My Case Against Obama… and McCain
Three weeks ago, I was about to write an “endorsement” of Sen. Barack Obama on this blog. Our wedding and hurricane Ike got in the way, which prevented me from writing such endorsement, as it were. Along the way, I did some thinking and talking with my now husband, Policraticus, and I realized that the only reason why I wanted to vote for Obama was to vote against Sen. John McCain. Undoubtedly, Sen. Obama is an appealing candidate; however, his positions on abortion and, more importantly, embryonic stem cell research—given the fact that abortion is already legal in this country—are far too important for me to close my eyes, cast a ballot for him, and hope for the best. Jay Anderson’s example also affected my decision not to vote for Obama. What it boils down to for me, is that I will not be able to forgive myself once either President Obama or President McCain signs federal funding for embryonic stem cell research into law. After a long process of discernment I have come to terms with the fact that I cannot face God and tell Him that I did not have enough information: that I did not know that they both supported a grave evil. I truly believe that faithful Catholics can make a good moral argument for voting for either candidate. However, my conscience prompts me to move beyond fulfilling the basic requirements of the law. I wish I could justify how an Obama administration could provide a better framework for achieving the common good and how it would supersede the desecration of human life in its most vulnerable stages, but I simply cannot. Once the day comes, sooner or later, I do not believe I could face the living God, my source of joy and hope, the reason why I get up every morning, my innermost strength and comfort in the midst of discomfort, and tell Him that I simply ignored the facts that were presented to me.
Knowledge, Freedom, and Conscience
That being said, this is a decision I have come to based on the information I currently have and after responsible and serious formation of my own conscience. Note that I have emphasized the personal aspect of one’s formation of conscience. I do not hold anyone to my “standard” or to the decision I have made. Every individual possesses the freedom to follow their own conscience and act upon it. I can only provide information and aid the discernment process of others, but it all ends there. The process of forming one’s conscience does not occur in a vacuum and our community of faith, among many other factors, should aid us in coming to a informed decision. But once one has gathered the pertaining information to the moral situation at hand, it is one’s responsibility and obligation to follow one’s conscience and act upon it. At the end of the day, we are the only ones—as individuals—responsible for our own actions and we stand alone in the face of God when judgment comes. Only God alone is judge.
There needs to exist knowledge and freedom for the individual to act in a moral situation. It is this knowledge and freedom that is granted to us by God so we can listen to Him speaking to us in our hearts—that innermost voice that moves us toward the truth that only He can speak. However, to listen to that voice, distractions have to be kept to a minimum—if not altogether scrapped through prayer. It is through a strong prayer life that we listen to our conscience—to the voice of truth. In my case, taking a break from the blogosphere and the news in general made my decision easier and clearer.
Why McCain was never really an option
McCain stopped from being an option for me right before he picked Gov. Palin as his running mate and after his campaign took the wrong turn. He just did not seem to give me a reason why I should vote for him even if I did not care about abortion or embryonic stem cell research. I just simply could not figure out what he stood for and why, as a citizen, I should vote for him. To put it simply: the McCain campaign made the process of my formation of conscience rather easy. Below are my reasons why McCain has not been in my short list for a few months now.
After Gov. Huckabee did not seem to have a chance to win the Republican primary, I was one of those who was actually glad that it was Sen. McCain rather than Gov. Romney who would become the Republican nominee. In all honesty, Sen. McCain always struck me as a authentic individual who genuinely wanted to listen to the voice of the people. I was very much looking forward to the Obama and McCain campaigns, because they both looked like they would not fall on the dirty games of politics. It was, in the beginning, a breath of fresh air. Among a few of my personal interests, McCain’s position on global warming, immigration, and drilling at the Alaska Wild National Refuge were promising as a shift from the Republican base. The McCain campaign started well, not wanting to point out Rev. Wright and such, but then it took a bad turn when they switched campaign strategists. McCain isolated himself from the media and his campaign seemed to search aimlessly for a slogan that would appeal to voters at the time.
