![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/85\/2012\/08\/Voting-Nuns.jpeg\" "\\"Voting-Nuns\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nAre you dissatisfied with the book-length voting guides put out by the USSCB<\/a>? Do you find it lacks both brevity and clarity? \u00a0Are you skeptical of the guides put out by Catholic shills of the Left and of the Right as well? Are you tired of the same old stale arguments in the blog-o-sphere between the folks who can seemingly find no candidates worthy of their vote, doing battle with those who attempt to turn their pet candidates into demi-gods?<\/p>\n Join the club. If you weren\u2019t, I\u2019d think there was something wrong with you. Stop the insanity, you say? I\u2019m all for that. But guess what you can\u2019t do? You can\u2019t just pack it up and beat feet like the Desert Fathers and color yourself gone from this whole train wreck called responsible citizenship.<\/p>\n In the scheme of things, you understand, folks having the right to vote is practically a brand new development on the world stage. \u00a0But it isn\u2019t so brand new that we have to keep perpetually reinventing the wheel all the time either.\u00a0Snap out of it, you lubbers!\u00a0Because after King John signed the\u00a0Magna Carta <\/em>(1215),<\/em> on through to\u00a0<\/em>the Glorious Revolution (1688), until \u00a0<\/em>the period when the American Experiment began in earnest after July 4, 1776, right up until 15 seconds ago, the citizenry is responsible for the government it has, and the government it gets.<\/p>\n I said a few weeks ago that the only real hope for change is to get involved<\/a>. The silly notion that you can effect change just by pulling a lever, or clicking on the screen, in a ballot box on election day every two, or four years, and call yourself a good citizen, is in direct opposition to your Christian duty to be accountable as said \u201cgood citizen.\u201d<\/p>\n Don\u2019t believe me? Well looky here. The following thoughts are from a book \u00a0entitled\u00a0The State and the Church,\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/em>and they belong to Fr. John A Ryan, DD, \u00a0formerly the Professor of Moral Theology at the Catholic University of America. Fr. Ryan authored numerous books, such as \u00a0A Living Wage<\/em>, Distributive Justice<\/em>, Social Reconstruction<\/em>, and others.\u00a0Joining him in this effort to explain the rights, duties, and obligations of citizenship is Moorhouse F.X. Millar, SJ.<\/p>\n This fine volume was published in 1922, and as is the case with the writings of G.K. Chesterton from the same time period, I daresay that the counsel contained in its pages is as applicable today as it was when it was first published. Because there is nothing new under the sun, and the fact that many of us seem to believe that \u201cthis time is different,\u201d and \u201ceverything is a mess\u201d all of a sudden, reminds me of Yogi Berra\u2019s famous quip that \u201cit\u2019s\u00a0d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu<\/em>\u00a0all over again.\u201d<\/p>\n When it comes to voting, Padre Ryan, may he enjoy the Beatific Vision, lays it all out for us here. \u00a0Be advised, there are no half-baked thoughts in the paragraphs below\u00a0(italics<\/em> and bold<\/strong> are my highlights). Padre Ryan has the floor\u2026<\/p>\n From Chapter 13,\u00a0The Duties of the Citizen.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The\u00a0second class of duties incumbent on\u00a0the\u00a0citizen results from his electoral functions. In a republic, legislation\u00a0and\u00a0administration depend finally upon\u00a0the\u00a0intelligence\u00a0and\u00a0morality of\u00a0the\u00a0voters. They have it in their power to make\u00a0the\u00a0government a good one or a bad one. Whether\u00a0the common good will be promoted or injured, depends upon\u00a0the\u00a0kind of laws enacted\u00a0and the\u00a0manner in which they are administered; but\u00a0the character of\u00a0the\u00a0laws\u00a0and the\u00a0administration is primarily determined by\u00a0the\u00a0way in which\u00a0the\u00a0citizens discharge their function of choosing legislators\u00a0and\u00a0administrators. Therefore, this function is of\u00a0the\u00a0gravest importance\u00a0and the\u00a0obligation which it imposes is likewise grave.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n It must be admitted that\u00a0the\u00a0importance\u00a0and\u00a0gravity of this obligation is frequently ignored by Catholics, as well as by other citizens. Writing of Great Britain,\u00a0the\u00a0Rev. Thomas Wright declares: \u201cThere are large numbers of Catholics in this land with but little appreciation of\u00a0the\u00a0strong interrelation which exists between true citizenship\u00a0and\u00a0Christianity. . . . Many excuses, it must be owned, may be alleged in extenuation of\u00a0the apathy of Catholics toward their civic obligations in these lands. Time, however, has undermined\u00a0the\u00a0substance of these apologetic pleas. Catholics are now able to appeal to no sufficient cause why they should stand aloof from public affairs, or why, participating in them, they need indiscriminately follow\u00a0the\u00a0policies of parties without thought or test of their moral justification.