Sunday, October 12, 2014


CNN BREAKING NEWS! A health care worker at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital has tested positive for Ebola after a preliminary test, the hospital said in a statement. Confirmatory testing will be conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.


JBS said...

For this and countless other reasons, everyone should go to Confession once a month.

Anonymous said...

The "Great Leader" told us Ebola would never hit our shores.

Anonymous said...

Funny that one cannot find anyone who voted for the "Great Leader". All I hear is well, I did not vote for Obama. Over 50% of the American people did, including guilt ridden white liberals and 93% of African Americans and yet African Americans have not benefited from this Communist.

Anonymous said...

As a side post Fr...can you explain Francis away on this new news?

Carol H. said...

For this and countless other reasons, we should go back to intinction and eliminate the common chalice.

Anonymous 2 said...

It is fine to criticize Obama for what turn out to be ill advised remarks but let’s get the facts straight first. Obama did NOT say that “Ebola would never hit our shores.” What he actually said was:

“First and foremost, I want the American people to know that our experts, here at the CDC and across our government, agree that the chances of an Ebola outbreak here in the United States are extremely low. We’ve been taking the necessary precautions, including working with countries in West Africa to increase screening at airports so that someone with the virus doesn’t get on a plane for the United States. In the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores, we’ve taken new measures so that we’re prepared here at home. We’re working to help flight crews identify people who are sick, and more labs across our country now have the capacity to quickly test for the virus. We’re working with hospitals to make sure that they are prepared, and to ensure that our doctors, our nurses and our medical staff are trained, are ready, and are able to deal with a possible case safely.”

Thus he made two claims: (a) that it was “unlikely . . . that someone with Ebola [would] reach our shores,” and (b) that “our experts . . . agree that the chances of an Ebola outbreak here in the United States are extremely low.” Technically he may still have been correct about the claim in (a) – unlikely does not mean impossible and perhaps the “unlikely” just happened. Of course he may also have been wrong about that – perhaps it was in fact “likely” and the “likely” happened. Either way we must hope and pray that the belief of “the experts” Obama references in (b) is justified, and also that the “extremely low” chance does not eventuate. This, by the way, is where “OCD people” can protect their fellow human beings and themselves by ensuring that even tiny slip ups are avoided so the chain of transmission can be broken. =)

Of course, I consider it “not unlikely” that Obama bashers on talk radio and in the blogosphere are claiming that Obama said “Ebola would never hit our shores” since political discourse of all stripes seems to have little regard for the truth nowadays, so low have we fallen! But, as the saying goes, “you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.”

Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. I have just done a little internet surfing – It is unbelievable but apparently some right wing talk show hosts are actually suggesting Obama wants Ebola here to punish America for slavery or, as one wag would have it, “Maybe it’s part of his redistribution plan to redistribute disease, not just wealth.” If they are indeed saying such things, it is despicable, just as despicable as saying George Bush wanted the 9/11 terrorist attacks to happen. How twisted can one get?!

Gene said...

Anon 2, Still defending Obola, I see. LOL!

Gene said...

Ask yourselves this, are you more likely to be infected, beheaded, killed in a race related incident, or blown up than you were six years ago?

Anonymous said...

Southern border is open and it's more than Mexicans coming in.

Right there, one fact, puts the lie to the administration's supposed competence in keeping Ebola out of the USA.

It's relatively hard to get a VISA from Africa to visit the US.... but it's not so hard for someone to fly from there to Latin America and then walk across the southern border.

Anonymous 2 said...


Actually, I am trying to defend the truth.

So, here is something else for you to consider -- Just as with the spread of STDs, the infection of humans by the Ebola virus is the result of human sinfulness, specifically lack of respect for God’s creation and our responsibilities as stewards. Check out the relevant passages in the Catechism and papal documents, and consider the following results of human hubris, greed, and failure to observe the natural law and God-given limits:

But, hey, to quote Marx: “Why should I care about posterity? What’s posterity ever done for me?”

Padre Ignotus said...

Anon - Count me among those who voted for Obama. And I attended his first Inauguration to boot. Nearly froze to death, but was honored to be there as history was being made.

