Catholic.com presidential poll

[pnewton]

The parallels between Trumps polemics and Hitler and Mussolini is pretty clear of you watch them on videos.

I do not disagree with, but while the similarities in style (and some positions) exist, the differences are greater than the similarities. I do not care for Donald Trump, but he is not Hitler.

Now that is probably the nicest thing I can think to say about him.

 

[pnewton]

Eternal Father, I offer You the Body and Blood Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world.

For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

Amen:thumbsup:

 

[Monte_RCMS]

townhall.com/columnists/stephenmoore/2016/05/17/trump-tax-plan-means-growth-jobs-n2164061?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

/trump-tax-plan-means-growth-jobs

excerpt:

The Trump plan would reward investment going forward by chopping the capital gains and dividend tax rates to 20 percent from closer to 24 percent. I’ve advised Trump to cut that rate down to 15 percent, but 20 percent is a start.

 

[Mike_Dye]

The same reply I gave on another thread…This is going to be a hard one to figure out…on one hand you have a person that wants immigrants to come in legally, and on the other hand you have one that advocates killing innocent children and endorses homosexual weddings…decisions, decisions!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well sure the faithful Catholic is to oppose abortion. And I don’t see anyone arguing otherwise. But the document nevertheless says that the Catholic voter can still make the decision to vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, as long as in doing so, it is not the voter’s intent to support that position. And likewise says a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
2. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm

But this back and forth seems to get nowhere. Because what other grave reasons one’s conscience may find, would seem to me to ultimately be between the voter and God. Not between the voter and Catholic Republicans on an internet website.

Probably I should not be surprised that the USCCB document is often misunderstood in a society in which regard for “values” (what I think about things) has largely replaced regard for “principles” (truth, regardless of what I think about it).

In no way does the document support the moral relativism which the above attempts to place on it. It does not say it’s okay to support abortion if we are supporting it only as a secondary thing, having some other goal as our principal goal. This ignores the clear statement that the evil to be opposed in supporting the abortionist candidate must be proportionate; that is to say, equally grave.

Now, “prudential judgment” comes into play in the case of many intrinsic evils because they admit of degrees. Are my conditions “subhuman” because I am starving to death, literally, or only because my car is ten years old while my neighbors all have new luxury cars? Is it “euthanasia” to withhold all but palliative treatment to a person who is in a terminal condition, will never regain consciousness, and when treatment would be painful and to no avail? Or is “euthanasia” what’s going on when I withhold antibiotics to a 90 year old with pneumonia, just because he’s old? Prudential judgment must fill in the blanks. So, would the Church consider it intrinsically evil in the second instance? Yes. Would it in the first? No.

But abortion is binary. The child lives or the child dies. There are no “degrees” of “dead”. And the very intent and purpose of the act is to kill. The only reason why this seems difficult for some is that they don’t recognize the unborn child as a human being, which the Church does. If it was a matter of shooting every third five-year-old, it would be much easier for people to understand.

If Hillary Clinton proposed shooting every five year old, she wouldn’t get enough votes to fill a thimble. It is only because so many do not recognize unborn children as human that she can get away with promoting mass killing.

 

[estesbob]

Well sure the faithful Catholic is to oppose abortion. And I don’t see anyone arguing otherwise. But the document nevertheless says that the Catholic voter can still make the decision to vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, as long as in doing so, it is not the voter’s intent to support that position. And likewise says a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
2. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm

But this back and forth seems to get nowhere. Because what other grave reasons one’s conscience may find, would seem to me to ultimately be between the voter and God. Not between the voter and Catholic Republicans on an internet website.

And since for whatever reason many Catholics have misinterpreted this passage the Bishops stepped in to clarify what these proportionate reasons are:

In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2273).

Cardinal Burke

Note that proportionate reasons does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions

Bishop Joseph A. Galante

What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .

What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate

Archbishop John J. Myers

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Why not? So she supports the slaughter of the innocent. There were plenty who cheered human slaughter at the Coliseum. So the cheering now is done under the banner of women’s rights.

I don’t know that one can say Trump was a “supporter” of Hillary Clinton. More accurate, perhaps to say he was one of many “buyers” of Hillary Clinton. Every office she has had was for sale, and it was obviously known worldwide. Is that a sad commentary on American politics and a worse one on her? Yes, and Trump himself said so.

I cannot see this as anything but spin. Buying her may have been his motivation, but he still supported her.

