abortion question

[Abu]

Readers should be aware that the “catholica” website to which they have been referred by “Blue Horizon” is noted for dissent and attacks on the teaching of the Church.

This topic is abortion in relation to the teaching of Christ’s Church, and on the political stance in a democracy. It is crystal clear that attacks on the infallible teaching against abortion in Bl John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae, so ably explained by the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), Rev Fr Stephen Torraco, have no place here.

The advantage that we have now, over saints like Augustine and Aquinas, is that we have a clearly defined body of doctrine by Christ’s own Vicars.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
CB are you able to provide the sentence(s) in this document which would lead you to believe that:
(a) a Catholic politician may never support decriminilisation of abortion legislation under pain of mortal sin and/or excommunication;
(b) an anti-abortion mother knowingly driving her rebellious daughter to a Clinic (or picking her up) would be committing mortal sin or excommunicated?

Unfortunately your quote doesn’t actually say what you want it to say.
You want it to say always and everywhere regardless of circumstances it is never in the common good of the state not to criminalise grave sin.

Unfortunately in a broken world, as both Aquinas and Augustine held (see the article below) it may be in the common good, on occasion, not to criminalise immorality (eg adultery, prostitution).

I have already stated that abortion is immoral and more gravely so than prostitution and adultery. Nevertheless it cannot be denied that Catholic tradition is clear that this determination is one of prudential judgement in the face of practical considerations re what is best for the common good. This determination does not appear to rest any apriori “dogma” that it is never in the common good of the State not to criminalise grave sin.

Of course Church leaders have every right to forcefully put forward their own prudential judgement on these matters re what they believe the common good consists in and back it up with Canonical sanctions (ie excommunication). That does not make it a dogma which you seem to be implying.

Nor does it necessarily mean that mum also gets excommunicated for showing practical maternal solictude for her wayward daughter as some extremists seem to want us to believe. If you can find clear Magisterial backing for that long bridge from actual procured abortion I would be intertested.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Readers should be aware that the “catholica” website to which they have been referred by “Blue Horizon” is noted for dissent and attacks on the teaching of the Church.

This topic is abortion in relation to the teaching of Christ’s Church, and on the political stance in a democracy. It is crystal clear that attacks on the infallible teaching against abortion in Bl John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae, so ably explained by the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), Rev Fr Stephen Torraco, have no place here.

The advantage that we have now, over saints like Augustine and Aquinas, is that we have a clearly defined body of doctrine by Christ’s own Vicars.

Abu instead of arguing from possibly self-nominated authoritys that always happens to agree with your own interpretation (or deride those persons who do not) why not try and demonstrate the poor pedigree by clear Magisterial sources and cogent argument for or against the author’s points .

In previous discussions with you you have presented “authorities” that were clearly shown to be mistaken in some of their main arguments. And what did you do? You suddenly dropped them and went searching for other “authorities” to cherry pick. That is not apologetics.

I have every reason to believe the linked presentation wrt Aquinas/Augustine presented below is tame and acceptable and exactly what I was taught by traditional Dominican professors trained in Rome.

If you do not agree then argue against the author’s points and show where he is mistaken
Surely to just denigrate someone’s pedigree without challenging their facts is cheap, easy and unworthy of a truth seeking Christian.

If there is such clear Magisterial doctrine against the views of Aquinas and Augustine and in support of the excommunication of mothers who drive their daughters to or from a clinic after vigorously protesting the evil of what their children are doing then please present it .
Why is it so hard for you. lapey and CB to come up with something tangible?

 

[Lapey]

Abu instead of arguing from possibly self-nominated authoritys that always happens to agree with your own interpretation (or deride those persons who do not) why not try and demonstrate the poor pedigree by **clear Magisterial sources **and cogent argument for or against the author’s points .

In previous discussions with you you have presented “authorities” that were clearly shown to be mistaken in some of their main arguments. And what did you do? You suddenly dropped them and went searching for other “authorities” to cherry pick. That is not apologetics.

I have every reason to believe the linked presentation wrt Aquinas/Augustine presented below is tame and acceptable and exactly what I was taught by traditional Dominican professors trained in Rome.