\u201d<\/p>\n These observations may be applied in full measure to\u00a0the\u00a0Catholics of\u00a0the\u00a0United States. Like their coreligionists of Great Britain, they can show historical conditions to extenuate, if not to justify, their neglect of political obligations. Very many, if not\u00a0the\u00a0majority, of them are persons, or\u00a0the\u00a0descendants of persons, who came from countries whose governments treated Catholics unfairly\u00a0and\u00a0allowed them very little participation in public affairs. As a consequence, a large proportion of American Catholics have been, until quite recently, possessed of what has been happily characterized as\u00a0\u201cthe\u00a0psychology of persecution.\u201d They have looked upon government with a certain measure of distrust,\u00a0and,\u00a0therefore, have been predisposed to ignore or to minimize their electoral responsibility. Many of them have easily\u00a0and\u00a0complacently accepted\u00a0the\u00a0cynical judgment that \u201cpolitics is a rotten business,\u201d\u00a0and\u00a0have either held aloof or permitted their political influence to be utilized by special\u00a0and\u00a0unworthy interests.<\/em><\/p>\n The\u00a0Catholic teaching on\u00a0the\u00a0duty of exercising\u00a0the\u00a0voting franchise, as stated in\u00a0the\u00a0authoritative manuals of moral theology, may be summed up as follows:<\/p>\n The\u00a0obligation of taking part in\u00a0the\u00a0election of candidates for civil offices, is an obligation of legal justice<\/em>.\u00a0The\u00a0citizens are bound to promote\u00a0the common good in all reasonable ways<\/em>.\u00a0The\u00a0franchise enables them to further or to hinder\u00a0the\u00a0common weal greatly\u00a0and\u00a0fundamentally, inasmuch asthe\u00a0quality of\u00a0the\u00a0government depends upon\u00a0the\u00a0kind of officials they elect. Not only questions of politics, but social, industrial, educational, moral\u00a0and\u00a0religious subjects are regulated by legislative bodies\u00a0and\u00a0administered by executives. Therefore,\u00a0the\u00a0matter is of grave importance,\u00a0and the\u00a0obligation of\u00a0the\u00a0citizen to participate in\u00a0the\u00a0election\u00a0and\u00a0to support fit candidates is correspondingly grave. According to Tanquerey,\u00a0the elector cannot free himself from this obligation by any slight cause or reason<\/em>, such as, going hunting, or criticism by his neighbors.\u00a0The\u00a0excusing cause needs to be of a grave nature, such as loss of one\u2019s means of livelihood. A slight cause will relieve\u00a0the\u00a0citizen from\u00a0the\u00a0obligation of voting only when he is morally certain that he cannot affect\u00a0the\u00a0immediate result. Even then, he ought to take part in\u00a0the\u00a0election to show good example, and\u00a0to hasten\u00a0the\u00a0day when\u00a0the\u00a0cause which he supports will command a majority of\u00a0the\u00a0voters.<\/p>\n Just as\u00a0the\u00a0official is obliged to refrain from promoting\u00a0the\u00a0interests of individuals as against\u00a0the\u00a0common good, so\u00a0the\u00a0elector is morally bound to cast his vote for\u00a0the\u00a0common welfare<\/em>, instead of for\u00a0the\u00a0benefit of private persons or groups. This principle is very often forgotten by well-meaning citizens; for example, by giving their political support to a friend, or to a member of their own race or religion, when he has not\u00a0the\u00a0required moral or intellectual equipment, or when he is\u00a0the\u00a0upholder of socially harmful policies<\/em>. Too often in such situations\u00a0the\u00a0honest citizen salves his conscience with\u00a0the\u00a0excuse that\u00a0the\u00a0opposing candidate \u201cis just as bad.\u201d<\/em> Were this\u00a0the\u00a0fact one might legitimately determine one\u2019s choice on\u00a0the basis of personal friendship, or racial or religious affiliation, or other extrinsic considerations; but\u00a0the\u00a0general fact is that voters who adopt this course do not take adequate care to find out whether\u00a0the\u00a0candidate of\u00a0the\u00a0opposition is in reality \u201cjust as bad.\u201d<\/p>\n They too easily decide\u00a0the\u00a0question on\u00a0the\u00a0basis of their inclinations\u00a0and\u00a0predilections.<\/p>\n Closely connected with this unjustifiable practice is that of ignoring\u00a0principles\u00a0and\u00a0policies\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0exercise of\u00a0the\u00a0franchise. \u201cVote for a good man, regardless of party,\u201d is a plausible but essentially inadequate political rule.