Using the Coliseum analogy, we’ve got one candidate who has always campaigned for the ‘continued slaughter at the Coliseum’ and the other who bought into that candidate.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Probably I should not be surprised that the USCCB document is often misunderstood in a society in which regard for “values” (what I think about things) has largely replaced regard for “principles” (truth, regardless of what I think about it).

In no way does the document support the moral relativism which the above attempts to place on it. It does not say it’s okay to support abortion if we are supporting it only as a secondary thing, having some other goal as our principal goal. This ignores the clear statement that the evil to be opposed in supporting the abortionist candidate must be proportionate; that is to say, equally grave.

Now, “prudential judgment” comes into play in the case of many intrinsic evils because they admit of degrees. Are my conditions “subhuman” because I am starving to death, literally, or only because my car is ten years old while my neighbors all have new luxury cars? Is it “euthanasia” to withhold all but palliative treatment to a person who is in a terminal condition, will never regain consciousness, and when treatment would be painful and to no avail? Or is “euthanasia” what’s going on when I withhold antibiotics to a 90 year old with pneumonia, just because he’s old? Prudential judgment must fill in the blanks. So, would the Church consider it intrinsically evil in the second instance? Yes. Would it in the first? No.

But abortion is binary. The child lives or the child dies. There are no “degrees” of “dead”. And the very intent and purpose of the act is to kill. The only reason why this seems difficult for some is that they don’t recognize the unborn child as a human being, which the Church does. If it was a matter of shooting every third five-year-old, it would be much easier for people to understand.

If Hillary Clinton proposed shooting every five year old, she wouldn’t get enough votes to fill a thimble. It is only because so many do not recognize unborn children as human that she can get away with promoting mass killing.

Thank you for such a well-articulated response.

I think you are absolutely correct on everything, except for the last paragraph. There are still 30% of the people who would vote for her, even if she proposed shooting every 5 year old.

 

[anon67074017]

The sky is falling!

Maybe Trump will do his best to stop liberal corporations like Disney.

 

[DeniseNY]

And since for whatever reason many Catholics have misinterpreted this passage the Bishops stepped in to clarify what these proportionate reasons are:

In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2273).

Cardinal Burke

Note that proportionate reasons does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions

Bishop Joseph A. Galante

What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .

What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate

Archbishop John J. Myers

Keep fighting the good fight, Bob!

 

[Joe_5859]

Probably I should not be surprised that the USCCB document is often misunderstood in a society in which regard for “values” (what I think about things) has largely replaced regard for “principles” (truth, regardless of what I think about it).

In no way does the document support the moral relativism which the above attempts to place on it. It does not say it’s okay to support abortion if we are supporting it only as a secondary thing, having some other goal as our principal goal. This ignores the clear statement that the evil to be opposed in supporting the abortionist candidate must be proportionate; that is to say, equally grave.

Now, “prudential judgment” comes into play in the case of many intrinsic evils because they admit of degrees. Are my conditions “subhuman” because I am starving to death, literally, or only because my car is ten years old while my neighbors all have new luxury cars? Is it “euthanasia” to withhold all but palliative treatment to a person who is in a terminal condition, will never regain consciousness, and when treatment would be painful and to no avail? Or is “euthanasia” what’s going on when I withhold antibiotics to a 90 year old with pneumonia, just because he’s old? Prudential judgment must fill in the blanks. So, would the Church consider it intrinsically evil in the second instance? Yes. Would it in the first? No.

But abortion is binary. The child lives or the child dies. There are no “degrees” of “dead”. And the very intent and purpose of the act is to kill. The only reason why this seems difficult for some is that they don’t recognize the unborn child as a human being, which the Church does. If it was a matter of shooting every third five-year-old, it would be much easier for people to understand.

If Hillary Clinton proposed shooting every five year old, she wouldn’t get enough votes to fill a thimble. It is only because so many do not recognize unborn children as human that she can get away with promoting mass killing.

Well put.

Indeed, I think a great many of us don’t fully recognize the humanity of the unborn. If you replaced “five year old” for “fetus” in describing any abortion procedure (e.g. dismembering, vacuuming out their brains, scalding with saline) along with the sheer numbers, the general population would have a completely different emotional reaction.