Problems started to arise for me when McCain’s call for “lower taxes” did not seem to be followed by a reason as to why tax cuts were a good thing to achieve the common good in the midst of a record national deficit, states going virtually bankrupt, and a colossal global financial crisis. There was the “drill, baby, drill!” that was not followed with the truth about the several years that it takes for geoscientists to find oil first and how many more years it would take to achieve commercial production. Of course, it was not mentioned that domestic drilling was not going to have a direct effect on gas prices immediately and not even in the long term as economists predict given how global oil demand would catch up with U.S. oil supply. Not to mention the embarrassing proposed “gas tax holiday.”
And then there was Gov. Palin as the vice-presidential pick. (You know that now that the economy is a mess, the McCain campaign is wishing they would have Mitt Romney in their ticket). I have to be honest, the fact that nobody knew who Sarah Palin was completely turned me off, but I still turned on to her first speech to see what she was about. Talking points: that’s all she was. Very disappointing. No mention of her pro-life record or what she would do about it as vice-president. As a woman, I was completely turned off by the news that her teenage daughter was pregnant. What disappointed me? The very same fact that even after knowing that her daughter got pregnant out of wedlock, she was willing to put her daughter on the line by accepting the nomination. You can spin that however you want, but I would never imagine my mom doing that to me or doing that to my daughter. NEVER. The speech at the RNC followed and her sarcastic and sour tone turned me off even more. Sarah Palin’s tone and presentation makes Hillary Clinton appear genuine and authentic, and that is not a compliment. We have enough polarization in this country. We do not need any more and being divisive is what Sarah Palin seems to be all about. Then, the Katie Couric interviews came about and that sealed the deal for me. As a woman, I was insulted. As a citizen, I was embarrassed. As an immigrant, I was in disbelief. I came here ten years ago and I know more about basic Civics of this country than this woman knew. Not to know Casey v. Planned Parenthood if you are in the pro-life group or to know the names of a few newspapers is almost unpatriotic. Not to know at least some of the principles of what the bailout bill was about or what the financial crisis in this country entails for Americans is insulting. To feel that I know more about economy and foreign policy than a vice presidential candidate is simply an embarrassment and that is not a compliment for me. Now the attacks about Rev. Wright have launched again while many Americans are being laid off and many others are losing their homes. The McCain campaign has really mocked what it means for public elected officials to serve the people that pay their salaries.
I came here ten years ago with a lot of hope, because my fellow Venezuelans had elected Hugo Chavez—a man with no merit whatsoever who simply took—and keeps taking—political systems as a joke. I have not seen so much incompetence embodied in a person running for a major executive office since Hugo Chavez until I saw Sarah Palin. No merit: there is simply nothing there. My friend from Venezuela who visited two weeks ago and has endured 10 years of Chavez watched the Palin interviews in disbelief and told me: “That woman is crazy! Why would anyone consider voting for her?” I ask myself the same thing. I became a U.S. citizen recently and even after witnessing the disaster that this administration has been, I still had a dim hope in the political system of this country. I no longer do. Setting aside embryonic stem cell research, which by itself dismisses him, I am not even considering John McCain simply because his pick of Gov. Palin and the lack of substance of his platform. Both are an insult to me. As a responsible citizen and as a hard-working American, I am offended by the lower bar that has been set for American politics thanks to the McCain campaign. I moved too far away from Venezuela hoping for a political system that worked or that at least kept the issues that mattered right and center. I was wrong.
A very fine and interesting post.
Having to come to terms with the limited options in this presidential field is difficult for many Catholics, especially those that take their faith to heart.
It hardly is an easy decision to make.
For me personally it’s Senator McCain’s stance on ESCR.
I’m interested to see if a follow up posting may arise for alternative candidates such as Alan Keyes or Bob Barr.
In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,
Tito
Katerina,
I appreciate your emphasizing the importance of following one’s informed conscience when voting.
Thank you for this thoughtful post, which expresses my sentiments pretty closely too. God bless.
