FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
The idea that Christians shouldn't support morally questionable candidates is stupid - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: The idea that Christians shouldn't support morally questionable candidates is stupid (/showthread.php?tid=80457)

Pages: 1 2


The idea that Christians shouldn't support morally questionable candidates is stupid - Imperator Caesar Trump - 12-07-2017

It's typically an Alinskyite tactic used by the Left anyway, but how can anyone who knows even one page of Christian history hold this position?  Constantine was arguably the most influential person on Christianity as it exists today outside of the Apostolic age.  He could have easily made Al Franken blush, wasn't baptized until his death bed, and yet Christendom owes him a massive debt for what he did to elevate it.  It seems to me that the only criterion for secular leaders should be whether they are a net benefit or detriment to the Church and moral policy.  I'm struggling to see another tenable position on this matter.


RE: The idea that Christians shouldn't support morally questionable candidates is stupid - austenbosten - 12-07-2017

I guess my argument would be "whose morals are we talking about?". It seems to me rather strange that liberals will trash Al Franken for sexual misconduct, despite excusing the Clinton's for decades, and then turn around and thank Senator Franken for his stance on abortion and gay rights.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk


RE: The idea that Christians shouldn't support morally questionable candidates is stupid - VoxClamantis - 12-07-2017

(12-07-2017, 11:12 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: It's typically an Alinskyite tactic used by the Left anyway, but how can anyone who knows even one page of Christian history hold this position?  Constantine was arguably the most influential person on Christianity as it exists today outside of the Apostolic age.  He could have easily made Al Franken blush, wasn't baptized until his death bed, and yet Christendom owes him a massive debt for what he did to elevate it.  It seems to me that the only criterion for secular leaders should be whether they are a net benefit or detriment to the Church and moral policy.  I'm struggling to see another tenable position on this matter.

I agree. As I just said recently in another thread, Christians and conservatives have to stop treating the perfect as the enemy of the Good.  And some have to get over the idea that, aside from the examples of Our Lady and Lord and a few others, "moral purity" is rare. And even more rare among politicians.

We're taught that among our duties is to vote:

Quote:2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country: 

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.45

[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.46

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."47

45 Rom 13:7.

46 Ad Diognetum 5,5 and 10; 6,10:PG 2,1173 and 1176.
47 1 Tim 2:2.

Given that we have a duty to vote in democratic societies, it seems to me that the principle of double effect comes into play. From FE's Moral Thinking: A Basic Primer on Catholic Moral Theology

Quote:The Principle of Double Effect

Actions rarely have only one effect, and sometimes one effect of an action is good, and another effect is evil. If we cannot do evil, that good may come of it, what happens when there are both a good an evil effect from a single act?

For example, during a just war, a pilot is sent on a mission to bomb the last bridge over a river to prevent the revolutionary army from crossing and eventually taking over his homeland, subjecting his country's women to abuse, destroying his people's way of life, etc. By bombing the bridge, he'll help to save his country, people, and culture, an obviously good effect. Yet, nightmarishly, as he approaches, he sees that there are three young children playing on the bridge. But enemy tanks are rolling up quickly, giving him no time at all to wait; he must act or not act now. By not acting, he'll fail to protect his homeland; by acting, the children will certainly die -- a great evil he in no way wants to happen. What must he do?

Another common example is an ectopic, or tubal pregnancy. In such a case, a baby has implanted itself in the Fallopian tube of his mother. As the baby grows, both mother and baby would be killed. Can a doctor operate? Is this not abortion and prohibited? Must the mother accept death and also allow her child to die as well?

The answers to such questions are shaped by the "principle of double effect" which states that we can perform an action that might have an unintended but foreseen evil effect if and only if: the action itself is morally good or neutral; a good effect follows the act; the good effect that follows the action isn't caused by the evil effect; the evil effect isn't intended; we only intend the good effect; and the reason for committing the act is sufficiently serious.

So the pilot would not only be justified but, given his duty, would be obliged to drop the bomb, since the destruction of the bridge is good, is the immediate effect of the bomb, isn't caused by the deaths of the children, is his only intention, and while the death of those innocent children is a great evil, his duty and the evils of invasion are sufficiently serious matters that compel that he act.

Similarly, the mother must have the operation because it serves the good goal of saving the mother's life, the immediate effect of the operation is the removal of the damaged Fallopian tube, the death of the baby isn't the cause of the saving of the mother's life, the only goal is to prevent the mother's death, the horribly sad death of the baby isn't the intention of the surgeon or the mother, and saving the mother's life is sufficiently serious and important. 