If you do not agree then argue against the author’s points and show where he is mistaken
Surely to just denigrate someone’s pedigree without challenging their facts is cheap, easy and unworthy of a truth seeking Christian.

If there is such clear Magisterial doctrine against the views of Aquinas and Augustine and in support of the excommunication of mothers who drive their daughters to or from a clinic after vigorously protesting the evil of what their children are doing then please present it .
Why is it so hard for you. lapey and CB to come up with something tangible?

I have given you clear Magisterial quotes and official writings from same, and you have simply dismissed them. What good would it do?

You are a person who holds to his own views instead of Mother Church and your only way of supporting your heretical views is to discredit others. Your ignorance is not innocent it is chosen through arrogance and an ill-formed conscience.

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

 

[Lapey]

Unfortunately your quote doesn’t actually say what you want it to say.
You want it to say always and everywhere regardless of circumstances it is never in the common good of the state not to criminalise grave sin.

Unfortunately in a broken world, as both Aquinas and Augustine held (see the article below) it may be in the common good, on occasion, not to criminalise immorality (eg adultery, prostitution).

I have already stated that abortion is immoral and more gravely so than prostitution and adultery. Nevertheless it cannot be denied that Catholic tradition is clear that this determination is one of prudential judgement in the face of practical considerations re what is best for the common good. This determination does not appear to rest any apriori “dogma” that it is never in the common good of the State not to criminalise grave sin.

Of course Church leaders have every right to forcefully put forward their own prudential judgement on these matters re what they believe the common good consists in and back it up with Canonical sanctions (ie excommunication). That does not make it a dogma which you seem to be implying.

Nor does it necessarily mean that mum also gets excommunicated for showing practical maternal solictude for her wayward daughter as some extremists seem to want us to believe. If you can find clear Magisterial backing for that long bridge from actual procured abortion I would be intertested.

Catholics must be Catholic, in public life and private. Abortion is evil 100% of the time, even “mum” who appears to “want to do good” is in grave sin and if she procures the abortion for her beloved daughter she in fact murders her grand child; there are no other ways to look at this other than evil. There is no good that can come from your imaginary scenario and the “mum” would in fact place herself outside of Grace and outside of Church teaching if she in fact participates in this evil.

Aquinas and Augustine are rolling over in their graves as you misrepresent their teachings.

You have nothing but you opinions, misguided by the way, to back up you assertions. You have been presented many writings of the leadership of the Church and are rejecting them. This is the arrogance I speak of in the other post.

There is no common good for abortion, only evil. There is no such thing as a safe abortion, there are NO prudential judgments for the evil of abortion. Catholic politicians who support legislation or support protection of a woman’s right to choose abortion is in grave error and subject to excommunication; just like your imaginary “mum”.

Evil is evil, to justify it is also evil; there is no justification of evil.

 

[Lapey]

Unfortunately your quote doesn’t actually say what you want it to say.
You want it to say always and everywhere regardless of circumstances it is never in the common good of the state not to criminalise grave sin.

Unfortunately in a broken world, as both Aquinas and Augustine held (see the article below) it may be in the common good, on occasion, not to criminalise immorality (eg adultery, prostitution).

I have already stated that abortion is immoral and more gravely so than prostitution and adultery. Nevertheless it cannot be denied that Catholic tradition is clear that this determination is one of prudential judgement in the face of practical considerations re what is best for the common good. This determination does not appear to rest any apriori “dogma” that it is never in the common good of the State not to criminalise grave sin.

Of course Church leaders have every right to forcefully put forward their own prudential judgement on these matters re what they believe the common good consists in and back it up with Canonical sanctions (ie excommunication). That does not make it a dogma which you seem to be implying.

Nor does it necessarily mean that mum also gets excommunicated for showing practical maternal solictude for her wayward daughter as some extremists seem to want us to believe. If you can find clear Magisterial backing for that long bridge from actual procured abortion I would be intertested.

I’m not talking generally about grave sin; I am talking about abortion; which is what this thread is about. The documents I listed are precisely talking about the same. You try in every argument to muddy the waters so your liberal opinion can be said and some unfortunately believe it because it is easier; yet it is still grave error.