A thoughtful reflection. Although I like Palin (and dislike the populism) and have respect for McCain, and want candidates of the right to win, I have decided to abstain from voting. Obama’s stance on abortion (and very nearly the whole Democratic Party) is completely unacceptable. As one who values extending legal protections to the unborn as a high, high, high priority, they are a complete non-starter. McCain is the “lesser of two evils,” but that doesn’t make indirectly supporting unacceptable policies that might be enacted the proper thing to do.
McCain is the “lesser of two evils,” but that doesn’t make indirectly supporting unacceptable policies that might be enacted the proper thing to do.
Jonathan, I have a lot of respect for your conclusion. Coming from a very different socio-political outlook, I ended up at the same place as you with respect to McCain and Obama, and I think the Catholic faith what led us here. I have not committed myself to abstaining yet and am in looking closely at third party candidates who may be on the ballot here in Texas.
I honestly don’t know much about Bob Barr or the alternatives… sadly, we only hear from the two major party candidates on the news. My Catholic friends keep saying that they’re going to vote for Ron Paul… is he going to be on the ballot? Last I heard he was endorsing the four independent candidates.
Katerina,
As you know, my own thoughts and discernments have lead me in a very similar direction. Thanks for so candidly and intelligently placing your own discernment in the open and in the process, opening yourself up for potentially intense criticism.
I have always “leaned” Republican and am a former “one-issue voter.” Now that I am more educated on the fullness of my faith and it’s transcendence of political categories and issues, I am no longer justify “blindly” voting Republican because of their “pro-life” position.
Unlike you, I was initially excited by the (Catholic) buzz around Palin, but that quickly faded. I am still puzzled by the intelligent and faithful Catholics I know and respect who have joined groups like “CAtholics for Palin,” etc. Like you, I respect and, to certain extent, can understand their decision to vote McCain/Palin in the face of Obama’s stance on abortion; however I do not understand the seemingly unmitigated and zealous support for Palin.
My perception of Obama seems to be nearly identical to yours, and like you, I also believe ESCR is the real “abortion” issue this election. Like you, my conscience will not me allow to support either ticket.
I agree with and appreciate your explication of the important of an informed conscience and personal decision on these matters. I am sick of some Catholics telling others they are in sin for voting for this or that candidate.
P.S. On an only slightly related, but more theological and speculative note (I hope this doesn’t jack your post):
Your wrote: “At the end of the day, we are the only ones—as individuals—responsible for our own actions and we stand alone in the face of God when judgment comes. Only God alone is judge.”
If I remember correctly (I don’t have the book with me), I believe Ratzinger, in Eschatology, speaks of a personal judgment at the end of each person’s earthly life and a general judgment at the end of time. This, I believe, is standard Church teaching. However, it was new to me, to hear him speak of the general judgment as a communal judgment, in which each person is judged relative to his/her “position” within the body of man and/or the Body of Christ. His Christology view of Purgatory and, well, existence, play into this heavily as well.
Thanks again for sharing.
Pax!
For the time being, I intend to vote for Joe Schriner. Although I also need to do more research on other third party candidates.
Regarding Bob Barr, a distinction has to be made between Bob Barr the House Republican and Bob Bar the Libertarian Candidate. Barr had a strong “pro-life” record in the House (although he had paid for one of his three wives to have an abortion some years before he was elected). But here is what the Libertarian Party Platform has to say about abortion:
http://www.lp.org/platform
He was the author of the Defense of Marriage Act, but according to Wikipedia, “At the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, he apologized for the part of the Defense of Marriage Act which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.” Also according to Wikipedia, he now opposes the “War on Drugs,” which he strongly supported in the House.
I personally think there is something to be said for the Libertarian point of view, but it seems to me that the idea of maximum personal freedom and minimal government attempts to control personal behavior regarding abortion, sexual behavior, drugs, and on, is incompatible with the Catholic idea that an important function of law is to make statements about morality.
I personally think there is something to be said for the Libertarian point of view, but it seems to me that the idea of maximum personal freedom and minimal government attempts to control personal behavior regarding abortion, sexual behavior, drugs, and on, is incompatible with the Catholic idea that an important function of law is to make statements about morality.
