The following article appeared here earlier this year. It commented on what the Austrian catholic bishops and pastors did, and failed to do, when Hitler and his Nazis – the 20th century version of a Party of Death – took over their country in 1938. Crowds in Vienna cheered Hitler’s speech about the union of Austria and Germany. The Nazis then engineered a vote that retroactively validated what had been done – and the catholic bishops of Austria did not oppose Hitler. 99% of the Austrians allowed to vote validated the evil of Hitler and the Nazis.
The article reproduced below was published before: 1. the man currently wearing papal white said – contrary to church teaching – you can vote for the lesser of two evils; and 2. the Party of Death nominated for president the most virulent pro-death candidate in its history, Kamala Harris.
When the “two evils” are intrinsic evils – such as abortion, mercy murder, and murdering embryos in embryonic stem cell research – or the “two evils are different intrinsic evils advocated for by two different candidates, catholic teaching is NOT that you can vote for a person who advocates for and promotes the intrinsic evil less than some other candidate, or less evil (however defined) will result from such a vote if this candidate wins.
A catholic with a well formed conscience can never, never, never, never, never vote for such candidates. Even if on some imagined scale of evil one candidate is more evil than another, voting for any such candidate is is still formal cooperation in their evil – and is a grievous, mortal sin.
If all candidates support an intrinsic evil, such as abortion, and one said her or his policy would spare the most children by placing some limits on abortion – whatever that might mean – a catholic with a well formed conscience still CANNOT vote for the “spare more children” candidate because to do so still will promote the intrinsic evil – the voter will still be formally cooperating in the intrinsic evil
To be clear: a catholic with a well formed conscience can never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never vote so as to promote, endorse, or advocate for intrinsic evil, or put into office a candidate who will do so.
For argument’s sake, suppose the candidates were Stalin, Hillary Clinton, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Un and Adolf Hitler – all of whom have advocated for numerous intrinsic evils and attempted to or succeeded in making promotion of them the law of a land, and, for sake of argument, assume Hitler would do the least evil. A catholic with a well formed conscience cannot vote for Hitler on the basis that he is “the lesser of two evils” or that his policies would “spare” more innocent persons.
Voting For Hitler
Dear Friends in Christ, We encourage all faithful catholic believers to vote in the upcoming elections which are so important to the future of our cities and of our beloved country which was once a shining star in Christendom.
You can in good conscience vote for Adolf Hitler, and other candidates of the National Socialist Party, but you cannot vote for him, or them, for the wrong reasons, which would be a mortal sin.
We have been assured by Hitler himself during our meetings with him that the rights of members of other parties, those now saying “My Party, My Choice,” will be respected after the current elections are concluded, with, almost assuredly, Hitler and the National Socialists in control of all government offices and agencies.
You, as we all do, know that his government has killed thousands of people, and thousands of Jews, including thousands of Jewish babies, and that this will continue for the foreseeable future since he has told us this will be so and this is his Party’s publicly stated policy. If you vote for him and his government because you want them to kill Jews, that would be a mortal sin. You cannot vote for Hitler so that more Jewish babies will be killed, that would be a mortal sin. If you vote for him and his Jew-killing baby-murdering government, it must be for good reasons, in moral terms, “proportionate” reasons.
If you like the fact that the Nazis have made the trains run on time, and do not vote for him so Jews will be killed, or so that more infants will be slaughtered, that will be not only morally permissible, it will be an act of virtue. If you vote for him, not because more Jewish babies will die horrible deaths if he is elected (which, of course, is absolutely certain), knowing your own tax dollars are paying for the killing, but because he has increased employment here in the Fatherland and will continue to do so, and because our borders are now secured, such voting will be a civil good in accord with your moral duty as a good citizen.
If you vote for Hitler because he has all but eradicated poverty and hunger (by his focus on preparing for the war that is now inevitable), in accord with the Savior’s Sermon on the Mount and the Gospel’s clarion call to social justice, and you believe this will continue, you can proceed in good faith to vote for him and any Nazi Party candidate for any office, knowing you have followed your conscience and you will have no sin to confess.
We all know that our tax money funds the Nazis killing programs, including the baby killing, provides the money to run the Death Camps, pays for the ovens that cook away much of the evidence of the dead bodies with minimal carbon emissions, and pays for the fuel for the trains that bring the people to the camps. You cannot pay your taxes with the intent that these things be done. If however you pay your taxes, as all good citizens should, so that children (the children of good Germans) will be properly educated or, for example so that alien workers here are properly housed and fed, then you can in good conscience pay your taxes and win merit in heaven for doing so.
