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

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

I think this is a great way of putting it. Sounds like the Master (Jesus) himself.

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.

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.

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.