Flavius Hesychius said...

[All ye who read, take note: this is the only time I ever defend the President or Washington D.C.]

As much as I dislike the current occupant of the White House (along with everyone in the District of Columbia) I agree with A2 that the current rush to blame everything on him is silly (not in the Ignotian sense of the word). Currently, it appears as though many want to interpret every misplaced modifier as a conspiracy against the United States (or whomever). I'm not sure what this attitude solves, other than setting up straw-men for the sake of demolishing them.

I'm with Carol. Eliminate the common chalice and revive intinction.

rcg said...

Unfornately, when you are king, or Pope, you get blamed for the actions of those under you. The CDC has behaved with arrogance, not to mention poor science,and is willing to risk the public welfare to demonstrate their technical prowess. The detached leadership in the two elected branches in the USA is alarming.

JusadBellum said...

Pater, you voted for the most egregiously pro-abortion politician ever?

Proudly voted for him? His political party's platform includes 4 intrinsically evil things: abortion, contraception, embryo-killing research and the promotion of sodomy as human rights.

And as these are the means you accept in service of some end, what end justifies them? The claim to lower the oceans perhaps?

Please explain to us laity the theology here.... it's OK to vote for a political party that overtly promises to promote 4 intrinsic evils as a matter of policy... it's OK to vote for a candidate who has the most pro-abortion record ever..... why?

What other 'good thing' can make up for that sort of 'means'?

I'm genuinely curious.

Gene said...

Ignotus' Priesthood is one of the inscrutable mysteries of God's will. God uses him in spite of his unbelief and, perhaps, to chastise us…or, as I have said previously, to continue to ratify the Chgurch's decision regarding Donatism. Go figure.

Anonymous 2 said...


Padre Ignotus is quite capable of answering for himself but as is well known on this Blog I also voted for Obama (twice). I have no desire to re-litigate this decision here having done so exhaustively and exhaustingly in several previous exchanges. Here I merely repeat my contention that a Catholic could in good conscience vote for Obama despite (not because of) his support for the “intrinsic evils” you mention, as a matter of prudential decision-making after taking all relevant circumstances into account. If you want to know more, please read the USCCB document “Faithful Citizenship” and all my previous posts on the subject.

By the way I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 but did not do so again in 2004. As W himself said: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

JusadBellum said...

Anonymous and Pater, I'm curious that you can't explain in a single paragraph what other good things justify a vote for Obama (or John Kerry in 2004).

The individual candidate's race or pedigree matters little. It's the political party, the small army of 10,000 political appointees who come in with him or her that actually rule the if a particular political party has an ideological litmus test for national office that includes the promotion and advancement of 4 intrinsic evils (by name!), then what other wonderful good things are they offering that's wildly at odds with the opposing side?

Suppose Sarah Palin runs as a libertarian candidate on the promise that if elected she'll annihilate Iran as a country and kill all 30 million people "on day one" but she'll also dedicate $4 trillion to every social boondoggle the Democrats have ever been 'for'...quintuple spending on schools, the environment, free healthcare, etc.

Would all these 'good things' be worth 30 million dead Iranians? Might I be able to vote for those good things "despite" her promise to kill untold numbers of completely innocent civilians?

Jdj said...

Well, Jusad, you have to admit that Pater/Padre has a good lawyer to speak for him--an alter ego as it were.
I tried to post the following yesterday after your first post; I don't know if Fr. rejected it, or it just didn't go through. I'll try again:

Jusad, apparently one thing you don't understand about Pater/Padre is that he is answerable to no one, and quite contentedly proud of that fact. Many have tried to pin him down over the years about things he has said or done, and failed to do so. He apparently actively encouraged the Obama vote while pastor of MHT in Augusta in 2012. PI gave absolutely no quarter to those who disagreed with him on any issue. He drove off many faithful parishioners (not just for his political views) but was supported by his bishop, other diocesan priests and many (not all) local parishioners. He only lasted 18 months with this assignment, but much damage was done that may never be fully undone.
I have maintained on this blog that his priesthood in good standing should be respected. But, as with all of us humans, the personality & character issues underlying his words & actions should give you enough info about the man to answer your question.

