John Vennari On The Protestant Concept Of The Lesser Of Two Evils: Not For The Pope To Use, But O.K. For The Laity To Use.

GIROLAMO DA TREVISO the Younger
A Protestant Allegory
1542-44

“I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues.” Sarah Palin

"Palin does not conform to the Catholic ideal, and I agree she does not conform to the Catholic standard. But I long ago gave up expecting the Catholic ideal from American politicians." John Vennari

"Palin is probably – warts and all — one of the best the United States can now produce." John Vennari

John Vennari on the lesser of two evils from his recent article Benedict’s Bombshell

As we go to press (November 24), the controversy still rages. Perhaps by next month a clearer picture will emerge. (I hope to have read the Pope’s book by then.) I will close with three points to keep in mind throughout this entire calamity:

1) The lesser of two evils is a Protestant concept, not Catholic. It has no place in the history of Catholic moral teaching. We cannot choose the lesser of two evils because the lesser evil is still evil, and evil can never be the direct object of our will.

2) Romans 3:8 condemns the principle that a person may do evil that good may come from it. St. Paul teaches that those who do so, their “damnation is just”. It is forbidden to do evil to achieve good.

3) The use of these immoral devices is nothing new, so it seems odd anyone would suggest a new morality to go with them. Randy Engel, a veteran journalist who has written extensively about the dangers of modern sex-education and today’s homosexual agenda, noted, “Keep in mind that various forms of sheaths or prophylactics have been used by female and male prostitutes for centuries for two primary purposes: (1) to prevent infection including deadly diseases transmitted by sexual activity; (2) to prevent pregnancy, especially out-of-wedlock pregnancies that would endanger inheritance rights and weaken marriage alliances. Yet no saint or Church Father or Pope has suggested that their use for any reason was licit.”

Nor did any saint or Church Father or Pope place any significance to the possibility that use of such a device by a person engaged in heinous acts may be some sort of first step toward moral responsibility.

John Vennari writes that "The lesser of two evils is a Protestant concept, not Catholic" therefore Catholics should not chose the lesser of two evils, it is simply not allowed. John Vennari uses Romans 3:8 to condemn choosing the lesser of two evils:

And not rather (as we are slandered, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil, that there may come good? whose damnation is just

So far, so good, I am in total agreement with what has been said by Mr.John Vennari. I agree with Mr. Vennari that "the damage Pope Benedict’s statement is causing is colossal."

Choosing the lesser of two evils is always wrong. Or is it? According to the majority of Traditional Catholics in 2008, it was imperative for a Roman Catholic to chose the lesser of two evils when casting a ballot in the 2008 presidential election. Everyone was warned ahead of time by protestant evangelical nut cases that Obama is the Antichrist. Obama as the Antichrist had to be defeated at the polls, 'cause if Obama were not defeated at the polls, then the world would witness the reign of the Antichrist. Now since most Traditionalists pride themselves on their opposition to all things protestant and say "O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men," for I am a Traditionalist, so I refuse to follow the protestant, I will therefore refuse to call Obama the Antichrist, but I will instead call Obama the forerunner to the Antichrist, this proves that I am not like other men. So went the political strategy cooked up the Remnant Newspaper to get Roman Catholic Traditionalist to vote for McCain/Palin. According to the Remnant Newspaper Obama may not be the Antichrist, but he sure as hell is the forerunner to the Antichrist. Obama is the greater evil.

McCain/Palin is all we got to use against the greater evil, so vote for McCain/Palin, to defeat the greater evil Obama. But to cast a vote for McCain/Palin is choosing a lesser evil, is it not?. McCain is an enemy to the Faith and so is his running mate Palin who is an apostate Roman Catholic who believes that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the whore of Babylon foretold by St John in his Apocalypse 17:5:

And on her forehead a name was written: A mystery; Babylon the great, the mother of the fornications, and the abominations of the earth.

How could a Roman Catholic convince himself to vote for McCain/Palin unless he thought that Obama was a greater evil, and McCain/Palin were the lesser evil? Now be remided by John Vennari that:

"The lesser of two evils is a Protestant concept, not Catholic. It has no place in the history of Catholic moral teaching. We cannot choose the lesser of two evils because the lesser evil is still evil, and evil can never be the direct object of our will."

So why did the vast majority of Roman Catholic Traditionalists use this very Protestant concept in the 2008 presidential election when casting a ballot? Because we were told to do so by CFN etc..

Let's go back to 2008 and read from the pen of John Vennari warning us about Palin's inconsistencies in her anti-abortion views by her promotion of the use of contraceptions. Sarah Palin and Contraception. In this piece John Vennari concludes that Palin is the lesser of two evils here:

Sarah Palin is certainly the most interesting personality to appear in a presidential race in decades. Coming from a small town with old-fashioned values, she appears to be genuine and honest. In the maelstrom of American naturalism, in conjunction with the confusion of the times, she is probably – warts and all — one of the best the United States can now produce.

I have seen some conservative writers rip the stuffing out of her because she does not conform to the Catholic ideal, and I agree she does not conform to the Catholic standard. But I long ago gave up expecting the Catholic ideal from American politicians. I’ve even given up expecting it from American bishops, which is why I am shocked if an American prelate publicly displays backbone on a Catholic issue

John Vennari then assures us, even with Palin's failings, she still was the better choice:

This article was not meant to be condemnatory of Palin, nor is it meant to tell anyone how to vote, something CFN has never done. When friends tell me they intend to vote for McCain/Palin as, if nothing else, a vote against the rabidly pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Obama, I don’t try to talk them out of it. In this instance, as in all instances, each individual must act according to an informed Catholic conscience.

One has to ask Mr. Vennari, in all things political, is the Catholic conscience informed by the Protestant concept of lesser of two evils? Because we are told by you, Mr. Vennari, that Palin is probably – warts and all — one of the best the United States can now produce, meaning of course that Palin is the lesser of two evils as compared to Obama. And that the lesser evil McCain/Palin ticket if nothing else, is a vote against the greater evil rabidly pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Obama.

But we are recently reminded in the 2010 article by Vennari of Pope Benedict's error in applying the concept of the lesser of two evils and that we cannot choose the lesser of two evils because the lesser evil is still evil, and evil can never be the direct object of our will.

So one can only conclude that Mr. Vennari holds the Pope to a different standard that he himself refuses to hold. According to Mr. Vennari its O.K. for the laity to apply the concept of the lesser of two evils when casting a vote, but is never permissible for the Pope to use the same concept of the lesser of two evils