abortion question

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Brandall this is a good point. Without first reading your contribution I have already hypothesised this possibility in my last post below (it really is the only logical way to reconcile Aquinas). To be honest I do not know. I do not think Aquinas said anything about murder or infanticide. However some digging into Magisterial documents I have done on this matter is hinting in this direction.

So I am still trying to find something solid. (I have given up waiting for Lapey to source pertinent material as he does not seem to grasp the full difficulties/issues as you appear to do)

You may be more Catholic than you know .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Thankyou, you understand me perfectly.
The issue is indeed whether one can acceptably come to differing judgements on these two different moral acts wrt abortion (one concerns the actual immoral act, the other wrt legislation wrt the immoral act) with a fully formed and sincere conscience.

The private act is intrinsically evil (and a correct conscience can never assent) but the other … does not yet appear to be an intrinsically evil act. It is more about levels and degrees of material cooperation as Contarini states.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

… Please do not go to this poster for true Church teachings.
.

Lapey I am sorry, but this is unworthy.
I will kindly provide you a brief opportunity to apologise before I consider reporting this unacceptable behaviour to the admin.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Is it allowed in an election for County Drain Commisioner to vote for someone who you happen to know is personally pro abortion rights, even though his job will never involve decisions on that issue?

I ask only to understand the limits on this principle. Another scenario would be where two candidtates are similar, but not identical. One is a bit more pro-life than the other. Is it allowed to take into account the degree of differences and weigh that against other factors for proportional reasons?

The Drain Commisioner scenario may not come up very often, but the two somewhat similar candidates will come up.

 

[Lapey]

Lapey I am sorry, but this is unworthy.
I will kindly provide you a brief opportunity to apologise before I consider reporting this unacceptable behaviour to the admin.

You are funny…

 

[Lapey]

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 .

There is nothing to tone down. I have provided much documentation, you reject it. Doesn’t pay to continue really. All you do is change the subject and make statements that confuse the matter.

The teachings are what they are, accept them or reject them. It’s your choice.

I do not know why I debate with you because you do this every time. I don’t even know what we are discussing anymore, politics, abortion, public, private.

Maybe Monday when I’m sitting at my desk I’ll go back through the thread and join back in; but for now I’m heading to bed.

 

[Contarini]

Also, we are talking two different things here, actions of politicians with regard to legislation, and the way in which we vote.

Agreed. Also, Blue Horizon made some claims that I think are totally indefensible. For a parent to take a child to have an abortion is obviously proximate cooperation and forbidden by Catholic moral teaching as I understand it.

Catholic politicians are required by the Church to legislate by Catholic teaching, to do otherwise would be sinful.

But there is room for prudence even there in how to implement proper moral principles. Given the divided nature of our society, a case can be made that trying to push a legislative solution is not the best approach. That is not the same thing as actively fighting to preserve the right to an abortion.

Catholic voters must vote with a properly and fully formed conscience, with understanding not all issues are equal. Two candidates are not always equal

To equate a pro-abortion candidate like President Obama, who has repeatedly proven what he would do to abortion rights, with a man like Rand Paul for instance, would not be a prudential judgement it would be a lie.

But the point I’m making is that nothing in Church teaching requires people to consider only abortion in making a decision. Nor is the choice to vote for a “pro-choice” candidate and against a “prolife one” based on other issues necessarily a choice to make abortion a less important issue. It’s a choice that in these particular circumstances, voting for the prochoice candidate will do more good and less harm.

I am not saying any of this to advocate for President Obama. I am a resident alien and do not vote, but I could not have voted for Obama in good conscience, particularly the second time around. I also don’t think I could have voted for Romney in good conscience.

Prudential judgement cannot equate abortion to feeding the poor, welfare, social security etc.

False comparison. It’s not about “equation,” but it is about prudential judgment. The question is: what choice will do the most good and avoid the most harm. These issues are complex and the role of government in each of them is different.

It is an intrinsic evil and must be rejected no matter what.

“Intrinsic” is not a measure of gravity. It simply means that you can never support it.

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.

Untrue. As I said earlier, some argue that Republican social policies will cause an increase in abortions, while Democratic ones will cause a decrease. Even if that’s wrong, the error is at the level of prudence. If these pro-Democratic Catholics were arguing that one should actively support the “right” to an abortion, then they would be violating Church teaching. But they’re saying that given the imperfect choices, it’s better to have a robust social safety net which will reduce the number of abortions than to have laws on the books against abortion while creating social circumstances that will drive women to have abortions. Given the correctness of their practical evaluation, they are surely following Catholic teaching. The question is whether their prudential judgment is correct, and indeed whether they can be so certain about the matter as to disregard the obvious fact that the Democratic party is currently committed to a practically unlimited abortion license.

There are no comparisons to abortion in our current political landscape.