The bit about "moral purity" is something that's bothered me for -- well, ever since I made the FE site and forum. Some people are so quick to write off people, works of art, books, essays, articles, websites, etc., because of sin or error on the part of those who made them. This is a mistake. And it's kind of cruel, if you ask me. It isn't a human or humane way of seeing the world, IMO. There's a definite "gang-banging" mentality that shows itself when "they" are seen as all bad, while "I" or "we" are seen as "morally good." This sort of thing is becoming more and more evident in political talk (and I'm guilty of it, too). Arguing against evil ideologies and just plain bad ideas is one thing, but to entirely write off an individual and see the entirety of his person, thoughts, and works as bad because he holds some wrong ideas is scary.


RE: The idea that Christians shouldn't support morally questionable candidates is stupid - VoxClamantis - 12-07-2017

(12-07-2017, 11:18 PM)austenbosten Wrote: I guess my argument would be "whose morals are we talking about?". It seems to me rather strange that liberals will trash Al Franken for sexual misconduct, despite excusing the Clinton's for decades, and then turn around and thank Senator Franken for his stance on abortion and gay rights.

There's so much hypocrisy with regard to this sexual witch hunt, it's crazy. 

A lot of these Hollywood star women engaged in quid pro quo sorts of arrangements with sleazy guys, and now that they've "hit the wall," are no longer able to benefit from it, so are posing as Feminist Warrior Grrrrrls, Out to Avenge The World. They're treating the male population as pathological when it's a tiny minority of men who behave as did those who made those sleazy arrangements with them. 

Then you have the simultaneous goings-on of all this man-hating and phenomena like "Slut Walks" and accusations of "slut-shaming" women who, well, act like sluts. What's going on now is like a mirror image of the stupidity of the Victorian era, when female sexuality was disappeared while men bought their "French postcards." Now, it's the women who can be As Nasty As They Wanna Be while the men are expected to avert their eyes and never approach any of them.
 
The Western world, esp. the U.S., is so sexually sick, it's hard to believe. When Our Lady and the examples of female Saints were thrown out, everything was set up for this sort of thing to happen. And those female Saints, note, weren't all like Ste. Therese of Lisieux (whom I adore); Catholic women owned businesses, taught in universities, led nations as Queens, led men in battle, ran hospitals and monasteries, etc. And most were homemakers, because, if everyone would shut the Hell up -- if the disgusting rad-trad and "White Sharia" types would stop belittling women and treating us like needless idiots, and if the feminists would stop pressuring every woman into some STEM field -- nature will out, and most women would want to raise children and make a home, while outlier women could get on with their fine selves. Win-win-win.


RE: The idea that Christians shouldn't support morally questionable candidates is stupid - Sacred Heart lover - 12-08-2017

Are there any candidates who aren't morally questionable?  :D

Have there ever been?  :rolleyes:

Many great leaders have had grave personal faults.  In fact there are many studies that show the majority of leaders are sociopaths and narcissists.


RE: The idea that Christians shouldn't support morally questionable candidates is stupid - Trad Catholic27 - 12-08-2017

(12-08-2017, 12:01 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Are there any candidates who aren't morally questionable?  :D

Have there ever been?  :rolleyes:

Many great leaders have had grave personal faults.  In fact there are many studies that show the majority of leaders are sociopaths and narcissists.

Vox I have to disagree with you on the Victorian Era sexual ethics they should be reestablished as the norm in western civilization.

Because we have gone too far away from Catholic morals and ethics


RE: The idea that Christians shouldn't support morally questionable candidates is stupid - Trad Catholic27 - 12-08-2017

Second God created Women for marriage and the religous life while Men were created for war and to protect the innocent and to become Priests.

But modern day feminists having ruined the natural order of the world with their insane quest for equality and abortion and sexual deviant behavior.

Am I committing a sin by saying these things and being too strict on proper gender roles in society


RE: The idea that Christians shouldn't support morally questionable candidates is stupid - angeltime - 12-08-2017

(12-07-2017, 11:53 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
(12-07-2017, 11:18 PM)austenbosten Wrote: I guess my argument would be "whose morals are we talking about?". It seems to me rather strange that liberals will trash Al Franken for sexual misconduct, despite excusing the Clinton's for decades, and then turn around and thank Senator Franken for his stance on abortion and gay rights.

There's so much hypocrisy with regard to this sexual witch hunt, it's crazy. 

