Defining 'proportionate reasons'

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s always at the discretion of a judge or jury. You haven’t changed anything.

Then explain what you mean when you say I have posited a blanket application. If it is a blanket application then every application is a blanket application. How is the one I am positing any different from having the death penalty for killing a police officer, which I assume you would not say is illicit in the eyes of the Church?

 

[1holycatholic]

Then explain what you mean when you say I have posited a blanket application. If it is a blanket application then every application is a blanket application. How is the one I am positing any different from having the death penalty for killing a police officer, which I assume you would not say is illicit in the eyes of the Church?

Merely assigning the death penalty for killing a police officer would be unjust as well.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Merely assigning the death penalty for killing a police officer would be unjust as well.

Really? Then give me an example of when the state can use the death penalty.

 

[1holycatholic]

Really? Then give me an example of when the state can use the death penalty.

Why, can’t you think of one?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why, can’t you think of one?

I thought I did. But you say no, without giving any reason why. Perhaps you believe that the Church forbids the use of the death penalty in all cases?

 

[1holycatholic]

I thought I did. But you say no, without giving any reason why.

Because you are giving simplistic examples that are unjust in their application. Say you can’t stop the car you’re driving from sliding down and icy hill and as a result you hit and kill a police officer. Under your scheme the penalty in this situation is death. That’s not how the law works, even in states that have the death penalty.

Perhaps you believe that the Church forbids the use of the death penalty in all cases?

That’s not the teaching of the Church. I have stated as much earlier in the thread.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Because you are giving simplistic examples that are unjust in their application. Say you can’t stop the car you’re driving from sliding down and icy hill and as a result you hit and kill a police officer. Under your scheme the penalty in this situation is death. That’s not how the law works, even in states that have the death penalty.

Of course. And that’s not how the law would work with candidate #2’s proposal. It would be like most other death penalty laws that are applied only in the case of deliberate murder. He would have the penalty imposed only when the abortion was a deliberate premeditated act, as most abortions are, not in the case of an “accidental abortion”. So with that understanding of #2, can you vote for him?

I don’t understand your reluctance to impose a harse penalty for abortion. When you were talking with Prodigal Son you were arguing that abortion was the most terrible thing a person could do - worse than murder.

 

[1holycatholic]

Of course.

If it’s obvious that it was unjust then why did you propose it?

And that’s not how the law would work with candidate #2’s proposal. It would be like most other death penalty laws that are applied only in the case of deliberate murder. He would have the penalty imposed only when the abortion was a deliberate premeditated act, as most abortions are, not in the case of an “accidental abortion”. So with that understanding of #2, can you vote for him?

Abortion isn’t like crimes that have the death penalty. There are at least three parties involved: the victim, the mother and the abortionist. Women frequently seek an abortion under duress. Further, abortion is currently legal. So your example, besides being unjust, would be pitched out by the courts.

I don’t understand your reluctance to impose a harse penalty for abortion. When you were talking with Prodigal Son you were arguing that abortion was the most terrible thing a person could do - worse than murder.

Abortion is a particularly heinous form of murder. I’m not saying that abortion is without punishment, only that what you proposed is contrary to the guidelines set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Abortion isn’t like crimes that have the death penalty. There are at least three parties involved: the victim, the mother and the abortionist. Women frequently seek an abortion under duress.

Now you are putting the emotional comfort of the woman on a par with the death of the baby. That does not sound like a proportionate reason to me. Is it a proportionate reason in your eyes?

Further, abortion is currently legal. So your example, besides being unjust, would be pitched out by the courts.

Does that mean we must never vote for a pro-life candidate who proposes that abortion be made illegal?

I’m not saying that abortion is without punishment, only that what you proposed is contrary to the guidelines set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

And I keep asking you to cite specific guidelines that address this case. I honestly don’t know what section of the Catechism I should look at for these guidelines.

 

[1holycatholic]

Now you are putting the emotional comfort of the woman on a par with the death of the baby. That does not sound like a proportionate reason to me. Is it a proportionate reason in your eyes?

Rubbish. I am stating the fact that there are mitigating circumstances which the law acknowledges, but your crudely conceived example does not.

Does that mean we must never vote for a pro-life candidate who proposes that abortion be made illegal?

Non-sequitur.

And I keep asking you to cite specific guidelines that address this case. I honestly don’t know what section of the Catechism I should look at for these guidelines.

If you can’t be bothered to read the Catechism, Evangelium Vitae etc., to know what the Church teaches why would you expect me to do it for you?