JusadBellum said...

Thanks Jdj.

Well here's the thing though: if one believes one is standing on the unassailable intellectual and moral high ground, then one tends to be magnanimous and patient with people who disagree. One tends to have ready answers backing up one's opinions.

Pater/anonymous sound like relatively intelligent people (not very widely read to be sure, but still, college educated at least).

So their inability or decision to NOT offer an argument for why some such action is justified other than 'take their word for it' is remarkable.

Politics, to the degree it involves prudential decisions can allow for a wide spectrum of honorable positions. But to the degree it involves intrinsic goods or evils, there is no such latitude for Catholics or indeed people of good will.

The ends don't justify the means.

Now if you accept this, it follows that at a minimum there are times when you can't vote at all.

In 2004 and 2008 the Republicans were not fielding candidates and a team of folk who were committed to the advancement of intrinsic evils as a matter of federal policy. As flawed as the GOP is, it was not running on a platform of total cuts to all charity. It wasn't calling for the summary execution of illegal immigrants. It wasn't calling for slavery (which is what embryonic-stem cell research is, treating human beings as things to be owned and disposed of).

So even on the "but they'll make the trains run on time for the poor, women and minorities" argument, one can't put social programs on one plate and abortion on the other and say "well, on balance we have to accept abortion so as to get all these goodies". That sort of calculus doesn't 'work' for Catholics.

For secular materialists, sure. But for Catholics? No.

Are we Catholics first or Americans first?

Pater Ignotus said...

I voted for Obama, twice, because in each election I judged him to be the better candidate. Better than McCain (and Palin) and better than Romney (and Ryan).

In electing Presidents we are not expected to choose the holiest candidate, or the most Catholic candidate, or the most Biblically astute candidate. We are asked to exercise judgment on the needs of the nation and the world and to choose accordingly.

Were Sarah Palin to run for the Presidency with the pledge that she would end abortion, contraception, embryonic stem cell research, and sodomy, I would vote, almost certainly, for whichever candidate was running against her.

Jdj - I am answerable to many people, but not to you nor to any of my cultured despisers here.

I never, not once, "actively encouraged" parishioners to vote for Obama - that is simply a lie.

Jdj - And if you know the circumstances of my time at MHT so well, you know the damage was done long before I appeared on the scene.

Jus - I am highly educated - 22 years of school, all in Catholic institutions from kindergarten through seminary - and widely read as well.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

PI, I don't think it is wise at all for a priest in parish ministry to show all his political cards or to declare his candidates. As you know religion and politics can be very divisive and more so now than ever.
In politics it is best to keep your cards very close to your chest. I let people know I'm an independent and like the democrat candidate in Kentucky, the voting booth is very sacred so it is best not to divulge who one actual voted for even when it is quite well known who she voted for. Good for her.

Flavius Hesychius said...

I voted for Obama, twice, because in each election I judged him to be the better candidate. Better than McCain (and Palin) and better than Romney (and Ryan).

Based on this alone one could believe our elections are little more than choosing smallpox over Ebola.

Gene said...

So, Ignotus, you like sodomy, abortion, and contraception. No surprises there at all. LOL!

Pater Ignotus said...

Good Father - So, if a parishioner asks, "Did you vote for Romney in the last presidential election?" how do you respond?

My opinion is that, if asked, you should respond honestly and be prepared to provide your rationale for the choice you made.

Anonymous 2 said...


“Pater/Anon sound like relatively intelligent people (not widely read but still, college educated, at least).”

Thanks, that is very magnanimous of you. Pater responds to the merits of this point. I choose not to do so for I have nothing to prove to you.

“So their inability or decision to NOT offer an argument for why some such action is justified other than 'take their word for it' is remarkable.”

Pater has responded to this point too. I will also respond, but differently. I refer you, yet again, to the USCCB document “Faithful Citizenship” and to all my many (and I mean many) previous posts on the subject – rather different from “take [my] word for it,” wouldn’t you agree?