<\/em> A distinction should be drawn between legislative offices\u00a0and\u00a0those which are merely administrative. In choosing a city treasurer or a county auditor,\u00a0the\u00a0only pertinent qualifications are honesty, intellectual capacity\u00a0and\u00a0technical equipment. There is involved no question of legislative policy. When\u00a0the\u00a0office to be filled is that of Governor of a\u00a0State, President of\u00a0the\u00a0United States, member of a\u00a0State\u00a0legislature, or congressman, other qualifications are essential in addition to those just mentioned.\u00a0<\/em>The\u00a0\u201cgood man\u201d may have some very harmful views concerning political\u00a0and\u00a0industrial policies. He may sincerely favor national imperialism\u00a0and jingoism, or legislation to promote\u00a0the\u00a0undue aggrandizement of one social class or\u00a0the\u00a0oppression of another social class. Obviously\u00a0the\u00a0citizen does not fulfil his duty of promoting\u00a0the\u00a0common good when he votes for a \u201cgood man\u201d of this sort. Sometimes\u00a0the\u00a0common welfare will suffer less through\u00a0the\u00a0election of a man whose political policies are right but whose moral or intellectual equipment is deficient, than through\u00a0the\u00a0elevation of a \u201cgood man\u201d who gives his adhesion to wrong policies<\/em>.<\/p>\n It is sometimes said that\u00a0the\u00a0good man in other relations of life is always\u00a0the\u00a0best kind of a citizen. This statement is only a half truth.\u00a0The unqualified propagation\u00a0and\u00a0acceptance of it is a serious obstacle to\u00a0the\u00a0improvement of citizenship. Fidelity to one\u2019s duties as husband, father, son, brother, neighbor, employer, employee, buyer, seller, debtor, creditor, professional man,\u00a0and\u00a0client,\u2014does, indeed, contribute very greatly toward\u00a0the\u00a0common welfare. Actions performed under\u00a0the\u00a0direction of\u00a0the\u00a0domestic\u00a0and\u00a0social virtues necessarily promote individual\u00a0and\u00a0social happiness, just as\u00a0the\u00a0opposite actions are an injury to\u00a0the\u00a0commonwealth. Nevertheless, these virtues are not a complete equipment for all\u00a0the duties of citizenship. They do not of themselves provide\u00a0the\u00a0citizen with that specific knowledge which he requires as a voter, nor with that civic consciousness\u00a0which is essential to good citizenship.<\/em> Just as an honest employer may treat his employees unjustly because he is unacquainted with those moral principles which apply specifically to industrial relations, or because he has an insufficient knowledge of\u00a0the\u00a0living conditions and\u00a0needs of\u00a0the\u00a0workers, so\u00a0the\u00a0virtuous citizen may fail in his duties to\u00a0the State\u00a0because he does not realize\u00a0the\u00a0importance of this particular responsibility, or because he lacks\u00a0the\u00a0specific political knowledge which would enable him to exercise his suffrage for\u00a0the\u00a0best interests of\u00a0the commonwealth. In this category are\u00a0the\u00a0man who does not realize how fundamentally good government depends upon\u00a0the\u00a0electors,\u00a0the\u00a0man who lazily assumes that politics is necessarily corrupt,\u00a0and the\u00a0man who thinks it sufficient to vote for good men, without any reference to\u00a0the helpfulness or harmfulness of their political principles\u00a0and\u00a0policies.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n In a word,\u00a0the\u00a0good man is not a good citizen unless he possesses\u00a0the\u00a0specific knowledge essential to good citizenship. This comprises adequate perception of\u00a0the\u00a0citizen\u2019s power\u00a0and\u00a0responsibility,\u00a0and\u00a0a reasonable degree of acquaintance with political institutions, personages,\u00a0and\u00a0policies.The\u00a0good citizen recognizes all these obligations\u00a0and\u00a0makes reasonable\u00a0and\u00a0continuous efforts to fulfil them. Such a man,\u00a0and\u00a0only such a man, possesses an adequate civic consciousness.<\/p>\n Worth quoting are\u00a0the\u00a0following extracts from a letter addressed to his people, in\u00a0the\u00a0year 1921, by\u00a0the\u00a0late Cardinal Amette, Archbishop of Paris:<\/p>\n \u201cIn\u00a0the\u00a0joint letter which they recently addressed to\u00a0the\u00a0French Catholics,\u00a0the\u00a0bishops of France said: \u2018It is a duty of conscience for all citizens honored with\u00a0the\u00a0right of suffrage to vote honestly\u00a0and\u00a0wisely with\u00a0the\u00a0sole aim of benefiting\u00a0the\u00a0country.\u00a0The\u00a0citizen is subject to\u00a0the\u00a0divine law as is\u00a0the\u00a0Christian. Of our votes, as of all our actions, God will demand an account.\u00a0The\u00a0duty of voting is so much\u00a0the\u00a0more binding upon conscience because on its good or evil exercise depend\u00a0the\u00a0gravest interests of\u00a0the\u00a0country\u00a0and\u00a0of religion.