The grave sin of abortion must be criminalized, because it is evil. There are no reasons that can be for the common good; the child is killed. Mother Church states in the documents you dismiss as having rights at the point of conception the same as you and I. This human right to life existed long before the USA’s laws and skewed US Supreme Court existed.

Are you saying because we live in a broken world we must surrender? “We live in a broken world; therefore it is okay to make legal a woman’s right to kill innocent life.” Yes, that makes sense. I don’t think so, that is just evil.

Again, you have no idea what is prudential judgment and when it can be used, it cannot be used in the case of intrinsic evils, i.e. abortion, euthanasia, etc. These must always be opposed. To support legalizing these intrinsic evils is to support evil. To publically support them as a politician can lead to excommunication. To think otherwise is the pluralism which Cardinal Ratzinger specifically denounces.

 

[Lapey]

Cardinal Ratzinger disagrees with you. Catholic politicians shall learn the truth and live the truth. He/she can choose to do otherwise but he/she cannot choose to do it without sin or other sanctions which are automatically imposed by one’s own choice and action. Catholics in public office must act as Catholics for the common good. There is no justification for abortion that is in the common good, this is Church teaching.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
DOCTRINAL NOTE
on some questions regarding
The Participation of Catholics in Political Life

“By its interventions in this area, the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends – as is its proper function – to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good. The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic’s duty to be morally coherent, found within one’s conscience, which is one and indivisible. «There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand, the so-called ‘spiritual life’, with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called ‘secular’ life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture. The branch, engrafted to the vine which is Christ, bears its fruit in every sphere of existence and activity. In fact, every area of the lay faithful’s lives, as different as they are, enters into the plan of God, who desires that these very areas be the ‘places in time’ where the love of Christ is revealed and realized for both the glory of the Father and service of others. Every activity, every situation, every precise responsibility – as, for example, skill and solidarity in work, love and dedication in the family and the education of children, service to society and public life and the promotion of truth in the area of culture – are the occasions ordained by providence for a ‘continuous exercise of faith, hope and charity’ (Apostolicam actuositatem, 4)».[25] Living and acting in conformity with one’s own conscience on questions of politics is not slavish acceptance of positions alien to politics or some kind of confessionalism, but rather the way in which Christians offer their concrete contribution so that, through political life, society will become more just and more consistent with the dignity of the human person.”

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, November 24, 2002, the Solemnity of Christ the King.

X Joseph Card. RATZINGER
Prefect
X Tarcisio BERTONE, S.D.B.
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Unfortunately your quote doesn’t actually say what you want it to say.
You want it to say always and everywhere regardless of circumstances it is never in the common good of the state not to criminalise grave sin.

Unfortunately in a broken world, as both Aquinas and Augustine held (see the article below) it may be in the common good, on occasion, not to criminalise immorality (eg adultery, prostitution).

I have already stated that abortion is immoral and more gravely so than prostitution and adultery. Nevertheless it cannot be denied that Catholic tradition is clear that this determination is one of prudential judgement in the face of practical considerations re what is best for the common good. This determination does not appear to rest any apriori “dogma” that it is never in the common good of the State not to criminalise grave sin.

Of course Church leaders have every right to forcefully put forward their own prudential judgement on these matters re what they believe the common good consists in and back it up with Canonical sanctions (ie excommunication). That does not make it a dogma which you seem to be implying.

Nor does it necessarily mean that mum also gets excommunicated for showing practical maternal solictude for her wayward daughter as some extremists seem to want us to believe. If you can find clear Magisterial backing for that long bridge from actual procured abortion I would be intertested.

In your quote of my post, it appears you stopped reading before you got to the part which states there cannot be two lives, a Catholic must vote and legislate as a Catholic; not live two parallel lives. So I put them together for you. Hope you read the full story this time and not stop at the part that supports you error.

 

[Starrsmother]

Can a Catholic ever, in good conscience, justify voting for a politician that openly supports legislation that allows abortion?