As I said in an earlier post on this thread, I am not going to re-litigate the entire matter here again. Instead, let me place the burden on you: Either explain how the guidelines in “Faithful Citizenship” required me not to vote for Obama or admit that the document permitted me to vote for Obama. In responding please do not cherry pick choice phrases or passages or repeat the vague language in your post; that is cheating. You must do justice to the text of the entire document.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

PI I have never told anyone who I have voted for or even if I voted. Cardinal Bergoglio is known to have not voted in Argentina. I happen to think that a Cardinal of the Catholic Church by American secular standards concerning the "right" to vote having said this is a bit over the top too.

I am ambiguous when people ask me political questions.

Pater Ignotus said...

CCC 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:..."

I think a priest has an obligation to encourage Catholics to do what is morally obligatory, not to dissemble when asked a simple question.

I have voted, I believe, in every election for which I was eligible to vote since I was 18 years old. I would never be "ambiguous" about exercising this right and responsibility.

Flavius Hesychius said...

Aw, look at Ignotus being a good wittle citizen... bwahaha.

Looks like I'm going to hell for not voting. Yay! Well, looks like my Sundays just became free.

JusadBellum said...

Pater and anonymous,

Thank you for the heartfelt replies. But might I point out that neither of you provided a reason why a vote for Obama was morally justified?

Specifically you sidestep the fundamental question about ends and means.

The introductory note to Faithful Citizenship states "It does not offer a quantitative listing of issues for equal consideration,
but outlines and makes important distinctions among moral issues acknowledging that some involve the clear obligation to oppose intrinsic evils which can never
be justified and that others require action to pursue justice and promote the
common good."

Boom. As they say, "headshot". Once you admit to the argument the distinction between intrinsic "malum in se" vs. malum prohibitum or different opinions on how to accomplish the good, certain Catholic (and basic humanism 101) conclusions follow.

What about the Obama administration and DNC in general is so qualitatively superior to the GOP and McCain or Romney that the 'ends' (no doubt all those policies that aren't intrinsic evils) could justify the means (the 4 stated intrinsic evils of the DNC platform)?

Faithful Citizenship clearly and unequivocally states that not all issues are of the same moral standing. Minimum wage laws are not on par with abortion laws.

Intrinsic evils are not the same thing as policy differences on the best way to allow for immigration.

So from a Catholic world view it follows, that if Party A overtly declares itself to be for abortion, contraception, embryo-killing research, sodomy.... and Party B says it will work to reduce, restrict, and roll back abortion, embryonic research and gay 'marriage'... then all that remains is to compare their non-essential positions.

If Party A is for increasing all federal programs by 7% annually (while running a $1 trillion budget deficit) but Party B is for increasing all federal programs by 3% annually (while running a $500B budget deficit), we're really not talking about some qualitatively significant difference between the two options.

As most commentators are quick to point out (except 60 days before the general election) practically there's not a lot of radical difference between the parties except on the intrinsic issues.

Are you going to argue that we can balance abortion with a 3% cut in the rate of growth of a federal program from 7% to 4% annually?

You may direct your attention to #35 "35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable
position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to
advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil."

So again, I ask you Anonymous 2 and Pater, what were these 'grave moral reasons" that made a vote for Obama and the DNC obligatory for you as serious, highly educated Catholics?

Pater Ignotus said...

Flav - According to the Catechism, I am being a good citizen. If you choose not to be one, that's your responsibility.

Jus - Party B (Republican, in your scheme) has declared itself to be many things in platform statements, in debate presentations, in stump speeches, etc. But Party B has, in practice, shown itself to be less than sincere in these assertions.

That's politics.

Now, if Parties A, B, C, D, E, F, etc., were required to do all the things they stated they would do in their, or if they actually did all the things they stated they would do, your argument would be unassailable. However, much of what is said pre-election is forgotten, dropped, changed, or otherwise set-aside post-election. This is the reality for, as far as I can discern, candidates of all parties.

I was not obliged to vote for any candidate in the many, many elections in I have participated. In each and every case it was a choice.

Anonymous 2 said...


