Actually what the bishop said was correct. The priest was wrong, if that is what he actually said. Voting for a candidate because he supports abortion is a sin.
Voting for a candidate who supports abortion, for other reasons, is not a sin. That was the statement issued by the the Conference of Bishops. It is based on moral philosophy and Catholic moral theology. Catholics were called upon to vote for the greater good.
There are two degrees of culpability, one is major and one is minor and carries no sinfulness.
Formal culpability is when one supports a position such as abortion, because it is one’s intent to use it or allow others to do so.
Material culpability is when one supports a person for other reasons and that person happens to support abortion. Materially one is associated, because one voted for that person, but one is not guilty of supporting abortion.
As the Bishop said, many people voted for this president for economic reasons, because they felt that the abortion issue was not going to be resolved at the polls no matter which way they voted. So they chose to address the economic issue and deal with the abortion issue on a different battleground. These people have no reason to go to confession. They did not vote for abortion or abortion rights.
The ideal would have been to vote for candidate who was closest to the pro life position, but that is not a guarrantee that a change would come about. If there were such a guarrantee, there would have been a moral obligation to vote for that candidate, because you must always choose the highest good that is possible. But many people do not believe that the other candidate would be able to change the status quo. They believe that it has to be taken to the States to change it. They’re probably right. An ammendment to the Constitution is hard to get by. The Supreme Court has had plenty of conservative justices over the years and abortion is still around.
I hope this clarifies what the Bishop was trying to say.
Fraternally,
JR