This reflects my views a 100% on the libertarian platform.
Thanks for the info on Barr.
As JB, Joe Schriner is really the only option I feel comfortable with. Ron Paul is a good option too although he also aligns with the libertarian and individualistic platform. No candidate is perfect, so Paul seems to be the best out of the pack :-/
I ended up at the same place as you with respect to McCain and Obama, and I think the Catholic faith what led us here.
Yes, I think so, and I appreciate this and other Catholic blogs giving me better understanding of ESCR.
As far as abstaining goes, I’m not prepared to say it’s better than voting, but I would suggest that one should not feel like they should vote. We are very blessed to live in this republic (it’s not a democracy, but has democratic processes…anyway), and one reason why this is so is that it’s not necessary to be concerned with politics. We are able to busy ourselves with the business of living and raising children ect. with the assurance of the rule of law. This is a rare and valuable thing.
Two reasons I cannot support libertarians: humans are not commodities, as I think they tend to forget or ignore, and they have, as a pratical matter, this tendency to want to globalize both markets and populations. That is a recipe for the breakup of organic community….Ron Paul, however, is a notable exception here.
This reflects my views a 100% on the libertarian platform.
Mine too. That’s what prevented me from supporting Ron Paul.
[]
Deleted by poster. This post is not about a candidate’s ties to Ayers, Keating or alike.
Two reasons I cannot support libertarians: humans are not commodities, as I think they tend to forget or ignore, and they have, as a pratical matter, this tendency to want to globalize both markets and populations.
Since Reagan, the Republicans have essentially held the same view.
[]
Deleted by poster. This post is not about a candidate’s ties to Ayers, Keating or alike.
Since Reagan, the Republicans have essentially held the same view.
Since 1980, with the disappointments of Carter and once anti-abortion public figures in the Democratic Party (including Joe Biden), those who care about extending legal protections to the unborn have largely moved to the GOP, which has been receptive and disappointing at the same time. But they do have a large influence. Therefore, your characterization is, I think, inaccurate.
Jonathan,
I am curious, just sincerely curious, which issues/considerations on McCain have led you to decide to abstain?
JB,
I want McCain to win insofar as there are two possibilities of a winner. To be an active supporter, however, is in my mind improper because McCain has not clarified if he will allow funding the destruction of the embryo in the process of extracting stem cells, and he has supported this in the past. Second, there are more superficial reasons that play a minor factor here: his campaign finance reform is a gift to those with the means to bypass its regulations, and I dislike his stances on immigration, which is a system that needs to be reformed in a different manner than he advocates (following Dunacn Hunter). Obama, on these issues, is worse…and on the most important issue, the unborn, he is the worst major party candidate in U.S. history.
For me Obama is exactly what this country desperatly needs at this time.
For me Obama is a great transforming candidate. I very much appreciate a person who actually is able to live up to moral and intellectual commitments. The guy came from the bottom of society and made it into this spot by being a rigerous student, a genuine good listener , he is a smart and kind man.
I am so sick and tired of the Republican offerings of borish C and D troublemakers as the greates t invention since sliced bread. McCain wants to make this into a character election – this from a guy who chased the 18 year young rich Cindy while still married.
This from a guy who would have been kicked out of the Navy for his failing grades and erratic behaviours. This from a guy who partied with Keating and in the end had us bail his palls out to the tune of Billions.
As you know the Abortion issue here in the US is not one party or the other – it reflects the majority opinion of our fellow citizens.
Granted for me the issue is less of a watershed since
I happen to think that Abortion can only be allowed in case of Rape/Incest and if the life of the mother is in immanent danger – yes I would hope that as a country we would find at least find back to this position – and yes here the democratic position leaves something to be desired.
Well the human condition is such that rarely it is black or white.
That is the reason why a good number of smart catholic conservatives in the mold of a Kmiec stand behind Obama for the greater good of society.