As you have now made an effort to refer to the USCCB document, let me respond. I should tell you, though, that I am getting really tired of playing this game, having played it already several times (with Gene, Militia Immaculata, and George). So, to get us started I repeat below one of my previous responses, which reproduces several other relevant provisions from the USCCB document. Please note that this response echoes Pater Ignotus’s point about the naivite of believing what candidates say. As to the “grave moral reasons,” here’s one -- Iraq:

All of you who insist that the Catholic Church in effect mandated a vote for Romney, please read the USCCB document “Faithful Citizenship,” especially Part I. Here is a link to the website:

To help you zero in on some critical language (but please do read the rest too), indeed the language that is perhaps the most challenging for my position, here are sections 34-37:

34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate's commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching. . .

42. As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate's position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter's support. Yet a candidate's position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

Now, will someone explain to me how this language equates to “Catholics must vote for Romney and must not vote for Obama.

And remember, too, the risk of delivering the Catholic vote to a particular candidate, specifically the Republican candidate, as long as they talk a good talk about such issues as right to life or same sex marriage. As long as they do this, and as long as this is all one focuses on, they receive license to do all kinds of other evil. Do not be duped. Our politics is thoroughly and perhaps irredeemably corrupt. If it were not for the Bishops’ admonition that I should actually vote, my inclination would be not to vote at all as an expression of protest.

Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. Correction of typo Рnaivet̩

JusadBellum said...

Neither of you spell out what the other grave moral issues are that make up for your decisions to positively support Obama.

Was it war? Is war an intrinsic evil on par with abortion?

Was it the GOP squishiness on abortion? So better to go with pure, unadulterated support for abortion domestically and in foreign policy and as a litmus test for supreme court judges...than be squishy?

But isn't a lesser evil preferable to a greater? Here you're arguing that since the GOP "isn't serious about pro-life" we might as well go with the seriously pro-abortion party!

None of which makes any sense.

So come on, what were the 'morally grave reasons'?

Pater Ignotus said...

Jus - It is entirely possible to vote for a candidate without supporting each and every plank in that candidate's platform.

A vote for Obama did not necessarily amount to "...pure, unadulterated support for abortion...".

I suspect you have in the past voted for candidates whose positions you did not support 100%. I have done the same.

Anonymous 2 said...

No, of course it wasn’t war or anything trivial like that. I can’t speak for Pater but, for myself, I voted for Obama because I want every woman to have at least one abortion in her life and to sprinkle contraceptives on her cornflakes every morning. I would also prefer to see all marriages as same sex marriages (enough of Adam and Eve, it’s time for Adam and Steve). Am I being flippant? I do not believe so. Why else do you continue to question and goad unless it be that you are trying to get us to admit our “real reasons” for voting for Obama?

Well, see if you can follow this: Voting against a candidate (Romney) whom one is convinced would repeat the mistake of Iraq (the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history in my view), for example by invading Syria (which I sincerely believe he would have done since most of his influential foreign policy advisors were the neocon clowns who gave us Iraq and who always had the agenda of invading Syria and even Iran as well –check it out) is a “morally grave reason.” And if you really take your identifier seriously you should agree because such invasions would not have been (just wars that is) any more than Iraq was (which it wasn’t – just ask Pope St, John Paul II). There is more (a scandalous and duplicitous economic policy for example – tax breaks for “job creators” indeed, pleeeeze) but the Iraq syndrome is enough as to “morally grave reasons”. And please do not insult our intelligence by arguing from the present situation with ISIS. It would never have happened if the Clown-in-Chief Bush had not invaded in the first place and matters would be even worse now, I believe, had Romney been elected President.

Combine that with the fact that Romney was totally untrustworthy on issues such as abortion (not to mention almost everything else) and the fact that Obama’s ability to promote the “intrinsic evils” of abortion and same sex marriage were limited if not negated by the balance of power in Congress (judicial appointments) and/or would occur anyway through court action (same sex marriage), factors that we are also urged to take into account (“a candidate's commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue”), and a Catholic was certainly permitted to vote for Obama.