Also, you can vote for any member of the Nazi party, some of whose soldiers wear the Death’s Head symbols, if those Nazis say they do not support the intrinsic evils of death, genocide, and of racism that the Party has espoused for years and has made a reality here. You will know who some of these candidates are if they say things like: “Yes, The Nazi Party, my beloved Party, has done and will continue to do these atrocities, but I am personally opposed to such atrocities;” “I am personally opposed to gassing Jews so vote for me;” “It is their right to choose to kill Jewish babies, but this is against my personal conscience;” “I can keep my personal views on holocausts private, and vote for the common good of all citizens;” or “My religion, whose principles are explicitly contrary to those of the Nazi Party, will remain a private thing for me.”
And of course, at Mass – which Hitler himself and his highest ranking generals have assured us will continue to be celebrated in our churches – you will see good Nazis receive Holy Communion with all the faithful. It would be an outrage against Christian charity to deny them the grace of the sacrament. Who are we to judge the state of their souls?
Pay attention: if a candidate says he is personally opposed to Hitler, is personally opposed to Jewish genocide, or personally opposed to the murder of the little Jewish babies, you can in good conscience vote for such a candidate and we encourage this; even if such a candidate takes part in the public rallies with their clear quasi-religious message in support of Hitler. If a candidate says he is personally opposed to your tax money funding killing, paying for gas chambers, and buying the furnaces at Dachau, Buchenwald, Auschwitz and other locations, and you know what they are used for, you can still vote for such a candidate – again having in mind your proportionate reasons as you enter the voting booth.
If a candidate says he is personally opposed to denying your religious liberty, even though you know his Party will continue through legislation to do this, it will be an act of virtue to vote for such a candidate.
Yours in Christ,
German & Austrian Catholic Cardinals, Bishops, Pastors and Priests
PS: Be of good cheer, rejoice in all things! Hitler has given us his personal assurance in our face-to-face meetings that our religious liberties will always be recognized and protected under his regime, that is so long as the practice of your religion does not require terrorist actions. He said this in his pubic speech at the University Catholica of Our Lady last month when he received the University’s honorary Doctorate in Humanities.
If you truly want to be principled and vote for an actual pro-life party, then here you go:
Constitution Party Platform
https://constitutionparty.com/principles/platform/
Constitution Party Presidential Candidate
https://constitutionparty.com/elections/11525-2/
Personally, I am a never-Kamala person, and I shall never ever vote for a godless, baby-murdering, sodomy-sanctifying, transgender child mutilating Democrat. While I despise country club Republicans, I truly lothe Democrats right to the core.
LQC-great vocabulary! “loathe” and “to the core” – lovely! Guy, Texas
Guy
Great article. The choice between good and evil in an election has never been more important or clear. Everytime I hear KH say, “let me be clear…” or “I’ve been clear about …” I know that she is only trying to obfuscate ever more.
Heaven help us as this election unfolds.
Thanks
Paul Rubiola
I have an ancient coin (about 150 BC) of a Greek king who ruled what is now western Afghanistan. The inscription says: “Menander: King and Savior (basileus kai soteros)”. We can’t be so foolish. No Christian can ever consider anyone other than Christ as savior. Every choice is between two sinners.
Trump will not fight the battle for life for us, although he will appoint judges and support policies that will leave the field clear for us to fight relatively unimpaired. It will still be our battle, however. Harris will set all Hell against us.
You didn’t write “never” 62,400 times in this article, so I’m still going to vote for the candidate that hasn’t put people in prison for posting funny memes, praying the wrong things in the wrong places or being members of the opposing political party 🙂
CAG, TY for reading, never stop. Go to the second star on the right, then straight on til morning and you will arrive in Neverland. Guy, Texas
Based on the following quotation from St John Paul II’s “Evangelium Vitae,” it would be licit to support a candidate who is generally anti-abortion but imperfectly so, when the alternative is a candidate who is militantly pro-abortion-on-demand:
“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. 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.”
So this election is basically a “damned if we do and damned if we don’t” situation?
[…] Deserted Altars, Satan in the Streets – Hélène de Lauzun at The European Conservative3. Voting For Hitler & Harris – Guy McClung, Ph.D., J.D., at The American Catholic4. Christian Foundation: Widespread, […]
EK — There is no “damned if you don’t” in this situation.
Sadly, in the state of Oklahoma the Constitution Party is not on the ballot, and write-ins are not allowed. The choices are the Republican, the Democrat, the Libertarian, RFK Jr., and some guy from New Hampshire who seems to have no platform at all other than that he is from New Hampshire.
I won’t be validating an election in which I am not given a sufficient choice.