Frankly I deeply believe that a responsible husband and father like Obama does serve as a great example and does much more for the moral standing of this country than a cheat like McCain and a questionable evangelical Fundamentalist like Palin.
Sure I realize that some will vote for Barr – but give me a break the guy has nothing on an upright, smart family guy like Obama.
Yes Character count – neither McCain nor Barr do have it.
Ron Paul is not running by the way – he does have character I would admit.
JB,
With regard to general judgment, I think you are correct. I remember reading something like that on Ratzinger’s Eschatology. I honestly don’t know how the two kinds of judgment reconcile or the interaction between personal and social sins at the time of judgment. My understanding is that the teaching on conscience deals primarily with personal responsibility and culpability.
[]
Deleted by poster. This post is not about a candidate’s ties to Ayers, Keating or alike.
[]
Deleted by poster. This post is not about a candidate’s ties to Ayers, Keating or alike.
jj02 and Katerina,
What are your thoughts on this statement from Faithful Citizenship?:
Is Jonathan seriously supporting Duncan Hunter’s position on immigration? This man is extreme even among Republicans, calling for the deportation of 10 million people. This is about as far from the stance of the US church as one can imagine.
[]
Deleted by poster. This post is not about a candidate’s ties to Ayers, Keating or alike.
Zach,
I have no problem with Catholics supporting either Obama or McCain.
MM: Hunter does not support rounding up 10 million people. If you want to characterize him on these issues, link to him or his materials directly, as this topic has way too much heat and is easy to mischaracterize. He supports a fence, enforcing current laws, and employer sanctions. These are all sensible and I would like to see them enacted. BTW: anyone who wishes to dramatically reduce human trafficking and narcotics smuggling – which are turning large areas of Texas, for instance, into no-go areas and spilling a lot of blood – should support a fence.
http://www.house.gov/hunter/news_prior_2006/TRUE.security.html
Zach,
That’s a good quote. Thanks for bringing it up. Like Jonathan, I don’t have a problem either with Catholics supporting either Obama or McCain. Like I said in my post, I think a good moral argument could be made for either candidate taking into account many, many factors. However, the burden of proof lies on those who decide to vote for them, which entails a thorough formation of conscience and discernment process. That being said, this dilemma is not a black or white situation. It’s really not. I’m not in the business of stating what “Catholics should or should not” do or who they should vote or not vote for. The Catholic principles have been laid. The information on each candidate’s stance have been laid as well. It is up to the individual voter to make their own decision and do so in a responsible way.
All,
I deleted Dan’s original comments and hence I’m deleting any of your responses to him to prevent readers from getting lost on the comment thread.
Wonderful post, especially the humility of the assertions you end up making. I will link it to my Facebook note-readers…
Sam,
Thanks!
I will link it to my Facebook note-readers…
OH NO!!! We know what happens in those notes sometimes ;)
I was considering doing the same (facebook note-linking I mean). I had been contemplating a similar post, but you pretty much the words out of my and wrote them with more clarity, eloquence, and humility than I could have.
Katerina,
I agree the dilemma is not black and white. I do think, however, that Catholicism is in one way an appeal to public reason, and therefore we should not hesitate in sharing the reasons we vote or don’t vote for a particular candidate. It is indeed up to the individual voter to make their decision, but this does not mean we cannot voice our opinions.
We all reason and we all reason universally, for the most part. What I think is good I think good for everyone. I suspect you think this too, else you would not bother sharing with us your thoughts on the election. Thus I use the word should and not must in making my argument. Your post does not say Catholics should abstain explicitly, but it is implicit in your remarks. If it is not implicit in your remarks, I confess I do not understand the point of the post. It would be like discoursing on the merits of vanilla versus chocolate ice cream.
Thank you for the thoughtful post
Jonathan: Hunter supports mass deportation. Check this interview with Judy Woodruff:
JUDY WOODRUFF: You also have been adamant in saying that you think that the illegals, known illegals in this country should be deported. How do you go about finding them?