I accept completely, despite Romney’s glaring flaws, that it was permissible to vote for Romney. Please do me and Pater the common courtesy of accepting that it was also permissible to vote for Obama despite his glaring flaws. Of course, I doubt that you will. Just as in everything else to do with the Faith, the totalitarian mentality sees only one way and admits of only one solution. But please remember that we are talking about a permissible range of judgment here, not proving certainties. That’s why it is called prudence.

And if I seem a little “testy,” I am – my patience with the latter day Torquemadas is wearing thin. This is now the fourth time I have been put on the rack on this Blog for my vote.

JusadBellum said...

Anonymous, you are testy because you are smart enough to recognize that your position is morally and intellectually untenable as there are no 'morally grave reasons' on the GOP side of the perspective to justify voting in the DNC side.

Candidate A was pro-abortion, candidate B was not... their other positions and teams don't differ in substantial ways.

You claim that GOP foreign policy, what "might" happen makes up for the abortions that WILL happen?

The POSSIBLE evil outweighs the KNOWN evil?

Saying that the GOP isn't serious about ending abortion so we might as well go with the side that IS serious about increasing it globally doesn't make sense if you are genuinely against abortion as an intrinsic evil.

If you agree that abortion is evil, wouldn't it make tactical sense to punish one's beloved party by not voting (vs. voting for the hated GOP) letting them know thereby how they lost your vote?

How does voting for them not cement in their minds that Catholics will vote no matter what, even in the teeth of the most aggressively pro-abortion platform ever? How does your position and justification for it create any incentive for them to modify their platform and praxis?

It doesn't.

On the GOP side, pro-lifers have and do get spoils (despite being the hated red-haired step-child). At least we get no official state department push of abortion abroad and no UN delegation pushing for gay marriage against poor 3rd world countries full of Catholics.

They richly deserve their title as the 'stupid party' but they don't have 4 intrinsic evils in their platform. And war is not an intrinsic evil... since the USA is currently in various states of war against forces in dozens of countries right now and that seems a-OK for Democrats. The drone strikes haven't stopped.

Life to life, apples to apples, innocent, defenseless human to innocent, defenseless human, if one party will certainly champion the killing of 1.3 million people vs. another that will not certainly champion that killing, how is it not obvious?

Anonymous 2 said...

Okay, JusadBellum, you clearly still do not get it.

Reasonable people can reasonably disagree about whom to vote for in an election. The USCCB guidelines provide the framework within which reasoning must occur and the types of reasons that are legitimate for Catholics to have if their position is to be “reasonable” as a Catholic. I applied those guidelines conscientiously. You disagree with my reasoning. Fine. I disagree with your reasoning above and could answer you point for point. But to what end? You would not be persuaded by me any more than I am persuaded by you. That is why it is called judgment. Mine differs from yours. Both judgments are permissible under the Guidelines. That is the point.

JusadBellum said...

Sure you have 'reasoning'. But your 'reasons' don't add up in Catholic doctrine.

The guidelines distinguish between intrinsic evil and serious issues. 100 serious issues don't add up to 1 intrinsic evil.

One cannot do evil that good may come of it. The end does not justify any means.

The document encourages Catholics to keep both in mind. But it also clearly spells out that one cannot vote for a candidate who is for intrinsic evil if the other is not (their other positions being not much different on the moral plane).

So waving your hands and shouting about prudential judgments and 'reasoning' doesn't change the fact that your 'ends' and means are screwed up.

One cannot make a 'prudential judgment' about intrinsic evil. One CAN make a prudential judgment between two otherwise good courses of action. Between good and better. Tax cut or tax credit, Subsidy or direct payment. Reasonable people can differ on whether we ought to increase VISAs or quintuple the number of INS agents so as to expedite naturalizations.

But one does not make a prudential judgment between ordering a pizza and ordering an assassination. That's not what "prudential judgment" means in Catholic (and secular) parlance.

In order to 'get' still unstated moral ends, you justify the means of 4 intrinsic evils.

Given this sort of morality, one could justify anything and thus one is not operating from a Catholic moral template but from a secular one.

It's really that simple. 4 intrinsic evils vs. 0. The choice was really between not voting at all or voting for the side that - for all their warts and foibles, for all their stupidity and cupidity were not in favor of promoting 4 intrinsic evils.