Read the entire Catechism and the documents it cites.

 

[Ender]

Feel free to start, or join another thread about the just application of the death penalty. I’m not going down that rabbit hole.

You’ve already been sucked a long way down that hole; this tangent is a tar baby, drop it and let’s get back on subject. I said earlier that if the USCCB’s document Faithful Citizenship couldn’t provide useful guidance in choosing between the previous two presidential candidates that it was useless. Do you agree with that?

Ender

 

[1holycatholic]

You’ve already been sucked a long way down that hole; this tangent is a tar baby, drop it and let’s get back on subject.

I know.

I said earlier that if the USCCB’s document Faithful Citizenship couldn’t provide useful guidance in choosing between the previous two presidential candidates that it was useless. Do you agree with that?

Ender

Yes.

It is only useful if you already know what the Church teaches.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Rubbish. I am stating the fact that there are mitigating circumstances which the law acknowledges, but your crudely conceived example does not.

I assume you mean civil law. Of course the law acknowledges mitigating circumstances. That is why the sentencing is always up to a real person or people who take those circumstances into account when applying them to an actual case. When someone proposes the death penalty for some crime, it is assumed that sentencing will take those circumstances into account. You know what I mean when I say that #2 proposes the death penalty for abortion. It is the same thing that people mean when they say the death penalty for premeditated murder, which is a capital crime in many states. That does not mean everyone convicted of murder is put to death. Actually very few of them are. Nor would I expect everyone convicted of abortion to be put to death. So don’t try to make it sound like I am proposing something so inconceivable.

Of course I am not personally proposing the death penalty for abortion. I am just putting it forth as a hypothetical position that might be taken by a hypothetical candidate. I did this for the purpose of exploring how the existence of such a candidate might affect the application of the concept of “proportionate reasons” which is the true subject of this thread. The “tangent” of discussions about the death penalty was not intended. It was only made necessary by your refusal to admit that the death penalty for abortion was not contrary to Church law per se, any more than the death penalty for premeditated murder is not contrary to Church law per se. If you had just accepted that fact, then there would have been no tangent. Either accept the fact or support the contention that it is contrary to Church law. You did neither.

Had you accepted that fact, then I would have gone on to pointing out that voting for candidate #1 in the stated scenario is also not contrary to Church law. The result is that you have a race where both candidates are nominally acceptable by Church law, leaving the decision of which one to vote for a matter of prudential judgment. The end result is an example of an election where it is licit (and even advisable) to vote for the candidate with the weaker opposition to abortion, and not because the alternative was contrary to Church law, but because of prudential judgment. This contradicts the position that was put forth much earlier in this thread that one must always vote for the candidate with the stronger position on abortion.

But actually I could have avoided all this had I simply followed up on the point that both you and Ender agreed on - that it is acceptable to take electability into account when voting in the 3-person race. This also shows how prudential judgment can be the deciding factor in who to vote for. For it is prudential judgment that tell us that a particular candidate is unelectable - not Church law.

 

[1holycatholic]

I assume you mean civil law. Of course the law acknowledges mitigating circumstances. That is why the sentencing is always up to a real person or people who take those circumstances into account when applying them to an actual case. When someone proposes the death penalty for some crime, it is assumed that sentencing will take those circumstances into account. You know what I mean when I say that #2 proposes the death penalty for abortion. It is the same thing that people mean when they say the death penalty for premeditated murder, which is a capital crime in many states. That does not mean everyone convicted of murder is put to death. Actually very few of them are. Nor would I expect everyone convicted of abortion to be put to death. So don’t try to make it sound like I am proposing something so inconceivable.

Seldom does one see such back pedaling. You have not proposed anything coherent or complete.

Of course I am not personally proposing the death penalty for abortion. I am just putting it forth as a hypothetical position that might be taken by a hypothetical candidate. I did this for the purpose of exploring how the existence of such a candidate might affect the application of the concept of “proportionate reasons” which is the true subject of this thread. The “tangent” of discussions about the death penalty was not intended. It was only made necessary by your refusal to admit that the death penalty for abortion was not contrary to Church law per se, any more than the death penalty for premeditated murder is not contrary to Church law per se. If you had just accepted that fact, then there would have been no tangent. Either accept the fact or support the contention that it is contrary to Church law. You did neither.

You were introducing the unjust application of the death penalty in order to contravene the Church teaching on proportionate reason with regard to pro-abortion candidates.