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER: …Once you secure the border, we have a deportation system, in fact, for people that say, “You can’t deport people by the thousands,” we deport thousands of people from this country every month. And if we don’t, if we don’t adhere to the law, the many people who are here right now, the millions of people who are here right now, who came in illegally after the amnesty of the 1980s, came in after the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House held up a big sign and we said, “This time we really mean it,” 1986, I believe. We said, “We really mean it. Nobody else can come in illegally.” And folks came in illegally and left tire tracks on those signs.
——————————————————————
That’s just one example. So, let me ask you: do you support deportation or do you stand with the Church?
Zach,
Yes I believe in the value of sharing one’s thought process when making a decision, especially if it is a decision that we all have to make anyway.
Your post does not say Catholics should abstain explicitly, but it is implicit in your remarks. If it is not implicit in your remarks, I confess I do not understand the point of the post. It would be like discoursing on the merits of vanilla versus chocolate ice cream.
The point of my post is that Catholics “should” not do anything I tell them or not tell them. I’m only sharing how I’m currently forming my conscience on this issue. No need to deduce a “what Catholics should do according to Katerina” from my post :)
Let me ask you: why do you think the current deportation law, which Hunter and I and many tens of millions wish to see enforced, is against the Church? It is not. The law can, and should, be enforced in a humane fashion. The vision of mass deportations and camps and families torn apart and so on is a false one. Those who are not citizens should return, follow the laws currently in place, get in line, and be welcomed or not in accordance with the wishes of the citizenry in through democratic processes. Here is what deportation means, legally:
http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-deportation/immigration-deportation-overview.html
This is in accord with official teaching (Catechism):
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
Since Reagan, the Republicans have essentially held the same view.
Since 1980, with the disappointments of Carter and once anti-abortion public figures in the Democratic Party (including Joe Biden), those who care about extending legal protections to the unborn have largely moved to the GOP, which has been receptive and disappointing at the same time. But they do have a large influence. Therefore, your characterization is, I think, inaccurate.
No, it’s not inaccurate. I was not saying that both parties are identical, nor was I talking about abortion (it always comes back to abortion with you people!!). I was referring to the fact that, like the libertarians, Republican economic policies, in your words, treat human beings as commodities and “want to globalize markets and populations.” If those are the reasons you cannot support libertarians, you will obviously find the same worldview among the Republicans.
Republicans are libertarians who are 1) imperialistic and 2) who, in order to get votes, choose to embrace a particular side on the wedge issue of abortion but which is a view completely incoherent considering their philosophical first principles.
(it always comes back to abortion with you people!!).
Who are “you people?”
And allow me to tell you once again why abortion is the most important domestic issue: because it is mass homocide, on the order of tens of millions, and there are many legislative policies, judicial opinions, and executive actions that directly impact its shape and scope. If you think corporatist or statist policies will change the culture and reduce the rate, well bully for you, but don’t minimize actions such as the Mexico City policy, who sits on the Supreme Court, federal funding of the death factory that is planned parenthood, efforts to codify “abortion choice” into law, restrictions such as partial-birth, and on and on.
“Us people” tend to care about these a great deal because they directly and closely impact the possible life of many unborn.
Katerina,
Though I disagree with you that Obama is the lesser of two evils, I am happy for you and your decision.
I thought this thread was about conscience, knowledge and politics?
Guess I was right. Since my posts have been deleted there is a lack of knowledge, conscience and there is abundant politics.
Tell me, how my posts challenging someone’s conscience in voting for Obama is not related?
Katerina,
In all seriousness, why would you share your thoughts unless you expected other people to learn something from them? And in this case, what would they learn except your reasons for voting a particular way? And how is this any different from sharing what you think Catholics should do?
I’m not trying to be fresh, I really just don’t understand the insistence on presenting subjective experience if it’s not intended to have some objective effect.
“Us people” tend to care about these a great deal because they directly and closely impact the possible life of many unborn.
Suppose “you people” could succeed in preventing 1.3 million women a year from aborting their babies. Do you have any plans to help the women who sought the abortion for economic reasons? Or those who were having relationship problems and were concerned about the parenting the child would receive? Or those who felt they couldn’t cope with any more children than they already had? Or those with health problems? Or those whose babies would have health defects?