I don’t think there’s a Catholic “rule” on whether or not you can vote for a candidate that openly supports abortion. It would be hard for me to do so–really hard. But look at Harry Reed and old Pelosi. They proclaim that they are practicing Catholics and both are 100% pro-abortion and even pro-same sex marriage. I keep thinking they will surely get excommunicated–but so far nothing. And you can be pretty sure that for them to keep getting re-elected, that there must be some Catholics in their districts that pull the lever for them time and again.

 

[Abu]

Those who obsessively try to weaken the teaching of the Church on abortion are characterized by none other than Blessed John Paul II as Fr Rutler elucidates.

On being obsessive
Father George W. Rutler
‘Blessed John Paul II once submitted to an interview with the respected journalist Vittorio Messori, who asked him if he was perhaps “obsessive” in his preaching against abortion. The Holy Father replied: “The legalization of the termination of pregnancy is none other than the authorization given to an adult, with the approval of an established law, to take the lives of children yet unborn and thus incapable of defending themselves. It is difficult to imagine a more unjust situation, and it is very difficult to speak of obsession in a matter such as this, where we are dealing with a fundamental imperative of every good conscience — the defense of the right to life of an innocent and defenseless human being.” ’
catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0182.htm

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Are you saying because we live in a broken world we must surrender?

Lapey I don’t think of the Christian vocation in the world in simplistic black and white army terms.
Did Jesus think turning the other cheek and inviting another slap was surrendering or cooperating in sin?
Moses with his great knowledge of Natural Law and the common good nevertheless decided, due to the hardness of hearts amongst his people, it was better for the common good not to totally legislate against divorce. Was that surrender or rather stooping to conquer?
Aquinas and Augustine said the same about Prostitution.

Again, you have no idea what is prudential judgment and when it can be used, it cannot be used in the case of intrinsic evils, i.e. abortion, euthanasia, etc.

OK, produce a clear Magisterial statement to support this one. I am willing to be corrected if you can present something that is more solid than than the wishful interpretations or procrustean stretchings served to the choir that I feel is being quoted thus far.

If this is right do you not believe prostituion is intrinsically evil? Yet there is no doubt Aquinas contended it was arguable whether or not it needed to be criminalised .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In your quote of my post, it appears you stopped reading before you got to the part which states there cannot be two lives, a Catholic must vote and legislate as a Catholic; not live two parallel lives. So I put them together for you. Hope you read the full story this time and not stop at the part that supports you error.

Sorry I don’t get you. Where does it say there that “a Catholic must …legislate as a Catholic”? And what does that even mean?

Obviously one’s conscience must be engaged constently in one’s own personal morality and conduct whether that be private or public.

Deciding whether or not to procure an abortion for myself (private morality) is a different moral issue/question compared to, whether or not I (a Catholic member of the House of Representatives) support a piece of legislation in some way concerning abortion.

One is fairly clear cut, the other is not always. Just as Aquinas stated wrt Prostitution.
So it is perfectly possible in theory to live “one life” and possibly come to different decisions on each issue.

 

[Brandall]

Sorry I don’t get you. Where does it say there that “a Catholic must …legislate as a Catholic”? And what does that even mean?

Obviously one’s conscience must be engaged constently in one’s own personal morality and conduct whether that be private or public.

Deciding whether or not to procure an abortion for myself (private morality) is a different moral issue/question compared to, whether or not I (a Catholic member of the House of Representatives) support a piece of legislation in some way concerning abortion.

One is fairly clear cut, the other is not always. Just as Aquinas stated wrt Prostitution.
So it is perfectly possible in theory to live “one life” and possibly come to different decisions on each issue.

I’m not yet a Catholic so my knowledge on Aquinas and others is nearly nil. Did they think it okay for the government to support murder? Are you equating murder and prostitution? Seems like quite a leap.

From all the church has to say about abortion in the little time I’ve been involved, I’m pretty sure she thinks it wrong to allow it on a government level.

 

[Lapey]

Lapey I don’t think of the Christian vocation in the world in simplistic black and white army terms.
Did Jesus think turning the other cheek and inviting another slap was surrendering or cooperating in sin?
Moses with his great knowledge of Natural Law and the common good nevertheless decided, due to the hardness of hearts amongst his people, it was better for the common good not to totally legislate against divorce. Was that surrender or rather stooping to conquer?
Aquinas and Augustine said the same about Prostitution.