Dear Pater I, your comment ignores all of the plethora of intrinsic evils advocated for and promoted by the Democrats of death. Guy, Texas
Guy: I think Pater I is arguing that a vote for “the father of IVF” and supporter of Bud Light can be justified according to EV.
Setting aside the question as to whether such a vote could be justified in principle, the very fact that mental gymnastics are necessary to attempt such a justification should be unsettling and raise the question of whether it is really worth it.
My own view is that I know, with much greater certainty than I know that my next lotto ticket will be a loser, that my single vote will not change the outcome of the election IN MY STATE, let alone at the national level. From a practical perspective, the only effect of my vote is on my own conscience. Am I really willing to affirm that any of these clowns is desirable as president? Am I willing to rejoice in a candidate who supports at least some murders without even the illusion that some benefit derives from my one vote?
But let’s suppose that I have 144,000 clones strategically registered to vote in swing states (which I will neither confirm nor deny), and together our votes might actually have an effect. Would it really be a good strategic decision to reward “the father of IVF” for removing the pro-life and pro-family planks from his party’s platform? Well, is it a good idea to give your dog a treat immediately after he poops on the rug?
Voted for Trump. For Unbabies, and the common good of American citizens. The Democratic party and our Bishops can go to hell together. I ignore both . Dominus Jesus
Why do you behave as though American politics is something more than porridge. The unctuous self regard is mystifying. You are bored and fill your life with scary stories. Pres Bush won, wasn’t the end of the world, Pres Obama won wasn’t the end of the world, unless of course you were at an Afghani wedding party.
you cede your responsibility to give away your wealth to the poor by creating bogeymen on the right and left and you use the threat of these bogeymen to justify burying your 1000 talents.
Your prescious dirt is no more important than the dirt of Tuva or Uruguay. How would you react if someone from Burundi insisted that the next Burundian regime change was critical and the most important election EVAH!!!!!!
We are a bloated bully and braggart, faithful to the diabolical wickedness that created this american construct. We call evil good (abortion, drone warfare, wage slavery, hoarding of wealth, nuclear weapons, abandonment of the elderly, asset forfeiture, porn, cuban / Venezuelan economic boycott, refusal to support the pro life cause for the people trapped in Gaza, making an idol of ar15s, and on and on) and in the end the political party you pick is just a way of choosing the evils you want to call good.
There’s a reason she came to Juan, the little children of Portugal and the children of Kabeho and not to us, we are Augustus gloop, we are the mighty, we are the emperor with no clothes.
Rewatch the videos from Jan 5th 2021, what you see there is what an actual black mass looks like, the 6th is just the fruit of the 5th. The 5th prolly looks a lot like the prophets of Baal dancing around the fire begging for rain.
Wake up and remember 1 John 4:18 is in the Sacred Scripture, the 2nd amendment isn’t.
@Myshkin — “Why do you behave as though American politics is something more than porridge.” POTTAGE, not PORRIDGE. The price of one’s birthright.
Or, as St. Thomas More might have called it, Wales.
If the intent of this post is to state that voting for Trump is just as evil as voting for Harris and that everyone who votes for Trump is committing just as bad a mortal sin and going to hell along with the Dem voters — because that is the impression I get from reading it — then it has for all practical purposes turned voting into an unwinnable Kobiayshi Maru test in which we have a moral duty to vote but can’t vote for any candidate with a reasonable chance of winning, and have no power to prevent the absolute worst candidate in the bunch from winning.
EK — We do not have an absolute moral obligation to vote. If there is no morally acceptable choice on the ballot, and if write-ins are not allowed, refusing to vote is the best way to use your vote. Governments know that their credibility is based not only on the margin by which they win, but also by number of voters who participate. That’s why, for example, North Korea claims to have a near 100% voter turnout (even though they’re not fooling anyone about the legitimacy of the election).
Dear Elaine K, TY for reading the article. Going back over a decade, my intent was twofold: 1. let good catholics know that to have a well-formed conscience they needed to learn the facts about candidates and parties; and 2. to dispel the outright deceit of many of the clergy in presenting various spurious ways in which to justify voting for a candidate who advocated for and promoted intrinsic evil – and this clerical flim-flam was almost always directed at convincing the faithful that they could, virtuously, vote for democrats who were pro-death.
Dear Outis, When you get to the pearly gates, your vote (or decision not to) might then make a difference.
TY both. Guy, Texas
Thanks for your response, Guy. I may have been reading too much into the mention of other equally evil candidates running against “Hitler”. It is mainly the Dems whom certain Catholics try to paint as the lesser of two evils in that manner.
@Guy McClung — Yes. If you think I was saying otherwise, you were misreading me.