Quote tweeting me from behind a block is shameless @BigModernism. Why don’t you unblock me and we can discuss the merits of our positions.

The faulty presuppositions contained in the “lesser of two evils” argument, which seems to be a favorite in many good-willed Catholic circles, whether “Trad” or “Novus Ordo”, are not insignificant. Catholics do indeed have a serious obligation to participate in politics and, where the civil right of voting is afforded, to exercise their right. However, voting is merely a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. The end of voting is to select politicians whose programs truly secure the common good. This true, common good is outlined by the Catholic Church and importantly takes into account man’s supernatural end, union with God. More on the common good according to a mid 20th-century neo-scholastic author Fr. Santiago Ramírez, O.P., can be read here: americanreform.substack.com/… Ordinarily, Catholics are bound to exercise their vote under pain of serious sin. However, this always presupposes a worthy candidate to elect, importantly by exclusively Catholic standards. — REMINDER: The general conditions by which Catholics judge a worthy political candidate and his platform, which is distinct from his person, were laid out by Pope Pius XII in his 1948 allocation to the clergy of Rome. Worth noting is that failing to satisfy a single one of these conditions, let alone many or all, renders a candidate, objectively, unworthy. “However, it is obvious that the voice of conscience imposes on every Catholic to give his vote to the candidates who offer truly sufficient guarantees for the protection of the rights of God and of souls, for the true good of individuals, families and of society, according to the love of God and Catholic moral teaching.” Returning to the presuppositions which deserve attention: First, abstracting from other important considerations, the moral principle that it is permissible (which is distinct from obligatory) to vote for an unworthy candidate that is the lesser of two evils is not absolute, i.e. valid in all cases. Using prudence, in certain circumstances it will be expedient to engage in principled abstention to protect the rights of God, the rights of the family and uphold the moral law, refusing to vote for any unworthy candidate. Another presupposition is that embracing Liberalism (American Conservatism/GOP) to oppose the Socialist and Communist Left is still to embrace a deadly system of moral and religious error! In one sense, it’s even more dangerous, owing to its partially masked nature and how it, Liberalism, inexorably produces communism. Let all Catholics recall the warning (no. 122) of Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, “Liberalism is the father of this Socialism that is pervading morality and culture and that Bolshevism will be its heir.” Yet another is that consistently choosing the “lesser of the two evils”, particularly when this pattern manifests itself over the course of decades, runs the risk of legitimizing evil, far from opposing and overcoming it — which is the actual, motivating reason for that initial decision of toleration, i.e. to “choose the lesser of the two”. Material cooperation with evil in voting for an unworthy candidate is only lawful when there is some proportionate reason, meaning it justifies the toleration of evil. And those who propose voting for such a man have the burden of proof, not those who would abstain, in demonstrating the justification of their cooperation. Finally, the moral calculation in voting must not look at the narrow condition of “lesser of the two evils” to the exclusion of other important factors — like giving scandal, encouraging bad men or further solidifying the wicked, Liberal and naturalistic principles that underlie our American society.

Tomorrow is D-Day, i.e. doxx day. Pray for me. I can’t wait to unveil the man behind American Reform.