OK, produce a clear Magisterial statement to support this one. I am willing to be corrected if you can present something that is more solid than than the wishful interpretations or procrustean stretchings served to the choir that I feel is being quoted thus far.

If this is right do you not believe prostituion is intrinsically evil? Yet there is no doubt Aquinas contended it was arguable whether or not it needed to be criminalised .

You have been corrected several times, by me and others; yet you continue to stick to you own ideals and beliefs. You continue to justify your beliefs by “using” doctors of the Church incorrectly to shore up support. Your argument that you continuously go back to is weak and lacking in connection to the topic of this thread.

Now you want to bring Moses in to back up your ridiculous argument. Jesus chastised the ones who represented the Law, He did not endorse Moses’ decision to write a bill of divorce, He chastised it.

Go back and look at the documents I have sited, they will teach you much, if you are ready to learn. Learn from them, not me.

 

[Lapey]

Sorry I don’t get you. Where does it say there that “a Catholic must …legislate as a Catholic”? And what does that even mean?
**
Obviously one’s conscience must be engaged constently in one’s own personal morality** and conduct whether that be private or public.

Deciding whether or not to procure an abortion for myself (private morality) is a different moral issue/question compared to, whether or not I (a Catholic member of the House of Representatives) support a piece of legislation in some way concerning abortion.

One is fairly clear cut, the other is not always. Just as Aquinas stated wrt Prostitution.
So it is perfectly possible in theory to live “one life” and possibly come to different decisions on each issue.

This is exactly why I re-posted the paragraph from the 2002 document from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. This statement that I emphasized is relative thinking from an apparently ill-formed conscience.

One’s own personal morality, what does that mean? Is morality different for me than it is for you?

The document i sited is in direct opposition to what you are saying here and stating as fact, you are simply wrong.

The document if you would take the time to read it is directly contradicting your point. It is written by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by Cardinal Ratzinger and adopted by the Holy See and is binding. It is in direct opposition to Catholic politicians who claim to be privately pro-life but publicly support legislation that allows and maintains legalized abortion. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS WRITTEN TO CORRECT!!!

PS. Our current Church leaders work in communion with Augustine and Aquinas and they disagree with your simple understanding which justifies intrinsic evils.

I have provided many documents to refute your erroneous judgements and ill-formed conscience, now I suggest you stop posting error and go and learn your faith; less you lead others astray, we all know what Jesus taught about that:

Luke 17:1-4
He said to his disciples, “Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. 2It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 3Be on your guard!* If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. 4And if he wrongs you seven times in one day and returns to you seven times saying, ‘I am sorry,’ you should forgive him.”*

This is why I rebuke you so harshly. and why I do not give up.

 

[Lapey]

I’m not yet a Catholic so my knowledge on Aquinas and others is nearly nil. Did they think it okay for the government to support murder? Are you equating murder and prostitution? Seems like quite a leap.

From all the church has to say about abortion in the little time I’ve been involved, I’m pretty sure she thinks it wrong to allow it on a government level.

This poster is not properly using Augustine & Aquinas’ writings correctly. Please do not go to this poster for true Church teachings.

Prostitution and murder, i.e. abortion, in no way are similar. That is an attempt to muddy the waters and distract from his support of legal abortion.

 

[thewanderer]

it intends – as is its proper function – to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good.The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic’s duty to be morally coherent, found within one’s conscience, which is one and indivisible. «There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand, the so-called ‘spiritual life’, with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called ‘secular’ life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture.

Obviously one’s conscience must be engaged constently in one’s own personal morality and conduct whether that be private or public.

Unless I’m misunderstanding Blue Horizon these two quotes are saying the same exact thing. Both of them are saying that are conscience must be engaged consistently whether it is being used in public or private life. I am of course, assuming, that BlueHorizon agrees with the importance of a well-formed conscience according to Church Teaching, so unless BH clarifies that this is not the case I really don’t understand why you have such a problem with this statement. It is exactly what you tried to get BH to accept.