Had you accepted that fact, then I would have gone on to pointing out that voting for candidate #1 in the stated scenario is also not contrary to Church law. The result is that you have a race where both candidates are nominally acceptable by Church law, leaving the decision of which one to vote for a matter of prudential judgment. The end result is an example of an election where it is licit (and even advisable) to vote for the candidate with the weaker opposition to abortion, and not because the alternative was contrary to Church law, but because of prudential judgment. This contradicts the position that was put forth much earlier in this thread that one must always vote for the candidate with the stronger position on abortion.

But actually I could have avoided all this had I simply followed up on the point that both you and Ender agreed on - that it is acceptable to take electability into account when voting in the 3-person race. This also shows how prudential judgment can be the deciding factor in who to vote for. For it is prudential judgment that tell us that a particular candidate is unelectable - not Church law.

There is no fact to accept. Proportionate reason only permits voting among pro-abortion candidates (remote material cooperation with evil) in order to reduce the number of abortions, not for the candidate that will reduce the number of abortions by support a gravely unjust means (formal cooperation with evil) to eliminate abortion. You’re trying to refute the Church’s prohibition against formal cooperation with evil by using formal cooperation with evil. That’s poor logic.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Seldom does one see such back pedaling. You have not proposed anything coherent or complete.

I proposed a very simple scenario in only 2 sentences. Here it is again, copied from posting #173:

#1 proposes that abortion be made illegal with a $5 fine for both the doctor and the woman.

#2 proposes that abortion be made illegal with capital punishment for both the doctor and the woman.

This is coherent and as complete as it needs to be to make the point. What don’t you understand about this scenario?

You were introducing the unjust application of the death penalty in order to contravene the Church teaching on proportionate reason with regard to pro-abortion candidates.

I disagree that the Church declares that application to be unjust, and you have not shown it to be so.

Proportionate reason only permits voting among pro-abortion candidates (remote material cooperation with evil) in order to reduce the number of abortions, not for the candidate that will reduce the number of abortions by support a gravely unjust means (formal cooperation with evil) to eliminate abortion. You’re trying to refute the Church’s prohibition against formal cooperation with evil by using formal cooperation with evil. That’s poor logic.

Again, I dispute your contention that the means suggested any more unjust than the same means that are applied to premeditated murder. And again you have not shown it to be. You have just claimed it without supporting your claim.

Another very excellent point that you never answered was why Cardinal Ratzinger never clarified his remark to the extent that you have? If he meant that proportionate reasons were only to be used the way you say, why didn’t he, in all the years that have followed, clarify his remark? One can only conclude that such a level of simplification was not his intention in the first place.

 

[joshrp]

Cardinal Ratzinger:

In some political discussions there are those who claim that there are no proportionate reasons, even when there is no definition of proportionate reasons by Pope Benedict who wrote the phrase above.

Opinions of the meaning of proportionate reasons have been provided, by other posters, from many of the clergy of the Church, but nothing from Pope Benedict himself.

When asked if ‘proportionate reasons’ were used to decide a nominee in the primaries, responses of ‘proportionate reasons’ are not needed in that instance’, or a response of ‘we’re at liberty to disagree with the Church on other issues.’ The latter response made me think, ‘if we’re at liberty to disagree with the Church on an issue, there is no declaration of an absolute right, which means either view could be right.’ In that case, if an opposing view can be right, why can’t it be a proportionate reason?

If two candidates support abortion, but one candidate supports restricting more abortions than the other, than it is better to vote for that candidate than to vote for no one. You want to lessen the evil as much as possible, even if you cannot right away abolish it. The founders of the United States disagred on slavery, but if they did not find a compromise, then the whole thing would have collapsed and slavery would’ve continued anyway. You’ve got to chip away at the problem if you can’t find a way to stop it completely. Wars aren’t won in a single battle. You’ve got to have a strategy that will win the war and promote the peace after it is over. Don’t go flight forward.

 

[1holycatholic]

I proposed a very simple scenario in only 2 sentences. Here it is again, copied from posting #173:

This is coherent and as complete as it needs to be to make the point. What don’t you understand about this scenario?

It’s not complete, in any way shape or form.

I disagree that the Church declares that application to be unjust, and you have not shown it to be so.

If you can show us where the Church teaches that the death penalty is absolutely required for a particular crime without regard for mitigating circumstances I would agree with you, otherwise you can start, or join, another thread on the matter.

Again, I dispute your contention that the means suggested any more unjust than the same means that are applied to premeditated murder. And again you have not shown it to be. You have just claimed it without supporting your claim.

The degree doesn’t matter, formal cooperation with evil is forbidden.

