Can A Catholic Vote For Castle in Delaware- Well This Year YES!!

Pro -Ecclesia is making the obvious case that Senator Castle is problematic. See Mike Castle and the "Deadly Dozen" Well yes he is no doubt. Also in the Republican primary alone it is clear that just by looking at the issues alone that Christian O’Donnell would be the obvious Catholic choice.

Now let me say I think there are people of good will on all sides of this.

However this is the problem. I think most evidence shows that O'Donnell cannot win the general. Pro-Ecclesia says:
And those who desire to vote out of principle for Castle's conservative pro-life opponent are derided by the more "sophisticated" pragmatists as short-sighted, nuts, and/or (as Prof. Bainbridge would have it) "holier than thou".Someone remind me again why it is we should return the Stupid Party to power?

Ok fair enough. However before we get to the stupid party the question must be asked. Is this "O Donnell" the best the pro-life movements and conservatives can come up with after all these years? This is the choice?

Now I know the tea party is involved in this. We are starting to see a pattern. That is perhaps the Tea Party does not vet it folks very well. This is crucial in a populist movement because well populist movements produce lets say some interesting folks.

So before we get to blaming the GOP we need to look at the people various counter movements are producing.

Now people of good faith can disagree but I like many conservatives think well there is just something wrong with O'Donnell. I mean allegations that her home was burglarized by Castle supporters and other statements make her one statement away from being in conspiracy land. Then we have this latest drama that was reported over the weekend.

See Citing "Mental Anguish," Christine O'Donnell Sought $6.9 Million in Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Conservative Group...and falsely implied she was taking master's degree classes at Princeton.

At some point one gets really concerned. Further what if just half this weird stuff is true? Do we really want that to be the Public voice of the pro-life movement in Delaware? Do we want that going national?

Now Rand Paul is far more Libertarian than me and he is a rather bold choice in Kentucky. However it seems the party as a whole is behind him. I think Angle is very problematic in Nevada. She had major pro-life and Tea Party support. We see a race there if had picked another one of her naerly the money we are. Still the party is united behind her.

As to O'Donnell is this a place to really draw a line in the sand on? We have our hands full already.

In the end I don't blame the GOP, I blame the Tea Party and elements of the pro-life movement in Delaware for giving us this choice. What have they been doing for six years.

So can a Catholic vote for O'Donnell? If this was a case where the GOP person was a sure fired person to win then well maybe you would have too. However this is not the case.

Gaining control of the Senate is crucial. By gaining control one gets controls the committees in Congress which is about half the game. I think the pro-life cause will not benefit in any way by losing a chance at that for a short term symbolic victory in a Republican primary.

Now I would like to direct your attention to this: Ten Easy Steps to… Voting with a Clear Conscience by Priests For Life.

One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.

In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not "choosing the lesser of two evils." We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good.
You oppose the evil of abortion, in every circumstance, no matter what. You know that no law can legitimize even a single abortion, ever. If the candidate thinks some abortion is OK, you don't agree.

But by your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it's not the best strategy. But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer -- in the case described above -- is yes.

Cardinal John O’Connor, in a special booklet on abortion, once wrote about this problem, “Suppose all candidates support ‘abortion rights’? … One could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position. If all candidates support "abortion rights" equally, one might vote for the candidate who seems best in regard to other issues” (1990, “Abortion: Questions and Answers”).

In this context, the question also arises as to whether one is required to vote for a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position. The answer is, no, you are not required to vote for this candidate. The reason is that your vote is not a canonization of a candidate. It is a transfer of power. You have to look concretely at where the power is really going to be transferred, and use your vote not to make a statement but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.

Of course, our conscience may be telling us, “Don’t say it’s impossible to elect the candidate who doesn’t have a strong base of support.” Of course, it is possible to elect almost anyone if the necessary work is done within the necessary time. God doesn’t ask us to base our choices on “the possibility of miracles,” but rather on solid human reason. The point is that if there’s a relatively unknown but excellent candidate, the time to begin building up support for that person’s candidacy is several years before the election, not several months. What you have to ask as Election Day draws near is whether your vote is needed to keep the worse candidate (of the two, less acceptable but more realistic choices) out of office.

My human reason tells me that if O'Donnell wins the GOP primary then she loses to the Democrat. Thus I will limited the damage to the pro-life movement by voting for the pro-choice Republican that at least gives us a chance to minimize pro choice and other anti Catholic initiatives by putting the Committees in "somewhat" friendlier hands.

People can disagree with my reasoning but I don't think it is out there. Hopefully in six years we shall have a better choice.

Again this seems to be a rather extreme case. If I though O'Donnell had a remote chance I might be saying something different. In the end the issue is trying to use reason to trying to figure out what Delaware voters will do. They are the real issue. At this point I am not seeing them go for O'Donnell.