 

[Contarini]

Voting for a candidate who supports the legalization of abortion is remote material cooperation.

Remote material cooperation is justifiable if there are “proportional causes.”

The conservative argument (and no, in this case this is not a synonym for orthodox) is that no other issue (except for genocide, which no one in the U.S. today openly advocates) could constitute a “proportional cause.” This is reflected in several of the posts saying that you can only vote for a pro-choice candidate if the other candidate is even worse on abortion, or at least as bad.

But this is a prudential judgment. It’s not a necessary consequence from Church teaching.

It seems to me that things are a lot more complicated than that. When speaking of material cooperation, the actual effect of your actions is what matters. (In formal cooperation, which is always wrong, you are choosing to support an intrinsic evil. But that’s not the case here.) There’s a “distance” between your action and the evil (which there is not in formal or “direct material” cooperation). Hence you can apply proportional reasoning, and that isn’t simply a matter of weighing the various issues. Rather, it’s a matter of weighing the effect on the common good of the specific choices you are making.

So the question is: would voting for this pro-choice candidate cause greater evil than voting for the most likely alternative, or voting for a third candidate, or not voting.

And even in a case where one candidate is “pro-choice” and the other one is decidedly “prolife,” there is no simple answer to that dilemma in abstraction from particular circumstances.

One could argue that a given politician’s position on abortion won’t make a huge difference, whereas on some other issue the politician’s stance is very significant.

The point is that it’s a prudential judgment. Certainly many liberal Catholics (and increasingly, politically liberal evangelicals too of the “Sojourners” camp) seem rather frivolous and self-justifying in the way that they deal with this. And they can and should be called on it.

I also think there’s something to the parallel with Augustine and Aquinas’ views on prostitution that BlueHorizon has been citing. Yes, murder is much more serious than prostitution (and I think Augustine and Aquinas were wrong on prostitution anyway, but the principle on which they operated was correct). But the broader point is that when discussing legislation you have to look at the social effect of the law and not just the intrinsic good or evil of the activities in question.

There’s no doubt that a prochoice position is heretical and wrong. There cannot be a right to kill your child in the womb. But it might, under certain circumstances, be wiser to focus on other social issues rather than trying to force through legislation that will supposedly “end abortion” in the face of a deeply divided society, especially when the attempt to do this demonstrably leads Catholics to compromise all sorts of other social convictions, or even rationalize them away and become consistent “right-wingers.”

Edwin

 

[Lapey]

Voting for a candidate who supports the legalization of abortion is remote material cooperation.

Remote material cooperation is justifiable if there are “proportional causes.”

The conservative argument (and no, in this case this is not a synonym for orthodox) is that no other issue (except for genocide, which no one in the U.S. today openly advocates) could constitute a “proportional cause.” This is reflected in several of the posts saying that you can only vote for a pro-choice candidate if the other candidate is even worse on abortion, or at least as bad.

But this is a prudential judgment. It’s not a necessary consequence from Church teaching.

It seems to me that things are a lot more complicated than that. When speaking of material cooperation, the actual effect of your actions is what matters. (In formal cooperation, which is always wrong, you are choosing to support an intrinsic evil. But that’s not the case here.) There’s a “distance” between your action and the evil (which there is not in formal or “direct material” cooperation). Hence you can apply proportional reasoning, and that isn’t simply a matter of weighing the various issues. Rather, it’s a matter of weighing the effect on the common good of the specific choices you are making.

So the question is: would voting for this pro-choice candidate cause greater evil than voting for the most likely alternative, or voting for a third candidate, or not voting.

And even in a case where one candidate is “pro-choice” and the other one is decidedly “prolife,” there is no simple answer to that dilemma in abstraction from particular circumstances.

One could argue that a given politician’s position on abortion won’t make a huge difference, whereas on some other issue the politician’s stance is very significant.

The point is that it’s a prudential judgment. Certainly many liberal Catholics (and increasingly, politically liberal evangelicals too of the “Sojourners” camp) seem rather frivolous and self-justifying in the way that they deal with this. And they can and should be called on it.