\u2019<\/p>\n \u201cIt is your duty to vote. To neglect to do so would be a culpable abdication of duty on your part. It is your duty to\u00a0vote\u00a0honestly;\u00a0that is to say, for men worthy of your esteem\u00a0and\u00a0trust. It is your duty to vote\u00a0wisely;\u00a0that is to say, in such a way as not to waste your votes. It would be better to cast them for candidates who, although not giving complete satisfaction to all our legitimate demands, would lead us to expect from them a line of conduct useful to\u00a0the\u00a0country, rather than to keep your votes for others whose program would indeed be more perfect, but whose almost certain defeat might open\u00a0the\u00a0door to\u00a0the\u00a0enemies of religion\u00a0and\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0social order.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Tanquerey points out that, in order to be able to vote rightly\u00a0and\u00a0intelligently, in order to possess\u00a0the\u00a0specific knowledge requisite for this purpose, upright citizens should organize\u00a0and\u00a0participate in political associations. This is obvious<\/em>. Men unite in trade unions, manufacturers\u2019 associations, chambers of commerce,\u00a0and\u00a0professional societies of various kinds for\u00a0the\u00a0promotion of their economic interests. Hundreds of thousands of good men, thus occupationally organized, fail to see\u00a0the\u00a0necessity of organizing politically for\u00a0the\u00a0protection of their civic interestsand the\u00a0effective performance of their duties to\u00a0the\u00a0commonwealth.<\/em>\u00a0The\u00a0conduct of political organizations they leave to professional politicans who are usually in\u00a0the\u00a0service of selfish private interests.<\/strong> When\u00a0the\u00a0inactive citizens see\u00a0the\u00a0evil results of this arrangement, they attempt to justify their aloofness by\u00a0the\u00a0reflection that politics is essentially corrupt. This lazy pessimism is not warranted by anything inherent in political affairs. It represents a vain attempt to evade moral responsibility. If politics is rotten, a large part of\u00a0the\u00a0responsibility rests upon well meaning but indolent citizens.<\/em><\/p>\n In view of\u00a0the\u00a0fundamental\u00a0and\u00a0immense importance to\u00a0the State\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0voting function,\u00a0and\u00a0since\u00a0the\u00a0electors are in a practical sense\u00a0the primary political authority, it would seem that\u00a0the\u00a0electoral duties of\u00a0the\u00a0citizens are not merely duties of legal justice. It would seem that, like\u00a0the obligations of public officials they also fall under\u00a0the\u00a0head of strict or commutative justice. A group of legislators inflict injury upon\u00a0the community by a bad law, thereby violating strict justice: Are not\u00a0the\u00a0citizens who elected them guilty of\u00a0the\u00a0same kind of injustice, in so far as they foresaw this possibility?<\/em>\u00a0The\u00a0difference between their offence and\u00a0that of\u00a0the\u00a0legislators seems to be one of degree, not one of kind.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n Among\u00a0the\u00a0electoral duties of\u00a0the\u00a0citizen is that of becoming a candidate for public office in some circumstances. Of course, this applies only to that small minority who are competent. In certain situations, says Noldin, an upright Catholic is bound by a grave obligation to become a candidate for an administrative or legislative office; that is, when his election is certain, when he is able to avert grave evils from\u00a0the\u00a0community, when he can accept\u00a0the\u00a0office without grave inconvenience to himself,\u00a0and\u00a0when no other equally competent candidate is available<\/em>. In as much as\u00a0the\u00a0issues involved in such a situation are of much graver consequence than those dependent upon\u00a0the\u00a0ballot of\u00a0the\u00a0private citizen,\u00a0the\u00a0man who refuses to become a candidate for office will need a much graver reason to excuse him than will\u00a0the\u00a0citizen who merely neglects to vote.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Read the whole chapter.\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0Read the whole book if need be. But just remember that the authority to govern comes from God, and as wacky as the notion is, He has deigned to allow temporal power to be derived from the will of the people nowadays. Don\u2019t like the mess in the political parties, the system, and in the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches? Don\u2019t like fraud, waste, and creeping tyranny? Look in the mirror for the person\/s responsible.<\/p>\n Scary isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n Mother Mary, Sts. John Fisher and Thomas More, pray for us.<\/p>\n UPDATE: Mark Shea ponders proportional reasons (see post above and here<\/a>, and here<\/a>) for supporting R2: \u201cWhat I have not settled in my own mind is the question of whether Obama\u2019s war on the Church is the game changer that makes a vote for the Plastic Android a valid proportional reason. But it is something I am mulling.<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n Vote in the YIMCatholic Presidential Straw Poll<\/a>.<\/p>\n