people. Some of us see him as nonetheless the better alternative. Others, maybe who were never fond of Trump, see him as just having excluded himself from being able to earn their vote.

I get it about choosing the lesser of two evils, but this is the evil of two lessers when there is at least one better choice out there. For me I was never excited about Trump, and the one thing where I could almost get excited about him he blew.

No. They used to be able to count on the Democrats to be pro-life. Back when the Democrats were all about looking out for the 'little guy'.

The platforms of the GOP have since at least 1980, trended more pro-life. Now they have receded from that. Still better than the D platform but I think that's damning with faint praise.

Thanks for the bit of history.

Trump has shot himself in the foot by alienating pro-life people.

I agree. I think he has, unfortunately.

I'd be with Matt I guess.

I get what Matt is saying. And I admire his commitment to life. Looks like Matt Walsh, Lila Rose, and Abby Johnson may be taking the same position as Matt.

I get it about choosing the lesser of two evils, but this is the evil of two lessers when there is at least one better choice out there. For me I was never excited about Trump, and the one thing where I could almost get excited about him he blew.

Matt doesn't share the concerns that I and others have about a Kamala (communist) presidency. He says we will 'survive' it. (Or be martyred, I guess.) He doesn't agree with Fr. Ripperger and others on the "lesser of two evils" applying in this case either, but I still do.

We all should vote our conscience, and I expect folks to do so.
Will be interesting to watch for further developments, as we move closer to election day.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thanks for the bit of history.


I agree. I think he has, unfortunately.



I get what Matt is saying. And I admire his commitment to life. Looks like Matt Walsh, Lila Rose, and Abby Johnson may be taking the same position as Matt.


Matt doesn't share the concerns that I and others have about a Kamala (communist) presidency. He says we will 'survive' it. (Or be martyred, I guess.)

Well, we might survive it. Or be martyred. As Amy Welborn says, she could be a martyr if they at least killed her quick.

He doesn't agree with Fr. Ripperger and others on the "lesser of two evils" applying in this case either, but I still do.

And I get it trying to resist something really really bad by voting for something merely bad. But to me it seems improper to vote for someone bad when someone better is available. A good candidate and a good platform even if he isn’t going to get the votes because everybody else is voting for a bad candidate to stop another bad candidate. So I’ll vote for Sonski and people will say I threw my bite away. But I’m not the one throwing my vote away. These are my views and I don’t expect everyone to share them.

We all should vote our conscience, and I expect folks to do so.
Will be interesting to watch for further developments, as we move closer to election day.

I’m worried about the days after the election and all the people who will not accept the results. Both sides could go ballistic.

 

[mourningdove~]

And I get it trying to resist something really really bad by voting for something merely bad. But to me it seems improper to vote for someone bad when someone better is available. A good candidate and a good platform even if he isn’t going to get the votes because everybody else is voting for a bad candidate to stop another bad candidate. So I’ll vote for Sonski and people will say I threw my bite away. But I’m not the one throwing my vote away. These are my views and I don’t expect everyone to share them.

I’m worried about the days after the election and all the people who will not accept the results. Both sides could go ballistic.

I do feel I need to clarify something. When I vote for Donald Trump, I do not see myself as voting for the 'lesser evil'. I actually like his policies very much, and I like his personality, too. Go figure!

Yes, I would like a stronger pro-life platform from Trump and the Republicans, but I personally do not see him as evil, his candidacy as evil, or his policies as evil. So ... in choosing to vote for Trump ... I do not see myself as doing anything 'improper'.

We here all toss around the phrase 'the lesser of two evils'. I've been doing it, too ... but only meaning it conversationally.

As for 'someone better' that is available to vote for, we don't have such a candidate in Ohio. (Sonski is definitely not going to win here! lol) And in Ohio, we just can't afford to throw away our votes on a third party candidate. My view.

God bless you, chevy. I expect ongoing troubles too, after the election. These are weeks of peace, before all h*ll potentially breaks loose. Again, just how I see things.

 

[LizaMarie]

Well, we might survive it. Or be martyred. As Amy Welborn says, she could be a martyr if they at least killed her quick.

And I get it trying to resist something really really bad by voting for something merely bad. But to me it seems improper to vote for someone bad when someone better is available. A good candidate and a good platform even if he isn’t going to get the votes because everybody else is voting for a bad candidate to stop another bad candidate. So I’ll vote for Sonski and people will say I threw my bite away. But I’m not the one throwing my vote away. These are my views and I don’t expect everyone to share them.

