Dear Patricia:

I think Vincent's fundamental question as about the nature of evil. The politics were just an illustration. Thus, I focused on the more important issue of the nature of evil.

As far as politics is concerned, the Church says we are not to vote for someone who is unabashedly pro-abortion. Obama as a pro-abortion candidate and in the opinion of more than 80 bishops in the United States those who voted for him sinned.

While McCain was not Pro-Life in the strictest since as we would define pro-life in the Catholic Church, he was a much better choice than Obama. On the abortion issue we may have to support less then perfect candidates and legislation in a stepping stone fashion. That means that as a strategy we may accept legislation that is not 100% pro-life, but may be 80% percent pro-life. Thus, a stepping-stone is created. The next stepping-stone to work on then is to bring the legislation to 90%, and then, hopefully, to 100%. But, this may have to be done in stages.

Those who take an all-or-nothing approach and thus reject all candidates and legislation unless they are 100% pro-life do harm to the Pro-Life movement -- which should be about the practical goal of actually advancing leglistation that lead to a 100% pro-life position.

Sometimes the "lessor of two evil" must be accepted. In this last election, those who did not vote for McCain, in effect, allowed Obama to gain more vote over McCain. Thus, from a practical strategic point-of-view to not vote for McCain was a vote for Obama. Our goal should have been to break out all stops to prevent Obama from wining. If that means voting of McCain, then so be it. At least it will be stepping-stone in the right direction.

This stepping stone, or stages strategy is Biblical. St. Paul used it.  St. Paul did not outright condemn slavery, which is a moral evil. Rather, he did took it in stages. The first stage was to to "set the stage" to look upon slaves as people with dignity, even as family. Thus, St. Paul told slaves to obey their masters and master to treat their slaves justly and well. He did not advocate a slave rebellion. His was a higher goal knowing that if he could change hearts that someday, eventually, slavery would come to an end. It would not come to an end immediately. It took more than 1800 years to finally bring slavery to an end in Western Civilization. In some areas of the world it still exists, but its eradication began with the small stepping-stones St. Paul laid in the First Century.

(Ephesians 6:5-9)  Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

(Colossians 3:22-24)  Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you are serving the Lord Christ.

(Colossians 4:1)  Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

(Titus 2:9-10)  Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.

And Pope Peter said:

(1 Peter 2:18-20)  Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing. For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it, if when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it patiently? But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God's approval.

If a perfect and viable candidate (someone who can actually win) is not available, then we may have to vote for the lessor of two evils. At least with the lessor we have more chance of advancing politics to conform with moral good, than with the one that represents the greater evil.

Jesus also said, "For he that is not against us is for us."

(Mark 9:38-39-40)  John said to him, "Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us."

 But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us."

John McCain, for example, was not "with us" in that his Pro-Life position was not 100%, but he was not "against us". Obama was, and is, against us. Thus, voting for McCain, who was not the perfect candidate, was appropriate to prevent Obama, who is against us, from gaining power.

The "either for me or against me" and "serving two master" are two different verses with different context and meaning.

The "serving two masters" (Matthew 6:24) is in the context of men having to choose an ultimate and absolute goal. We need to have God has our ultimate and absolute goal. This really doesn't apply to this discussion.  Voting for McCain, for example, has nothing to do with "serving two masters". I voted for McCain in opposition to Obama and I have nothing but God has my ultimate and absolute goal.

The "either for me or against me" statement recorded in Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23. The context of both these passage is exorcism. The Pharasees accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of the devil. According to the Navarre Bible Commentary, one of the best Catholic commentaries on the market, in Matthew, Jesus is telling the Pharisees that they are either for Him or for the devil. In Mark, the statement is addressed to mankind at large telling them that "Jesus Christ has conquered and from now on no one can adopt an attitude of neutrality towards him: he who is not with him is against him."

These passage have also nothing to do with this discussion. We are not abandoning our ultimate goal of God, nor adopting an attitude of neutrality toward Jesus, when we vote for McCain over Obama.

The passage that comes closest to our scenario is Mark 9:38-40 as mentioned above. Continuing our example of the McCain/Obama election, McCain may not be "one of us" in perfect concert with the Pro-Life teaching of the Church, but he is not against us and does support Pro-Life sufficiently to advance the cause at least in stepping-stones.

As for your specific hypotheticals, it is really not wise to deal with hypothetical, especially since they often represent scenarios that are unlikely to happen or otherwise do not truly represent what will happen in real life. In this case, you have labeled those hypotheticals as from the 2008 election. The hypotheticals you present did not actually occur, at least on the Presidential election, maybe there were lessor offices where this did occur, I don't know.

But, I will take a stab at answering these:

1. Should we, as good Catholic Christian’s, choose between a candidate whose open abortion policy even includes partial birth abortion or a candidate that would allow abortion on demand but draws the line at partial birth abortion?

Given no other choices, and since one of these candidates will be elected whether we like it or not, in my opinion, we should vote for the least objectionable person to avoid the worse circumstance. The lessor circumstance gives us more opportunity to work on the stepping-stones. Thus, the candidate who opposes partial birth abortion is the one to vote for as this gives us a stepping stone in the right direction.

2. Should we, as good Catholic Christian’s, choose between a candidate who supports open gay marriage in all 50 states, or a candidate who supports a state by state choice to approve, or disapprove, gay marriage?

Given no other choices, and since one of these candidates will be elected whether we like it or not, in my opinion, we should vote for the least objectionable person to avoid the worse circumstance. The lessor circumstance gives us more opportunity to work on the stepping-stones. Thus, the candidate who proposes a state-by-state choice is the one to vote for as this gives us a stepping stone in the right direction. We can work on the states to not pass the legislation.

3. Or, should we, as Catholic's Christians, reject both scenario’s above, since both are vehemently opposed to Catholic Church Teaching and Doctrine, and instead, vote, using a protest vote, perhaps even writing in Pope Benedict’s name. In this way we would be choosing God’s way regardless of what the world may think or the consequences we may have to endure by our Christian stand.

This option may make us feel good, but assuming the more objectionable candidate is the one likely to win, this option will, from practical point-of-view, help to put that more objectionable candidate into office which is a greater evil.

The Church teaches that not all evil is the same, which I explained in my post to Vincent. There are evils worse than others. When there is no other choice, I think we have a moral obligation to resist the greater evil. The Church, in its teaching of self-defense, for example, directly says that we have a moral obligation and even a duty to resist someone attacking our family (a moral evil perpetrated by the intruder) even if means that no choice exists but to kill the intruder (an act that is a lessor evil that what the intruder would have done to the family).

Now, if the lessor objectionable candidate is likely to win, with some certainty, then a "protest vote" may be more in line since it will not effect the outcome of the election. One may be able to wait until the last moment to vote to see how the election is going.

4. Vincent was right, God did say, “you are either for Me or against Me and no man can serve to masters”.

As I mentioned above when dealing with this subject, these passages do not apply to our discussion.

I know that some will lose respect for me because of these answers. But, I am not answering from emotion, which is how many will respond to what I have said. Rather, I am answering based upon reason built from theology, theological and Biblical principles, and Church teachings as I understand those things.

Others may disagree with my analysis of these things. That is fine. But, if one disagrees they need to provide reasoned theological, Biblical, and Church teaching analysis to back up their opinion.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary