If you did not vote for John McCain then you have committed mortal sin.

[warning]

Your argument ad stultum - that we are too stupid to figure out if what we're doing is wrong or not - won't hold water unless the voter was mentally disabled.

Your argument ad stultum is nonsense. If we had to wait for a Tribunal to rule on every move of import we made in our lives because we're too stupid to figure out right from wrong, we'd be screwed.

Apparently! 52% of Roman Catholics voted for Obama! You trust the faithful to make proper choices when casting votes?

So based on your argument, no Supreme moral authority is needed in this matter of voting, we are all left to our own devices… Ok then, why did 52% of these directionally challenged Roman Catholics vote for Obama?

According to you, these 52% of directionally challenged Roman Catholics made the wrong choice But hey they don’t need any direction at all from higher authorities. They are left to their own devices, and can certainly figure it out for themselves.

… Reap the fruit of being left to your own devices. No guidance from Rome is necessary. 52% of directionally challenged Roman Catholics are on their way to hell.

Do you really trust the American Catholic voter to make the correct choice?

argument ad stultum… you bet….

Boy, you're almost as good at distorting the topic as Obama himself.

The question, may I remind you, is:  whether or not someone can be culpable under pain of sin for voting for a particular candidate.

Your argument is that they cannot, apparently because no Papal Encyclical has been issued on how to vote.  My argument is that they have the faculties to figure out the correct decision themselves so citing "no encyclical" doesn't remove any culpability they may have.

Simple, when did the laity have the moral authority to impose on others what a mortal sin was regarding voting in this election? Has Rome told us that it is a mortal sin to vote for other than Protestant McCain?  Please tell me what pennance I must perform because I am not a registered voter?

Do I get absolved by the Remnant?

[PeterII]

Quis,

One slight note here. There is no absolute moral obligation to vote, according to moral theology coupled with what Pius XII taught regarding the Italian Elections of 1946 and 1948.

Voting is a civic duty that does become a grave moral obligation when an unworthy opponent has a chance of winning. 

What Pius XII said was that it was a grave sin to refuse to vote in an election which featured a candidate who would promote the rights of God and the Church along with the common good as understood by a well-formed Catholic. As a logical extension, one would also be obliged to vote for that candidate (provided that only one supported this Catholic position).

You are not only obliged to vote for the truly Catholic candidate if one presents himself, but you are also obliged to minimize evil when an unworthy candidate is present.  If there were only perfectly Catholic candidates, or only perfectly evil candidates, then you would not have a moral obligation to vote.

The problem arises with the "lesser evil" and that is solved by basic moral theology. When there is no candidate who will fill the conditions Pius XII stated, then choosing any candidate is a situation of cooperating with an evil. We are permitted to materially cooperate with an evil, but not formally. We are never obliged to cooperate with evil, hence, choosing not to vote at all (because one is not willing to cooperate with electing the lesser evil) is not sinful.

One is obliged by the virtue of prudence to minimize evil however.  We would not be so obliged if all the evil choices were exactly the same, but in the last election, they were not. 

There need be no "moral certitude" that an election is rigged, only "moral certitude" that no candidate fits the criteria to make voting for him obligatory.

None of the candidates for this year fit that mold to make their election obligatory, hence it was not an objective sin to choose to abstain.

We have definite moral certitude that Obama was an unworthy candidate due to his stance on abortion.  Not voting against him to minimize the evil would be a sin. 

[QuisUtDeus]

Boy, you're almost as good at distorting the topic as Obama himself.

The question, may I remind you, is:  whether or not someone can be culpable under pain of sin for voting for a particular candidate.

Your argument is that they cannot, apparently because no Papal Encyclical has been issued on how to vote.  My argument is that they have the faculties to figure out the correct decision themselves so citing "no encyclical" doesn't remove any culpability they may have.

Simple, when did the laity have the moral authority to impose on others what a mortal sin was regarding voting in this election? Has Rome told us that it is a mortal sin to vote for other than Protestant McCain? 