It is quite sad. I see people sharing stories on Facebook about how incensed they are that a baby bison had to get put down, but then when it comes to the unborn getting killed on a large scale, it is as though we are talking about some hypothetical geometry problem. Even when they agree that abortion is wrong, the same inner conviction seems to be lacking.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Maybe Trump will do his best to stop liberal corporations like Disney.

This I doubt. Trump is not opposed to liberalism. He does believe in America (whatever that means).

To me, Trump’s biggest draw is his ability to snuff out political correctness. He wouldn’t do this by stopping liberal corporations. Being liberal and being ‘anti everything that isn’t liberal’ are two different things.

 

[johnnyc176]

If we are listening to our Bishops and Pope Francis I think it’s obvious a vote for Clinton is out of the question.

USCCB…

“Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing and health care. … But being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life.”

“Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community” (“Living the Gospel of Life,” 22).

Pope Francis says the same here…

“Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away”.

We have an anti Catholic, pro contraception, pro abortion, redefining marriage, supporter of the Planned Parenthood that you’ve seen in the latest videos government with a liberal political ideology platform that is laying waste to life issues A to Z and as a side hobby laughing at the idea of religious liberty. If Clinton gets elected times that by ten. The Little Sisters of the Poor think they have problems now?

 

[Boatswain2PA]

This I doubt. Trump is not opposed to liberalism. He does believe in America (whatever that means).

To me, Trump’s biggest draw is his ability to snuff out political correctness. He wouldn’t do this by stopping liberal corporations. Being liberal and being ‘anti everything that isn’t liberal’ are two different things.

I agree that Trump isn’t opposed to liberalism. In America, you should be able to be conservative, liberal, or in the middle.

Your last sentence is technically correct. Being liberal doesn’t mean being “anti everything that isn’t liberal.”

However most people who call themselves liberal today aren’t liberal at all, they are leftists. This is especially true of the Democrat party. And being leftist IS equal to being “anti everything that isn’t leftist.”

 

[Crossbones]

Keep fighting the good fight, Bob!

This seems like a good time to remind ourselves of Bishop Kicana’s comments:

INTERVIEWER: If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?

BISHOP KICANAS: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.

 

[DeniseNY]

This seems like a good time to remind ourselves of Bishop Kicana’s comments:

INTERVIEWER: If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?

BISHOP KICANAS: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.

estesbob said: And since for whatever reason many Catholics (and non-Catholics my addition to the quote) may have misinterpreted this passage the Bishops stepped in to clarify what these proportionate reasons are:

In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2273).

Cardinal Burke

Note that proportionate reasons does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions

Bishop Joseph A. Galante

What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .

What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate

Archbishop John J. Myers

 

[Crossbones]

estesbob said: And since for whatever reason many Catholics (and non-Catholics my addition to the quote) may have misinterpreted this passage the Bishops stepped in to clarify what these proportionate reasons are:

In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2273).

Cardinal Burke

Note that proportionate reasons does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions

Bishop Joseph A. Galante

What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .

What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate

Archbishop John J. Myers

Thank you.

 

[estesbob]

estesbob said: And since for whatever reason many Catholics (and non-Catholics my addition to the quote) may have misinterpreted this passage the Bishops stepped in to clarify what these proportionate reasons are:

In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2273).

Cardinal Burke

Note that proportionate reasons does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions

Bishop Joseph A. Galante

What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .

What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate

Archbishop John J. Myers

When faithful citizenship came out the New York Times and many other bastions of the liberal elite immediately announced that the Catholic Church had approved Catholics voting for pro abortion candidates . That is why we saw a whole slew of bishops, many of whom you have quoted , clarifying exactly what faithful citizenship was saying . You will not find a single bishop that backs up the New York Times view of what this document says . Unfortunately, as we both know, many Catholics still cling to this flawed interpretation to rationalize voting in support of evil

 

[Sy_Noe]

This seems like a good time to remind ourselves of Bishop Kicana’s comments:

INTERVIEWER: If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?

BISHOP KICANAS: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.

Thank you for the reminder, Crossbones.

 

[estesbob]

Thank you for the reminder, Crossbones.

The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

Pope Benedict XVI

“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 Burke

In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2273).

Cardinal Burke

]Note that “proportionate reasons’] does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions

Bishop Joseph A. Galante

There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

"Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

"The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

“The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry). Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances.”

Bishop Rene Gracida

What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .

What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate

Archbishop John J. Myers

What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? That’s the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason? . . . It is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be

Cardinal Burke