A lot of these Hollywood star women engaged in quid pro quo sorts of arrangements with sleazy guys, and now that they've "hit the wall," are no longer able to benefit from it, so are posing as Feminist Warrior Grrrrrls, Out to Avenge The World. They're treating the male population as pathological when it's a tiny minority of men who behave as did those who made those sleazy arrangements with them. 

Then you have the simultaneous goings-on of all this man-hating and phenomena like "Slut Walks" and accusations of "slut-shaming" women who, well, act like sluts. What's going on now is like a mirror image of the stupidity of the Victorian era, when female sexuality was disappeared while men bought their "French postcards." Now, it's the women who can be As Nasty As They Wanna Be while the men are expected to avert their eyes and never approach any of them.
 
The Western world, esp. the U.S., is so sexually sick, it's hard to believe. When Our Lady and the examples of female Saints were thrown out, everything was set up for this sort of thing to happen. And those female Saints, note, weren't all like Ste. Therese of Lisieux (whom I adore); Catholic women owned businesses, taught in universities, led nations as Queens, led men in battle, ran hospitals and monasteries, etc. And most were homemakers, because, if everyone would shut the Hell up -- if the disgusting rad-trad and "White Sharia" types would stop belittling women and treating us like needless idiots, and if the feminists would stop pressuring every woman into some STEM field -- nature will out, and most women would want to raise children and make a home, while outlier women could get on with their fine selves. Win-win-win.
Peace.....we have lost a lot in terms of morals and family unity.  There will always be problems in life and imperfection in people and places until "thy kingdom comes."   I realized last week when a woman was recruiting women in our parish to become involved with "women who want development and peace" - that it's not about women - its about starting with development and peace in our own homes and families.  If each person and each family concentrated on "metanoia" change within their own hearts and lifestyles becoming more penitential, humble and God-centered instead of I-centered, we might see some changes in this world - if each person gave a little something to help a neighbor on each street, in each city/town, in each country, province, state, nation - we would get a lot done and in the light of Christ!  So simple, yet at the same time so hard.....Blessings on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception - December 8th!


RE: The idea that Christians shouldn't support morally questionable candidates is stupid - VoxClamantis - 12-08-2017

(12-08-2017, 12:42 AM)Trad Catholic27 Wrote: Vox I have to disagree with you on the Victorian Era sexual ethics they should be reestablished as the norm in western civilization.

Because we have gone too far away from Catholic morals and ethics
 
Victorian sexual ethics were not Catholic. And they're the reason why the 1960s-style sexual revolution happened. Sexual ethics have to be rooted in a sound view of human nature, and denying that women are sexual, as the Victorians did, isn't sound. And it's cruel. And it's stupid. And it's bound to lead to what we have now.


RE: The idea that Christians shouldn't support morally questionable candidates is stupid - VoxClamantis - 12-08-2017

(12-08-2017, 12:54 AM)Trad Catholic27 Wrote: Second God created Women for marriage and the religous life while Men were created for war and to protect the innocent and to become Priests.

But modern day feminists having ruined the natural order of the world with their insane quest for equality and abortion and sexual deviant behavior.

Am I committing a sin by saying these things and being too strict on proper gender roles in society

God created men and women, and He made us generally different. But not all men are called to the priesthood or to be warriors, and not all women are called to become mothers and homemakers or nuns (me, for ex., I'm sleep-disordered and sickly, which isn't conducive to convent life, I assure you). Most of each sex would fit into those respective roles just fine. That's how nature works. But it's also the case that there are outliers, and if those outliers aren't allowed to use their gifts, they get together and foment revolution. Aside from that, it's cruel to, say, disallow a woman with an IQ of 160 and a passion for science to pursue her dreams and use her gifts. And it's equally cruel to force onto the football field or into the military a more feminine boy who prefers cooking and sewing. 

As I've said, if both the he-boy, bully, rad trad types AND the biology-denying equity feminist types would shut up, then nature will take its course. Most women will want to become homemakers because that's how most women are built, and most men will want to pursue traditionally masculine ventures because that's how most men are built. And the relatively few outliers can do their things. No one loses, and no one would be tempted to foment social revolution because their dreams are squelched. To me, the only lines are the priesthood, contact sports, and professions that require physical strength AND physical intimacy (like bunking together) and/or esprit de corps -- e.g., military combat, firefighting, and street-policing (as opposed to detective work, say, or acting as a matron in women's prisons, etc.).