By Debi Vinnedge
Never before in the history of our country have we faced such a monumental and critical decision as in the 2012 Presidential election. The transformation we face is something that may very well permanently alter the very structure and freedoms our nation has enjoyed for over 200 years to the point where we may never recover.
It is important to remember that in casting our vote, we are not choosing someone who is our personal idol, fitting nicely into our own perfect comfort zone; our own vision of ideology, morality, personality or religion. We certainly may choose our spouses, friends, employees and places of worship based on our such standards, but electing the next President of the United States is not a personal choice, it’s a patriotic one.
So when very good-intentioned people talk about casting their vote for a non-electable 3rd party candidate or maybe even not voting at all, it is not only alarming but perhaps one of the most irresponsible choices a person could make. And while it is quite true that a person must follow their moral conscience in making important decisions, it is imperative that in this case especially, one must have a properly formed conscience. Because my friends, this time there is no room for error.
We have heard enough from those who are adamant that they will not settle for the “lesser of two evils” but such is not the case. Because in reality those choosing a non-electable candidate have already selected a greater moral evil, rather than choosing the greater moral good of the country. That is, they jeopardize the election of a viable candidate who has the ability to lessen abortion, if not eliminate it entirely.
Some have gone so far as to quote from the Papal Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, section 73 to determine that it is wrong to vote for a candidate whose position on abortion is one that would allow exceptions only in the cases of rape or incest. But abortion is not the only major moral issue facing voters. There are in fact, five “non-negotiables” in our voting considerations of which one presidential candidate has failed miserably in all five. They are: abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. So if one is going to look at that lesser evil argument there is a lot more on the table to consider.
In addition, not only has there never been a viable Presidential candidate who did not believe in abortion exceptions since the inception of Roe vs. Wade, the Catholic document in question is also being erroneously interpreted.
To begin with, Evangelium Vitae does not discuss candidates; rather, Pope John Paul II discusses voting for enactment of laws.
“In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”.
Clearly, there is a major difference between voting for a Presidential candidate who in his future position has no authority to introduce a new law or amend an existing one, versus a law itself that would be immoral. No future President will make laws himself; Congress does. However, that future president does have the power to approve or veto pro-life or other morally sound legislation handed to him by Congress.
So now one must look at what will happen if we have a pro-life House and Senate who do enact laws that would either limit or even overturn Roe vs. Wade. Which Presidential candidate would sign or veto that legislation? Which one would sign the Defense of Marriage Act? Which one would overturn federal funding of embryonic stem cell research? Which one would remove death panels from healthcare legislation?
And of even greater importance, which one would appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court? Justices Ginsberg, Scalia, Kennedy and Breyer are all in their seventies and considering retirement. The next president has the potential to tilt the Supreme Court with like-minded justices for decades.
Now one must ask themselves if they are truly pro-life: what about THOSE “exceptions”? Is not every life sacred?
One might compare this to a person who notices 10 people in the water drowning. His lifeboat only has room for seven so does he say, “Well I can’t save them all so I will let them all drown?” Would he not instead try to save as many as possible?
Just what does Evangelium Vitae say about this situation?
“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, [ie, the presidential power to veto or enact the law handed to him by Congress] aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, [emphasis added] in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on… In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects” (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae [25 March 1995], n. 73)
Now in this context, Pope John Paul II notes “an elected official whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known” as a guiding criteria. So what happens when the candidate personally supports exceptions in the case of rape or incest? Does this disqualify him as one we could legitimately vote for? Hardly. Because that presidential candidate would be making “a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”
This brings us to the central question: Can a person in good conscience vote for another 3rd party candidate who may be opposed to abortion in all cases but has no chance of winning the election? If one follows what the Pope said, the answer is obviously negative since in doing so, they are doing nothing to limit evil. Catholic or not, if the person is truly pro-life, the answer should still be glaring.
A third party, no-exceptions, 100% pro-life candidate who has absolutely no chance to become elected could ironically, very well ensure the guaranteed slaughter of millions more babies by his very presence on the ballot. For it is not righteousness or goodness that compels a Presidential candidate to continue his campaign when it is clearly lost, but rather, self-indulgent arrogance.
It’s difficult to imagine just how such a candidate sleeps at night knowing that his own egotistical political pontificating will lead many very good intentioned people to feed his ego with their vote. And in doing so, the slightly less-desirable candidate may very well lose to the obviously evil one. That is neither righteous nor honorable on the 3rd candidate’s part; it is wickedness.
Likewise, if a person were to write in a candidate of their choice who has no possible chance of election, that person feeds their own wounded self-image, but does nothing to further the prolife cause and in fact, may very well damage it for years to come. Because without question when the votes are counted, we will either get pure adulterated evil for at least the next four years (and perhaps, permanently) or we get at least a fighting chance to make changes, convert middle of the road hearts and do the greatest good possible right now for our country.
We are given an enormous responsibility and privilege in voting in this upcoming election. If we do not do all in our power to mitigate wickedness, we are no better than the useless servant in the Gospels who buried his talents; he has no profit, no gain, to give his Master. And what will Our Lord say to such a person who had the ability to help make a positive difference but did nothing?