If you read what I have posted, I have not said anyone is under pain of sin de facto by voting for Obama.  What I said said is they may be.

What you have said is that they cannot be because Rome didn't say how to vote.  Which is nonsense. 

Please tell me what pennance I must perform because I am not a registered voter?

Do I get absolved by the Remnant?

I don't care what the Remnant says, but my opinion is you're a crappy American and a fool because you're putting your destiny in the hands of others.  Besides abortion, there are tons of other reasons to vote such as your stance on a draft, your stance on taxes, etc.  If you don't care if you or a loved one gets drafted to fight for the Zionists in the Middle East, if you don't care that you work until May just to pay your taxes, etc., then great.  Don't vote.

Actually, please don't vote.  You would just vote for Obama or someone like that.

So, no, you're not necessarily a sinner, but you're definitely a fool.

[QuisUtDeus]

How can one be in mortal sin for refusing to partake in a rigged election? 

You would have to have moral certitude that the election was rigged, and if you do, you have a responsibility as both a citizen and a Catholic to fight within your means to correct this.

If you don't have moral certitude, you're just making excuses for not doing the right thing re: voting.

Quis,

One slight note here. There is no absolute moral obligation to vote, according to moral theology coupled with what Pius XII taught regarding the Italian Elections of 1946 and 1948.

What Pius XII said was that it was a grave sin to refuse to vote in an election which featured a candidate who would promote the rights of God and the Church along with the common good as understood by a well-formed Catholic. As a logical extension, one would also be obliged to vote for that candidate (provided that only one supported this Catholic position).

The problem arises with the "lesser evil" and that is solved by basic moral theology. When there is no candidate who will fill the conditions Pius XII stated, then choosing any candidate is a situation of cooperating with an evil. We are permitted to materially cooperate with an evil, but not formally. We are never obliged to cooperate with evil, hence, choosing not to vote at all (because one is not willing to cooperate with electing the lesser evil) is not sinful.

There need be no "moral certitude" that an election is rigged, only "moral certitude" that no candidate fits the criteria to make voting for him obligatory.

None of the candidates for this year fit that mold to make their election obligatory, hence it was not an objective sin to choose to abstain.

I see what you are saying, but let's read what he wrote:

Allocution of Pope Pius XII to the Congress of the International Union of Catholic Women's Leagues, Rome, Italy, September 11, 1947

The slogan should be the very opposite: be present everywhere for the faith, for Christ, in every way and to the utmost possible limit, wherever vital interests are at stake, wherever laws bearing on the worship of God, marriage, the family, the school, the social order are proposed and discussed. Be there, on guard and in action, whenever through education the soul of a people is being forged. Unfortunately, too often in such crises Catholic organizations are conspicuous only by their absence. Consequently, there is a heavy responsibility on everyone, man or woman, who has the right to vote, especially when the interests of religion are at stake; abstention in this case is in itself, it should be thoroughly understood, a grave and a fatal sin of omission. On the contrary, to exercise, and exercise well, one's right to vote is to work effectively for the true good of the people, as loyal defenders of the cause of God and of the Church.

I'm kind of thinking that the issues in this election, abortion being only one of them, were "vital interests bearing on worship, marriage, schools and the social order" - the "interests of religion".

The interests of religion are not restricted to if the Church retains tax-free status; I hope that's not what you're implying, but in case it is, as P12 states, we work for the cause of God and the Church, and the cause of God and the Church is the salvation of souls and all that the Church teaches including the respect for the unborn, fair wages, etc.

[warning]

I don't care what the Remnant says, but my opinion is you're a crappy American and a fool because you're putting your destiny in the hands of others.  Besides abortion, there are tons of other reasons to vote such as your stance on a draft, your stance on taxes, etc.  If you don't care if you or a loved one gets drafted to fight for the Zionists in the Middle East, if you don't care that you work until May just to pay your taxes, etc., then great.  Don't vote.

Actually, please don't vote.  You would just vote for Obama or someone like that.