That’s your prudential judgment.

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.

Or simply that their prudential judgments are biased by their political prejudices. In my opinion as a sort-of neutral observer, this occurs on both sides.

Abortion is murder and always evil; cutting social programs may seem evil to some but there is no comparison.

You’re setting one thing up against another. But what if they’re connected?

My own prudential judgment–which doesn’t matter because I can’t vote–is that both parties are so morally bankrupt that a “protest vote” is the only moral option. So again, this is not an apologia for the Democrats. The Republicans seem to me to be so deeply committed to evil principles in so many interlocking ways that their “prolife” stance does not justify supporting them–except for those Republicans who show signs of breaking with the majority on those issues (a more humane approach to immigration, or voting against foreign military interventions, etc.) I think 2012 has had a good effect on the Republicans and the worst may be over as far as they are concerned, though I fear that they’ll learn the wrong lesson and play down abortion while ramping up “economic conservatism.”

Abortion must be legislated out of the norm of society, then prayed and taught our of existence.

I agree. I doubt it will ever entirely vanish until Jesus returns, but in principle I agree.

However, the strategy of putting all other moral issues on hold (except for same-sex marriage and the few other points where the Republican platform is preferable) until abortion is resolved has been utterly disastrous.

As John Allen said some years ago, if Catholics were as a body to refuse to vote for either party, this would have an immense impact on American politics. Prudentially, it seems to me that anything short of that is deeply misguided and is prolonging the reign of wickedness.

But admittedly, it’s easy for me to say this when I can’t vote . . .

Edwin

 

[adrift]

I looked through the posts but I didn’t see this referenced. I am not saying it wasn’t only I didn’t see it

Vote for supporters of abortion never justified, Vatican official says

By John Thavis
Catholic News ServiceVATICAN CITY (CNS) – A U.S. Vatican official said voting for a political candidate who favors legal abortion can never be morally justified.

 

[Contarini]

I looked through the posts but I didn’t see this referenced. I am not saying it wasn’t only I didn’t see it

Contrary to the impression left by the headline, this is the opinion of one important American bishop. I would expect that those Catholics living under his jurisdiction would obey his prudential judgment, but that’s all it is–a prudential judgment that no proportionate reasons exist. What Church teaching says is that you may vote for a pro-choice candidate if such reasons exist.

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

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

*No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion.

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone*,”

Cardinal Edmund Burke

 

[estesbob]

There is no dogma of the Church I am aware of that says temporal authorities (eg Catholic politicians/voters) must 100% map Church Moral Teaching re all grave sins (ie Canon Law) into their Nation’s Law without question.
To believe so is prob to make much the same uncritical assumptions that righteous Muslims make when trying to impose Shariah (their equivalent of Canon Law) in countries where they are influential.
In fact ancient Church Teaching on this matter suggests there are often good practical reasons why it is better (though regretably so) for a Nation not to criminalise all grave sins.

Hence Aquinas and other heavy weight theologians of the past would not immediately throw out your question as others are trying to do here. they would say it is a matter of prudential judgement not of unassailable Dogma.

For example, Prostitution.
Aquinas and Augustine both accepted there may be reasonable cases for not having it criminalised by the State.
Abortion may well be starting to get beyond the pale in an allegedly Christian country - however it is still, as you imply, still a matter of prudential judgement by the Catholic politicians concerned.

As for voting by Catholics, ditto.

• Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.*

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI

 

[adrift]

Contrary to the impression left by the headline, this is the opinion of one important American bishop. I would expect that those Catholics living under his jurisdiction would obey his prudential judgment, but that’s all it is–a prudential judgment that no proportionate reasons exist. What Church teaching says is that you may vote for a pro-choice candidate if such reasons exist.

Edwin

I am confused as to what is contrary to the headlines He is more than just an American bishop He is a Cardinal who is the current Cardinal Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.

He has some very important things to say.

“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,” he said.

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone,” he said.

It mentions a memo from then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

The memo said a Catholic who deliberately voted for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s pro-abortion (or pro-euthanasia) stand would be guilty of “formal cooperation in evil” and should exclude himself from receiving Communion.

 

[Brandall]

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.

I certainly do not have to vote for the lessor of two evils. Evil is evil and I will abstain rather than vote for evil.

 

[Brandall]

Is it allowed in an election for County Drain Commisioner to vote for someone who you happen to know is personally pro abortion rights, even though his job will never involve decisions on that issue?

I ask only to understand the limits on this principle. Another scenario would be where two candidtates are similar, but not identical. One is a bit more pro-life than the other. Is it allowed to take into account the degree of differences and weigh that against other factors for proportional reasons?

The Drain Commisioner scenario may not come up very often, but the two somewhat similar candidates will come up.