I’m worried about the days after the election and all the people who will not accept the results. Both sides could go ballistic.

I'm seriously thinking of voting for Sonski, too. I watched an interview with conservative Erick Erickson who says " I don't want to vote for either of these people!!" However, he has said he will be supporting Trump. What do I say to my friends and relatives who say I'm throwing my vote away, and I have to pick a side, Trump or Harris, and if I'm pro life I'll vote for Trump. I used to be like this, too, but I'm angry with both parties putting up bad candidates, and my conscience doesn't want me to vote for either.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Although I do not agree with IVF, Kamala refused to sign 'Born alive protections act'
And she cannot be in office.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Although I do not agree with IVF, Kamala refused to sign 'Born alive protections act'
And she cannot be in office.

A little bit worse than Biden, who has been the seat warmer in the White House for 3.75 years now.

 

[WarriorAngel]

A little bit worse than Biden, who has been the seat warmer in the White House for 3.75 years now.

She praised Bidenomics, now she says we should go for Kamalanomics.

DID anyone notice she completely ignored the Marxist comments Trump made.
She wanted to totally let that pass by.

 

[chevyontheriver]

She praised Bidenomics, now she says we should go for Kamalanomics.

DID anyone notice she completely ignored the Marxist comments Trump made.
She wanted to totally let that pass by.

I didn't watch.

Normally the pundits are quite active in proclaiming their candidate 'won'. Not seeing much of it this time. A friend said she thought both sides lost. What was your opinion?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Peter S. Crawford Facts
Yes Trump behaved inappropriately with women, but that is in the past. Do you want people to constantly bring up your failing that happened years ago?

Trump haters, put your personal feeling behind,vote for his accomplishments: This is not lip service but facts.
Christian Bible believing Trump:
The prayers of the faithful God working through Trump
Broad pro-life accomplishments

Appointed pro-life judges including three to the U.S. Supreme Court
Allowed states to defund Planned Parenthood of Title X and Medicaid money
Stopped taxpayer funding of abortion overseas

Defunded the pro-abortion United Nations Population Fund, which cooperates with China’s forced abortion regime

Required health insurers to disclose if their plans cover abortions

Cut $60 million from Planned Parenthood’s federal funding

Trump
Ended the Obama-enforced contraceptive mandate, which had forced corporations with religious objections from covering abortifacients in their health plans

Appointed many strong pro-lifers to key positions within his administration

Created a new office for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Canceled contract for taxpayer-funded experimentation with aborted baby body parts

Allowed Texas to fund a health program that does not send funds to abortion businesses
Withheld $200 million from California for violating conscience rights. The state had imposed universal abortion coverage mandates on health insurance.
Took action against Vermont for violating conscience rights and forcing a nurse to help abort a baby

Trump
Became the first American president to speak at the March for Life
Signed an executive order protecting preemies and infants born alive after failed abortions

Clarified that abortion is not a “civil right”

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed the Geneva Consensus Declaration, joining 31 other nations to declare there is “no international right to abortion” at the U.N.

Asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore the ban on at-home use of abortion pills
Withdrew U.S. funding ($450 million) from the pro-abortion World Health Organization (WHO), which has close ties to Communist China


Someone posted his accomplishments

 

[Michie]

I didn't watch.

Normally the pundits are quite active in proclaiming their candidate 'won'. Not seeing much of it this time. A friend said she thought both sides lost. What was your opinion?

You didn’t ask me but the whole thing was a waste of time. With both sides, it was just baiting, arguing, and repeating known lies. Promises with no plans to back them up. I got disgusted and left the room to do more productive things.

 

[RileyG]

Although I do not agree with IVF, Kamala refused to sign 'Born alive protections act'
And she cannot be in office.

I agree.

 

[RileyG]

You didn’t ask me but the whole thing was a waste of time. With both sides, it was just baiting, arguing, and repeating known lies. Promises with no plans to back them up. I got disgusted and left the room to do more productive things.

Yeah, I was too tired to watch. I'm glad I didn't, but I'm still intrigued.

 

[Michie]

Yeah, I was too tired to watch. I'm glad I didn't, but I'm still intrigued.

I’m just waiting for it to be over at this point.

 

[RileyG]

I’m just waiting for it to be over at this point.

Yup. I’m still scared how the outcome will be, but I’m putting it in God’s hands.