So, no, you're not necessarily a sinner, but you're definitely a fool.

Let me get this straight..  you are now calling me a fool for not voting?

Then you tell me:

Actually, please don't vote.

So you would have me remain a fool? Where's the love?

you're putting your destiny in the hands of others.

  And because you voted for McCain, your destiny lies in your own hands? Ok.....

[warning]

If you read what I have posted, I have not said anyone is under pain of sin de facto by voting for Obama.  What I said said is they may be.

What you have said is that they cannot be because Rome didn't say how to vote.  Which is nonsense. 

I have never said that anyone voting for Obama is not in a state of sin. Their intellect is clouded and they made a bad choice. The reason for the clouded intellect is usually due to some of sort sin on their part. Agreed?

What I find completly offensive are the laity who tell the rest that it is a mortal sin not to vote for McCain. Can you agree that these lay faithful have no right or authority to tell anyone that they are in a state of mortal sin because they did not vote for McCain.

This month there will be how many abortions? Who is responsible for this months abortions? Those who did not vote for Bush? Does the same line of thought and moral standards in this year's elections, hold to previous elections? If not, why are the abortions committed in 2009 worst than those commited in 2008? or 2007?  or  20...., 199... and so on?

[MagisterMusicae]

I see what you are saying, but let's read what he wrote:

Allocution of Pope Pius XII to the Congress of the International Union of Catholic Women's Leagues, Rome, Italy, September 11, 1947

The slogan should be the very opposite: be present everywhere for the faith, for Christ, in every way and to the utmost possible limit, wherever vital interests are at stake, wherever laws bearing on the worship of God, marriage, the family, the school, the social order are proposed and discussed. Be there, on guard and in action, whenever through education the soul of a people is being forged. Unfortunately, too often in such crises Catholic organizations are conspicuous only by their absence. Consequently, there is a heavy responsibility on everyone, man or woman, who has the right to vote, especially when the interests of religion are at stake; abstention in this case is in itself, it should be thoroughly understood, a grave and a fatal sin of omission. On the contrary, to exercise, and exercise well, one's right to vote is to work effectively for the true good of the people, as loyal defenders of the cause of God and of the Church.

I'm kind of thinking that the issues in this election, abortion being only one of them, were "vital interests bearing on worship, marriage, schools and the social order" - the "interests of religion".

The interests of religion are not restricted to if the Church retains tax-free status; I hope that's not what you're implying, but in case it is, as P12 states, we work for the cause of God and the Church, and the cause of God and the Church is the salvation of souls and all that the Church teaches including the respect for the unborn, fair wages, etc.

That's part of it, but Pius XII clarified himself a year later, as I cited in a older thread is his 1948 allocution to Roman Clergy (emphasis mine):

In the present circumstances, it is a strict obligation for all those who have the right to vote, men and women, to take part in the elections. Whoever abstains from doing so, in particular by indolence or weakness, commits a sin grave in itself, a mortal fault. Each one must follow the dictate of his own conscience. However, it is obvious that the voice of conscience imposes on every Catholic to give his vote to the candidates who offer truly sufficient guarantees for the protection of the rights of God and of souls, for the true good of individuals, families and of society, according to the love of God and Catholic moral teaching

This is quoted along with other various citation in the pamphlet published this year by the U.S. District of the SSPX. In that pamphlet they made clear that voting was a grave responsibility, but was not obligatory when there was not a candidate running in a race who did not fit the conditions above. While that's not authoritative, that a preistly fraternity is publishing such a pamphlet, we should take those statements with some consideration.

Additionally, if we're going to use the earlier quote of Pius XII which you cite here, we have to understand the context. This was Italy. It was a majority Catholic country, which had Catholic candidates who fulfill the conditions in the second letter.

While we can very well take this and understand that a vote can be a very important thing and we ought to seriously consider voting, we can't apply the earlier quote as a blanket declaration since in the context of the speech, those in Italy in 1947 who would be serving the interest of worship, the family and the social order would be the Catholic candidates.