You care about the lives of the unborn, but what happens if they get born? What are your plans for taking care of them and for helping the women whose option for abortion you took away? Are they on their own? As I understand Catholic teaching, that’s not supposed to be the deal. Nor is private charity supposed to be the deal. And I don’t think tax cuts for the rich amount to government help. The Declaration on Procured Abortion says “a whole positive policy must be put into force so that there will always be a concrete, honorable and possible alternative to abortion.” What are the Republican concrete, honorable, and possible alternatives that will be offered?
Just checking to see if I’m still banned.
Zach,
I share my thoughts, because they may be useful for some people who may be trying to make a decision on this issue. Note that I emphasized “some people.” That is very far from me claiming that my thoughts have a bearing on what all Catholics should do. I don’t know if we’re talking past each other here, but “should” comes across as mandatory and that is exactly what I’m trying to get away from when it comes to voting. No one should impose on another individual whom they should vote for and that is my point with regard to knowledge, freedom and following one’s conscience. I am no one to say what Catholics should or should not do. I can only provide information and only the individual person can make a decision as to what he/she should or should not do.
Katerina,
I think you may be right, we might be talking past each other. In case that is not the case, I will try one more time to clarify what I am trying to say.
I totally agree that each individual person has to follow their conscience. I am not trying to get people to betray their consciences. Rather I (like you I suspect) am trying to inform people’s consciences. But I still don’t see why you would limit the scope of your remarks to inform only some people. It’s a public website – you intended to inform everyone who reads the page, no? Is this an imposition? I don’t think so – it’s just making an argument about what we ought to do. My argument, like yours, is not attempting to say what we must (read:obligated) do, only what we should do, in each of our respective best judgments.
I guess my basic point is that you are making more or less the same type of argument I did a few days ago, albeit less directly. In this post, you are saying what Catholics should do in your estimation. This ought or “should”, however, is not obligatory given the nature of the subject matter.
No, I’m not saying what Catholics should do in my estimation. Not at all. For what is worth, people may benefit from how I informed and formed my conscience or they may not. That is fine. MZ did a post above mine where he shared his thoughts that obviously played a role in informing his conscience and in ultimately making a decision. I benefited from them and will continue to include them in my formation of conscience, some people may not have benefited and completely dismissed them. That is fine. We are just exchanging ideas. I’m not advocating anything: I’m simply putting my thoughts out there and anyone can either take them, chew on them, or completely dismiss them.
The only thing I would take issue with is those who think that embryonic stem cell research cancels out because both candidates support it. That is poor reasoning.
Katerina – Your intent to not bind the conscience of others was quite clear from the original post. I find myself agreeing with most of your analysis and reasoning, though I would list many more reasons not to vote for Obama as well as McCain. While this lack of viable choices seems rather frustrating, we must remember that these candidates and parties are less the cause of our problems and more a reflection of foundational cultural decay that can only be addressed by the Gospel taking root in the hearts and lives of individuals.
The most intersting thing about this election is how people from both the left and the right side of the political spectrum are reaching the same conclusion – neither of the two leading candidates can be supported, at least as they personally discern.
Ok, at least our disagreement is clear now.
This ought or “should”, however, is not obligatory given the nature of the subject matter.
How can you have an “ought” that is not obligatory? That’s a contradiction, Zach.
The only thing I would take issue with is those who think that embryonic stem cell research cancels out because both candidates support it. That is poor reasoning.
Yes it is.
we must remember that these candidates and parties are less the cause of our problems and more a reflection of foundational cultural decay that can only be addressed by the Gospel taking root in the hearts and lives of individuals.
I think this is a great way of putting it. Sounds like the Master (Jesus) himself.
Poli – Maybe it is. I need to think about it.
I’d say all “oughts” where are knowledge is complete and authoritative are obligatory. In other cases, most especially political cases, not all oughts are absolutely obligatory because we can’t do everything at once and our knowledge is often incomplete.