“And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt 25:14-30)
Debi,
Your arguments are strong and I have wrestled with those same arguments but have you really looked at the agenda of both parties? Ultimately, they lead to the same place. It will just take longer doing it the republican way. BOTH parties are controlled by the same deep pockets. BOTH parties aim for a one world government. BOTH parties have recklessly spent money that was not theirs that will eventually lead to the collapse of the U.S. economy. BOTH parties flip flop over social issues and moral issues depending on their audience.
Debi, the lesser of two evils is still EVIL. You are being deceived or you are a troll putting out more disinformation.
Yes, there are definitely those of us faithful, pro-life Catholic Christians who think it’s high time to stop perpetuating the corrupt two party system. But if people continue to keep holding out the belief that it isn’t broken, and keep supporting it, then a third party candidate won’t gain any traction. It’s self-defeating. It’s not so much about idealism and as wanting to see the common good upheld.
Good statement of the reality we are facing. No abortions would be the platform to support. In fact, the Republican platform is from “conception to natural death.” Rightfully, Debi mentions five non-negotiable items, which are more likely to be followed with the Romney administration.
BTW to Sam: Your last sentence of personal assault regarding DV’s info makes one think that you are the “troll.”
Sorry, I meant no personal assault. This was the first time I have read anything by Debi. I try to keep an open mind but question everything.
Here is another superb source to support this article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRjL7Am_Fhk
We MUST vote for Romney.
A vote for anyone else is truly a vote for Obama. Troy Newman of Operation Rescue is in Ohio on a prayer campaign; he is reporting that the race is so close 49% 49%–Please DO NOT vote 3rd party.
Thanks for this Debi. I don’t understand the “throw your vote away” mentality. Pick the best candidate! Work for the common good. Where’s the sense in letting other people pick your president for you?
Well, that’s exactly what we have been doing for the last 25 years. How’s that working out for you?
Sam, one might ask just how has voting for a 3rd party candidate the last 25 years worked out for anyone?
I can sleep at night knowing I did my part to not encourage the problem. If all the people who do not vote would vote third party we would not be in this mess or at least the two major parties would realize they actually have to represent the majority who elect them and uphold the constitution.
So glad you can sleep at night while the rest of us fight to rid this country of the real evil.
Debi, I’m glad to know “the rest of you are fighting to rid the country of real evil.” (as if voting for the same garbage year after year is a fight) I have two kids who served in the front lines in Iraq under both bush and obama. Now, I KNOW THEY WERE REALLY FIGHTING. Unless you were there next to them, your only battles are probably in your mind. You just keep fighting the good fight with all the rest of the sheep and I’m sure we can count on more of the same regardless of who wins.
Wow Sam. There’s little, if any, connection between fighting in a war and picking a candidate to vote for. That’s great your kids served the country the way they did, but that doesn’t mean that voters are doing nothing.
We got here incrementally. We cannot eradicate evil overnight. We will never eradicate evil, we live in a fallen world. We can fight it every way we can find to do so though. We are supposed to fight evil.
We have a candidate that is clearly the better man and the better leader. If he’s President, we’ll be heading in the direction of a more just society. If the weaker leader is elected, we will be heading fast towards greater and greater injustice in our society.
Stacy, It is exactly your argument that convinced be to vote for George W. Bush in his first term even though I was registered as a Libertarian. According to your argument, I did my patriotic duty and voted for the best candidate. I was swayed, even though I knew better. Unfortunately, there was nothing BUT “less evil” during that pathetic administration. I am not proud of my actions and I wish I could do it over.
Amen…
The Obama team will love for you to split the conservative vote so they can win.
Sam, of course the two party system is corrupt. It is such a joke. Sometimes I think it is used only to measure the moral “climate” of America. I consider myself to be a pro-life democrat and there will be no winner to support my worldview. But the word “pro-life” comes before the word “democrat” and if we don’t stop killing people and relearn respect for life we will never be socially just as a nation. I think Romney and Ryan (Ryan is a real practicing Catholic, not a fake like Biden) are likely to be pro-life. Therefore I will vote for the Republicans. I am a sheep and Jesus is my Shepherd.
“So we have come to live in a place where we have no choice but to accept the rule of evil; no motive for our choice but our fear of the greater evil;
no standard for our choice but one that, by brandishing the perfection of evil seeks to evoke the greatest fear.
We have moved from the kingdom of God’s rule to the domain ruled by our own imperfection; and from the domain of our imperfection to the kingdom ruled by our fear of the perfection of evil which,
by feeding upon itself, forever grows more fearsome.
From this place of fearful bondage there can be no release unless and until we remember the true standard of God’s perfection.
If we have been renewed by Christ, as we profess to be, why are we not rejecting any standard but the one he represents to us?”
http://loyaltoliberty.com/?p=1497
I am glad Romans 13:1 is true God Appoints Powers not MAN!