If you are a Catholic first and a political creature second, then the 'message' of staying home would be to get the beloved party to swing towards you. That's how tactics work.

By voting for them despite their evil platforms, policies and personnel you give them zero incentive to change their ways.

This is what I mean when I say you are educated but obviously not well educated. Students cover the difference between qualitative and quantitative in First year philosophy.

Now go and sin no more.

Anonymous 2 said...


I may not be as well educated as you but at least I can read:

“A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position.” It wasn’t.

“There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.” I did, it was, and it wasn’t.

Get it yet? Now go and read some more.

Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. Please add the following to your reading and then wake up and smell the coffee:

Anonymous 2 said...

By the way, oh well educated one, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS, which was part of the Justice Department) was abolished several years ago and its functions were assumed by various divisions within the newly established Department of Homeland Security (DHS), specifically U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS, which inter alia is responsible for immigration adjudications and naturalizations), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE, which is responsible for enforcement in the interior), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP, responsible for enforcement at ports of entry and at the border). The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR, within the Justice Department), which was separate from the INS, retains jurisdiction over removal proceedings before the Immigration Judges, with appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

Let me give you some fraternal advice: I have been impressed by many of your posts but you need to tone down the “superiority complex.” It is making you look a bit ridiculous. I am not trying to embarrass you in saying this but to save you from further embarrassment, and I can say this now because no-one else will likely be reading this far back in the posts (now on the third page back).

Pax vobiscum (really).

JusadBellum said...

Anonymous, I accept that your reasoning and justifications were not to support intrinsic evils as your 'ends'. I accept that your justifications to your conscience was that they are tolerated 'means' to some great moral good you sought as your end.

All I'm asking is for you to list what were those 'morally grave reasons', those morally good ends happen to be that justify the toleration of 4 intrinsic evils?

Spell them out for us.

You accept 4 intrinsic evils in the DNC platform and candidate Obama's vociferous, long term support of Planned Parenthood etc. all for the sake of some other great good you expect he alone was capable of producing.

Before you rationalized that insofar as the GOP candidate and party "aren't serious" about stopping abortion, it's OK to vote for the side that 'is serious' about promoting it.

Left unmentioned is the assumption that a GOP candidate and party would eliminate or make impossible the accomplishment of your sought for, real 'end' goal. A goal of such excellence that you felt compelled to vote for the most pro-abortion candidate ever.

So what was this super-duper-good that only a Democrat in the White House could achieve, that only the DNC could bring to fruition?

It can't be the end to wars... we've gone into Libya, are currently fighting in Africa, Yemen, and still drone striking Pakistan.

It can't be domestic bureaucratic programs, welfare, etc. as the GOP wasn't and hasn't run on eliminating all programs overnight. They merely reduce the rate of growth.

So if it's not wars abroad or domestic programs, what is it that makes Obama superlatively morally preferable? What makes the DNC qualitatively superior so as to offset the intrinsic evils they support?

As for superiority complexes... what really peeves you is that all along you've had a mental habit of assuming that you stand on the intellectual and moral high ground and that 'conservatives' don't. It's assumed that liberals are just smarter. Until you actually have to substantiate your claims. Since you can't or won't it follows that you are outmatched. A truly wise man would learn from this and begin questioning all his other presuppositions.

Anonymous 2 said...


Oh, for goodness sake, Jus. Is it that you can’t read or that you won’t? I have already spelled out one of the major reasons I thought (and indeed still think) it wiser to vote for Obama rather than Romney. So, please go back and read the relevant post again (9:03 am October 16). Sheeesh!

As to presuppositions, you presuppose I am a “liberal.” I reject the use of such labels, but if you must use them I am a “conservative.” Indeed, it is because I am a “conservative” that I voted for Obama. Unfortunately, the word has been hijacked by the pseudo-conservatives of today, so I doubt that you will be able to understand this. However, I would be very happy for you to prove me wrong.

By the way, it seems that abortions in the United States increased under Reagan and Bush I (Republican), then declined under Clinton (Democrat), increased again under Bush II (Republican), and then declined again under Obama (Democrat). Interesting, no? Stop being duped!