For example,
In the case of the dogmas of the faith, we have greater certainty and “truer” knowledge than we do in many other areas of knowledge. Our knowledge comes from Divine Authority and therefore it is more certain, and it is also totally binding because it comes from that Most Authoritative of sources.
In the case of a political opinion, our knowledge is less certain because it is not part of revelation. We have to make judgments ourselves, based upon incomplete knowledge and our own conscience. There is still an “ought” involved with the question – we are trying to answer the question “what ought we to do?” – but the answer is not so certain, therefore what we need to do is not necessarily certain, and therefore not necessarily obligatory.
I’m not sure that makes any sense but it’s an interesting question, I think
In my view there is no more or less ‘foundational cultural decay’ now than at any given time in the past.
Plenty of great people ARE doing the right thing today.
Great potential for this country.
It is time that we give this countrys leadership back to rationale , intellectual accomplished and morally sound people like Obama- while I am sure the Republicans have some great folks along those lines – they are not offering them right now – and I am not sorry to say Palin aint it -let them sort it out and get back to us once they aired the party from the stink of borish deliberate incompetence.
Enough of the sell out to second and third rate underachievers like Bush and the most recent edition of McCain .
By the way the recent Rolling Stones article is a good starting point to ‘appreciate’ the real McCain.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
A spoiled Brat – just like Bush.
Why do decent catholic folks cover for these failed faux religious men?
There is one fact that must be clear to everyone and that is that either McCain or Obama will be President in January. In every way, Obama falls short in both character and experience. I note that anything about his associations with some very disturbing people are eliminated but frankly, when I see a person like his mentor and pastor say the things he does and Obama support that with his presence for 20 years I will have an issue with that person as commander in chief. Another issue of course is that we are at a critical time in our history with the mounting issues in the economy and the war with Islamic nuts going on. I find it amazing that anyone would support a person like Obama at this critical time with his total lack of experience. I find it very interesting that the media harps on Palin experience when they have given Obama free ride for almost 2 years much to the chagrin of the Clintons. However, the clinicher for me is that I want to do everything possible to block Obama because of his murderous view of the unborn and even the baby that survives a murder attempt in an abortion mill. He does not want to prevent any form of abortion including partial birth and blocked attempts in Illinois to stop the baby that survives an abortion from being left to die a horrible death. This tells me everything I need to know at that guy.
Michael Irafrate:
Regarding your comment on Ron Paul…
I have been considering voting for him, though I have concerns about his stance on immigration and I think he is a little unrealistic about bringing troops home from overseas immediately.
I haven’t thought of him as a strict “Libertarian”, though I do see how radical libertarianism would be incompatible with Catholic Social Teaching.
That said, so is radical conservatism, liberalism, etc.
Further research into Obama’s abortion stance, specifically regarding FOCA and the comments that he made regarding it as being the “first thing” he would do, I could no longer justify my subtle wishes that I could vote for him as a Catholic. He wasn’t just “pro-choice”, but RADICALLY pro-choice.
John McCain’s view on “intrinsic evils” such as ESCR, and other elements of CST has pretty much put an end to my thought about voting for him. I do applaud him, however, on his stances concerning the environment and global warming. I think the Republican party can learn a lot from him in that regard. More, I think he is also more practical with regard to the subject than Obama is.
Ron Paul was an early hope for me, particularily before McCain won the election. I haven’t given much thought to him again until the last few weeks. I like him on a lot of issues, but on others I don’t. In “intrinsic evils”, he seems good. I appreciate his apathy for war, though he isn’t completely practical on it (as mentioned).
I don’t know enough about any of the other candidates…
Any third party candidate that you like right now?
I know that I am certainly not going to use the “extraordinary” measure and not vote. If there are multiple candidates that all have failing policies, I can legitimately vote for one of them, and use the principle of the “lesser of evils”, but I am not willing to apply that with regard to the “Democrat” or “Republican” choices that are tossed my way any longer. I am tired of the argument that a “vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Obama”.
BS.
jn