We can however, take these principles and outline a moral principle for when it is assured that we must vote.

[QuisUtDeus]

And because you voted for McCain, your destiny lies in your own hands? Ok.....

Who said I voted for McCain?

[QuisUtDeus]

If you read what I have posted, I have not said anyone is under pain of sin de facto by voting for Obama.  What I said said is they may be.

What you have said is that they cannot be because Rome didn't say how to vote.  Which is nonsense. 

I have never said that anyone voting for Obama is not in a state of sin. Their intellect is clouded and they made a bad choice. The reason for the clouded intellect is usually due to some of sort sin on their part. Agreed?

Perhaps.  They can have a clear intellect and still act against it.

What I find completly offensive are the laity who tell the rest that it is a mortal sin not to vote for McCain. Can you agree that these lay faithful have no right or authority to tell anyone that they are in a state of mortal sin because they did not vote for McCain.

I agree completely with you on this.

This month there will be how many abortions? Who is responsible for this months abortions? Those who did not vote for Bush? Does the same line of thought and moral standards in this year's elections, hold to previous elections? If not, why are the abortions committed in 2009 worst than those commited in 2008? or 2007?  or  20...., 199... and so on?

You're confusing the culpability of the abortions with the culpability of indirectly supporting them.

The only persons culpable for an abortion are those that provide direct and material support.  I would argue this would include the pro-abort politicians, but voting for a pro-abort politician would be, in my opinion, indirect support, so such a person is not directly culpable for the abortions themselves.

The main problem with Obama is that he will increase the amount of abortions, and he promised to do as much as part of his campaign.  If all of he, McCain, and the other candidates promised not to make a single change to the abortion laws, funding, etc., then "all things would be considered equal" as far as abortion goes.

[QuisUtDeus]

That's part of it, but Pius XII clarified himself a year later, as I cited in a older thread is his 1948 allocution to Roman Clergy (emphasis mine):

In the present circumstances, it is a strict obligation for all those who have the right to vote, men and women, to take part in the elections. Whoever abstains from doing so, in particular by indolence or weakness, commits a sin grave in itself, a mortal fault. Each one must follow the dictate of his own conscience. However, it is obvious that the voice of conscience imposes on every Catholic to give his vote to the candidates who offer truly sufficient guarantees for the protection of the rights of God and of souls, for the true good of individuals, families and of society, according to the love of God and Catholic moral teaching

This is quoted along with other various citation in the pamphlet published this year by the U.S. District of the SSPX. In that pamphlet they made clear that voting was a grave responsibility, but was not obligatory when there was not a candidate running in a race who did not fit the conditions above. While that's not authoritative, that a preistly fraternity is publishing such a pamphlet, we should take those statements with some consideration.

Additionally, if we're going to use the earlier quote of Pius XII which you cite here, we have to understand the context. This was Italy. It was a majority Catholic country, which had Catholic candidates who fulfill the conditions in the second letter.

While we can very well take this and understand that a vote can be a very important thing and we ought to seriously consider voting, we can't apply the earlier quote as a blanket declaration since in the context of the speech, those in Italy in 1947 who would be serving the interest of worship, the family and the social order would be the Catholic candidates.

We can however, take these principles and outline a moral principle for when it is assured that we must vote.

I'm glad you quoted that because I wasn't familiar with it.

Now that I've read it, I think you're reading it way too restrictively.  True it says "in the present circumstances" however I think I can argue that the circumstances in the U.S. now are as bad if not worse than in 1948 Italy.

Further, he doesn't mention that the candidate should be Catholic.  In fact, if you look at a Catholic like Joe Biden, we're better off voting for a Protestant.

In any event, the Pope is just making a specific application of moral theology.  Given an opportunity to act in the furtherance of the Church and its mission, we are bound to act as long as it is reasonable and within our means.  Voting is reasonable and within our means, so we should vote, and we should do so for the candidate that best fits the description given above.