I also think there’s something to the parallel with Augustine and Aquinas’ views on prostitution that BlueHorizon has been citing. Yes, murder is much more serious than prostitution (and I think Augustine and Aquinas were wrong on prostitution anyway, but the principle on which they operated was correct). But the broader point is that when discussing legislation you have to look at the social effect of the law and not just the intrinsic good or evil of the activities in question.

There’s no doubt that a prochoice position is heretical and wrong. There cannot be a right to kill your child in the womb. But it might, under certain circumstances, be wiser to focus on other social issues rather than trying to force through legislation that will supposedly “end abortion” in the face of a deeply divided society, especially when the attempt to do this demonstrably leads Catholics to compromise all sorts of other social convictions, or even rationalize them away and become consistent “right-wingers.”

Edwin

Welcome to the conversation Edwin, I haven’t chatted with you in a couple of years I think.

You wrote much but you didn’t say much; I mean that with respect I assure you. I mean you really didn’t take a stand, only walked the fence. Also, we are talking two different things here, actions of politicians with regard to legislation, and the way in which we vote.

Catholic politicians are required by the Church to legislate by Catholic teaching, to do otherwise would be sinful. Catholic voters must vote with a properly and fully formed conscience, with understanding not all issues are equal. Two candidates are not always equal.

Prudential judgement cannot equate abortion to feeding the poor, welfare, social security etc. It is an intrinsic evil and must be rejected no matter what. If the opponents were proving they would kill the innocent people who happen to be poor by direct means, then you may have a prudential judgement issue. There are no comparisons to abortion in our current political landscape.

That does not mean one voter doesn’t think that and vote in that manner, over 50% of Catholic voters thought that; but that does not make them correct. It does however show how poorly formed our consciences are.

Abortion is murder and always evil; cutting social programs may seem evil to some but there is no comparison. Abortion must be legislated out of the norm of society, then prayed and taught our of existence.

 

[Holly3278]

One can vote for a politician despite the fact that they are for legalized abortion but one must never vote for a politician because they are for legalized abortion. One must only do this in cases where said politician is the lesser of two evils. One should always vote for the politician who is the lesser of two evils. Also, in a case where both politicians are for legalized abortion then one must choose the politician who is for the policy on abortion which would have abortion being the most restricted and one must reject the politician which would be for the policy which is for the most open and widely available abortions. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You have been corrected several times, by me and others; yet you continue to stick to you own ideals and beliefs. You continue to justify your beliefs by “using” doctors of the Church incorrectly to shore up support. Your argument that you continuously go back to is weak and lacking in connection to the topic of this thread.

Now you want to bring Moses in to back up your ridiculous argument. Jesus chastised the ones who represented the Law, He did not endorse Moses’ decision to write a bill of divorce, He chastised it.

Go back and look at the documents I have sited, they will teach you much, if you are ready to learn. Learn from them, not me.

Tone it down please Lapey you are red-lining on what is acceptable and polite on this Forum. Just because I disagree with you because you are unable to provide clear source material does not mean you have any justification to go off like this.

The point you are missing re Moses is that God obviously accepted Moses approach at that time due to hardness of heart of the People as Jesus stated…

Now, with the coming of Jesus, the heart of his People had obviously reached a minimum level for Jesus’s Word to make some headway, produce a viable crop as it were.
Sadly we all know it proved not to be the Jewish People as a group but rather it included the Gentiles and a new Church where his leavening Word would thrive. Such a People now had a heart able to accept (even if they still cannot always live it) the way of life and marriage He had always called them to.

It seems there were other grave matters that society (even Christian Society) were still a bit slack on promoting even after Jesus. It took time for these grave offences to be widely recognised as undesirable in Christian and then civil society (eg Slavery).

Offences involving life and death are obviously much graver than Slavery and Prostitution but they are all intrinsically evil.
If you can show me some clear Magisterial teachings that make a distinction between these sets of issues wrt whether or not prudential judgements may or may not be made by Catholic politicans I would be happy to agree with you.

To date I haven’t seen anything from you that really clinches the deal sorry .