I agree with you wholeheartedly Debi-it is dangerous carelessness to keep using the phrase- “to vote for the lesser of 2 evils is still evil.” In addition to the reasons you mentioned above-it is also implying that the third party candidate is in every way perfect!I don’t see the difference between voting for someone who has no chance and staying home. This race is too close and EVERY BABY COUNTS! If Romney will result in one more baby coming into this world- WE MUST GIVE HIM OUR VOTE! And clearly – this is the case. Obama is not even trying to hide the fact that he is adamate about a womans right to allow the killing of their unborn children in all cases and for any reason.Which- by the way- makes all of us even more culpable in how we vote.
“I call heaven and earth today to witness against you:m I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live” Dueteronomy 30:19
As the world is full of sinners I doubt any one of us will find the ideal candidate for president. The point of this article is to point out that we have to look beyond what we would hope to have in an ideal electable candidate and what we have and make a wise choice. The attack on the Catholic Church and religious freedom that we have already seen is just the tip of the iceberg and no 3rd party candidate can abate the evil. While one is free to vote as they choose, I doubt any prolife person doing so really thinks it would be okay if we have the status quo. If a 3rd party voter believes that, I would say they have fallen for the biggest propaganda lie imagineable. And Satan laughs with delight!
AMEN!! P.S. satan may be laughing now- but, Halleluia! the Lord has the Last Laugh :)
Thanks for putting the article on the COG website. This message cannot be too often repeated.
As president of Pinellas County Right to Life, I would never “endorse” any candidate who held exceptions. That organization speaks for the unborn, all of whom have the right to life. But after doing the best we can to (a) get justices appointed to the S. Ct. who will reverse Roe v. Wade; (b) get perfect laws through the U.S. and state congresses; (c) obtain perfect candidates for U.S. and state races, we as individuals then come to actual political choices, not the choices we wish we would have, but those we actually have. Where the contrast is very great between the candidates positions and the effect for good or evil or their being elected or retained in office, we have to vote for the one from whom the greater good will spring, and eliminate the one who will destroy all moral order in the country.
One of the comments to the article stated that one should not vote for Romney because the lesser of two evils is still an evil. This commentator is confusing apples with oranges. I would not use the word “evil” to describe Romney. However, rape and incest exceptions are “evil” per se, but they are “lesser” when contrasted to the all encompassing support of abortion and even infanticide together with other gross moral wrongs which Obama propagates. As John Paul II points out in Evangelium Vitae, it is legitimate to support a law (or by extension, a candidate) which would ameliorate a much more pro-abortion law (or candidate), because the voter’s intention is to save lives. While the lesser of two evils may be an evil, it is not an evil to vote for an imperfect law or candidate where, by doing so, you ameliorate the existing pro-abortion status quo and save many unborn lives.
In this case (i.e. comparing Obama and Romney), you have the candidate who supports rape/incest exceptions versus a candidate who supports abortion in every circumstance, including partial birth abortion and infanticide. The moral evil of Obama’s actions is immensely greater than Romney’s rape and incest exceptions. Thus as Pope John Paul II taught, after doing one’s best to obtain a perfect law or perfect candidate, if that fails it is a positive good to support an imperfect law or electable candidate which will ameliorate the law or political situation and save lives.
Otherwise, good Catholics would be eliminated entirely from participation in the political process, for politics is imperfect and there may never be a perfect electable candidate running for president and other high-level offices. Yet it is the teaching of the Church that the faithful should be engaged in politics for the good and improvement of society.To vote for Romney, therefore, is a good act. Someone who, in these circumstances, votes for a third party candidate helps to elect Obama, and by doing so, performs a wrongful act by helping to keep in office a propagator of unlimited abortion and other great moral evils.
As always, an excellent commentary by Jan Halisky. (I would DEFINITELY vote for you for president!)
Debi has articulated well the current reality within the context of a world where evil is rampant. When the scales of Justice are tipped in favor of evil, we must do all in our power to lessen that evil as we do our best to change laws, policies, but most importantly hearts!
This is a failure of our pastors and priests who teach compromise from the pulpits. No way is it okay to vote the lesser of two evils. If people would vote straight biblical values we wouldn’t have to choose between two versions of anti-christ.
AMEN!
Debi, I believe you are terribly misguided.
This is my answer to your argument. http://peccavimus.blogspot.com/2012/11/letter-to-fearful-and-distraught-of.html
Against my better judgement, I voted for Mr. Romney, hoping that a practicing Catholic (Ryan) might influence future decisions to protect “the innocents”. It did not matter, though, how I voted because enough “Catholics” voted to perpetuate the evil that has befallen the nation. We deserve whomever we get. Good or evil, the majority rules.
When Romney was asked about the issue of birth control he should have made a comment like “just don’t give it to my sons and daughters in law” or some snide remark instead he went against the pope who endorced him. He said the birth control is working just fine. I dont’ think so Bush was reelected because of his unwavering support of life. He fought the good fight. Maybe it didn’t make such media outlets happy and they failed to report on the work Bush did for our unborn babies. Romney was endorced by the Pope and he didn’t stand firm enough on the right to life issues i’m sure the Vatican would have wanted more from the candidate but he failed.