Not that there is an election here for “County Drain Commissioner”, but if there was, why would I know his views on abortion? If however I did and they were not favorable, I still wouldn’t vote for him/her because of this. Often, elective offices are stepping stones and I would reject supporting the path.

 

[estesbob]

Not that there is an election here for “County Drain Commissioner”, but if there was, why would I know his views on abortion? If however I did and they were not favorable, I still wouldn’t vote for him/her because of this. Often, elective offices are stepping stones and I would reject supporting the path.

I believe I believe that anyone who supports abortion on demand is morally unfit to hold office at any level of government.

 

[estesbob]

I certainly do not have to vote for the lessor of two evils. Evil is evil and I will abstain rather than vote for evil.

I think Archbishop Chaput explained it best. We are not voting for the lesser of two evils we are voting to lessen evil. For pro-life adherents to sit out elections because a perfect candidate is not available cedes the political playing field to the culture of death.

 

[Brandall]

I think Archbishop Chaput explained it best. We are not voting for the lesser of two evils we are voting to lessen evil. For pro-life adherents to sit out elections because a perfect candidate is not available cedes the political playing field to the culture of death.

It’s my vote and I would prefer to sit on it rather than vote for anyone that had ever advocated for abortion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not that there is an election here for “County Drain Commissioner”, but if there was, why would I know his views on abortion? If however I did and they were not favorable, I still wouldn’t vote for him/her because of this. Often, elective offices are stepping stones and I would reject supporting the path.

I did not ask for your or anyone else’s judgement on how they would vote in such a situation. I was asking if the absolute prohibition against voting for a pro-choice candidate applied in this case. I said “is it allowed”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I believe I believe that anyone who supports abortion on demand is morally unfit to hold office at any level of government.

As I said to Brandall, I was not asking for anyone’s prudential judgement. I was asking if it is allowed.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by 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.

I believe Holly is quite sound in what is stated.
There isn’t really any such thing as a principle of “one is never to choose the lesser of two evils” in Roman Catholicism. And one won’t find anything in Catechism.

“One may never directly choose evil to achieve good” is certainly a Catholic principle.
Related to this principle is the reality of intrinsically evil acts - it is impossible to directly choose them without sinning gravely.
Also there is the principle of double effect (but that is more about a choice which involves both a good and an evil).
Then, related to this discussion, are the principles of cooperation in gravely sinful acts which decide whether we ourselves are contaminated by the same sin of the other person.

Brandall from the above (and from Magisterial quotes I am about to provide) it is fairly clear that simply the act of voting positively wrt legislation (or legislators) involving intrinsically evil acts (like abortion) is NOT itself a matter of intrinsic evil.

How do we know this? Well if such **political **issues wrt abortion (different from a personal procured abortion) were intrinsically evil you would be right. If we only have two political choices (or a Catholic politican has only two choices), both of which are intrinsically evil acts then one may choose neither. One must opt out, resign, face jail or the sword instead.

But we know this is not the case. The Catholic Church has never taught that Catholic politicans or voters under such conditions must opt out completely. Therefore the two “political evils” (or at least the lesser one) you talk about above cannot themselves be intrinsically evil. Such political issues/decisions are often about the limited possible good and rarely the total ideal good.

In Evangelium Vitae (73) JPII said:
"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… 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. "

An upright Catholic politican (or voter) could opt out completely and resign or not vote, but in a broken imperfect world what would be the point? That just leaves more vipers in the nest to cause more damage later on.

In the end politicans and voters are not the ones personally procuring the abortion, they are to various degrees remote from that intrinsic evil are they not?

That is why this issue is prob best seen and understood according to standard principles of participation in evil.

(1) One may never formally cooperate in such evils (by agreeing with abortion or the legislation or voting for the politician precisely because of his advocacy of pro abortion).
(2) That leaves only “outward” (material) causal involvement of which there are various types.

• if one’s involvement is necessary for the evil to succeed (immediate material cooperation) then one is never justified in being so involved. However, in the case above, some form of pro abortion legislation will still pass regardless so it cannot be reasonably said that the good voter or politican directly caused the outcome. Therefore he may vote for the lesser impacting legislation (and indeed must vote for the lesser if he does vote). He is in fact not spreading harm but trying to limit harm.

When we get down to other even more remote forms of material cooperation the link to the intrinsic evil in question becomes even more tenuous (eg a student with a holiday job sells condoms in a convenience store).

Of course if pro abortion law does get passed all Catholics must treat these laws as unjust and ignore them. It would always be gravely evil to aquiesce to such unjust legislation that in fact have no standing before God.

Regarding the conduct of a Catholic in a Secular Nation I have always seem much wisdom in the ancient Christian Letter to Diogetus:

“Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. [Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners… They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws… So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it. [Ad Diognetum 5: 5, 10]”