Another very excellent point that you never answered was why Cardinal Ratzinger never clarified his remark to the extent that you have? If he meant that proportionate reasons were only to be used the way you say, why didn’t he, in all the years that have followed, clarify his remark? One can only conclude that such a level of simplification was not his intention in the first place.

The letter was a private communication between bishops, not a comment for the general public. It doesn’t matter what the pope says, many will twist it to say whatever they want.

e.g:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The pope has not clarified his remarks on condoms either, but he doesn’t need to. The Church is not the pope alone. Others in the Church have clarified his remarks. And really the issue in both cases isn’t the remarks themselves, but that people want to use contraceptives or vote for pro-abortion candidates when a more pro-life candidate is available and in order to do so they will read things however they want. As we have seen with the dissenters promoting the ordination of women, no statement by the pope will ever be sufficient.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If two candidates support abortion, but one candidate supports restricting more abortions than the other, than it is better to vote for that candidate than to vote for no one. You want to lessen the evil as much as possible, even if you cannot right away abolish it. The founders of the United States disagred on slavery, but if they did not find a compromise, then the whole thing would have collapsed and slavery would’ve continued anyway. You’ve got to chip away at the problem if you can’t find a way to stop it completely. Wars aren’t won in a single battle. You’ve got to have a strategy that will win the war and promote the peace after it is over. Don’t go flight forward.

But the point was that many who say you have to vote for one candidate use ‘reasons’ for choosing a candidate in the primaries. When all the candidates ‘claim’ to be pro-life, what other reasons are being considered? When pressed with specific examples, people will then rely on ‘oh, we’re at liberty to disagree on that issue’. It’s not a very good reasoning to use when people have seen two partisan parties in control, but nothing happened. To some it appears to have been ‘lip service’ to maintain a bloc of voters, which is not viewed as ‘honest’. Because of this, prudential judgments are used to form views.

God is not political. There is not a single party that represents His teachings 100%, and no party is perfect, or has the support of perfect people. The Church does not say, ‘you can only vote for one candidate, even if you believe the candidate is not truthful’. The Church teaches that we should make decisions based on our faith in Christ. Christ didn’t say ‘feed the hungry OR clothe the naked OR give shelter to the homeless OR care for the sick.’ There was no lesser of two evils in His teachings. We can only do the best we can with His teachings in mind. Will mistakes be made? Did the Apostles question Him? Did Peter deny Him three times? Did the Apostles run away when He was arrested? Did Thomas doubt Him? Were they condemned by their less than perfect decisions, or did Christ take time to ‘correct’ them?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Mark for possible return.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s not a very good reasoning to use when people have seen two partisan parties in control, but nothing happened. To some it appears to have been ‘lip service’ to maintain a bloc of voters, which is not viewed as ‘honest’. Because of this, prudential judgments are used to form views.

God is not political. There is not a single party that represents His teachings 100%, and no party is perfect, or has the support of perfect people. The Church does not say, ‘you can only vote for one candidate, even if you believe the candidate is not truthful’. The Church teaches that we should make decisions based on our faith in Christ. Christ didn’t say ‘feed the hungry OR clothe the naked OR give shelter to the homeless OR care for the sick.’ There was no lesser of two evils in His teachings. We can only do the best we can with His teachings in mind. Will mistakes be made? Did the Apostles question Him? Did Peter deny Him three times? Did the Apostles run away when He was arrested? Did Thomas doubt Him? Were they condemned by their less than perfect decisions, or did Christ take time to ‘correct’ them?

In deciding among various prolife candidates, and unless one has serious reason to believe one or more are lying about being prolife but are really pro-abortion, then certainly other reasons may be balanced.

Among the ways one should view them is to see who has voting records evidencing a prolife stance. If one has no voting record at all, then one must look at his statements.
Most certainly, recommendations and ratings of pro-abortion groups like NARAL are good evidence, since their very livelihood, not to mention their ideology, depends on such politicians. On the other hand, prolife voting records come at some considerable political peril to politicians who have them, and should not be taken lightly or assumed disingenuous just because the individual does not like the candidate for some unrelated reason.

In primaries as in general elections, it is not appropriate to question a prolife candidate’s stance in the absence of some compelling reason to believe he is lying. Most certainly, statements like “Neither party ended abortion” are, at best, reflections of an unwillingness to actually look at the evidence. At worst, they can be reasonably thought of as an intentional deception geared at misleading the faithful, based on the speaker’s own moral relativism. There has been a great deal of that in some of the threads, particularly around election times.