Defining 'proportionate reasons'

[1holycatholic]

It’s our consciences that lead us to believe, or not believe. There are many reasons one may not trust a candidate. As to why vote for either, many Catholics stated we have an obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils, which I do not agree with. You cannot do good through evil. It’s too much of a house divided type scenario.

That’s correct you can’t vote in support of an intrinsic evil, but you may vote to mitigate that evil for proportionate reasons. Restricting, yet not eliminating abortion is a proportionate reason to compared to unrestricted abortions. A candidate’s position on evils that are not intrinsic evils is irrelevant. Not all intrinsic evils are equivalent. Nothing trumps abortion.

You’re consistent, I have to give you that. Now, let me repeat what I’ve said to you numerous times. No one here, or any bishops I know of, have stated it is OKAY to vote for pro-abortion precisely to support abortion itself. However, last presidential election, there were bishops who also read Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement to mean that it was permissible to vote for a pro-abortion candidate as long as it was not in support abortion itself. That’s why we are here, to try and define what those proportionate reasons are, and how they are arrived at. They must exist, or our Pope would not have used them as an example of permissibility. The other voter’s guide I saw last election listed many issues to be weighed, the hungry, the homeless, the unemployed, the uneducated, the sick, etc. etc. They also provided Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement, and some of the same parts of the Catechism we’re discussing in this forum.

I am using the same reasoning when I ask why no corrections have been given for so many to have supposedly erred? Surely the Holy Father would correct millions of endangered souls, if they had truly erred. It’s the absence of any correction that makes me doubt there were errors in the Pope’s eyes. While you’ve addressed a few points, you have given your view of this point.

Again, proportional reasons has a definite meaning, and the application of the concept has been defined by Cardinal Burke etc…

Look at the CCC 2284-2287:
2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”
If someone votes in a manner that is not ordered to eliminate, or reduce (if that is all that is possible) abortion then they become responsible for the evil of abortion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That’s correct you can’t vote in support of an intrinsic evil, but you may vote to mitigate that evil for proportionate reasons. Restricting, yet not eliminating abortion is a proportionate reason to compared to unrestricted abortions. A candidate’s position on evils that are not intrinsic evils is irrelevant. Not all intrinsic evils are equivalent. Nothing trumps abortion.

The candidate’s truthfulness is relevant though. If that candidate is not perceived to be telling the truth, or pandering to a bloc of voters, then proportionate reasons can apply. I believe that may have had a lot to do with the results of the last presidential election.

Again, proportional reasons has a definite meaning, and the application of the concept has been defined by Cardinal Burke etc…

Look at the CCC 2284-2287:
2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”
If someone votes in a manner that is not ordered to eliminate, or reduce (if that is all that is possible) abortion then they become responsible for the evil of abortion.

None of it matters if a candidate is not trusted as being truthful. No where, or no one, has said that Catholics must vote for a candidate if they do not believe that candidate is not truthful.

And again, what are your thoughts on why the Pope has not called those in err to correction and back to a full Communion with the Church?

 

[pnewton]

That’s not true. The sensus fidelium is held by the faithful, not limited temporally, and in union with the Magisterium. Supporting pro-abortion politicians is not part of the sensus fidelium.

Sorry, Church doctrine is clear: by defenition the laity have the sensus fidelium. cf. CCC & Lumen Gentium.

They have it, but they do not get to define it, as you do. Some lay people have done as you have done and defined it themselves, in that they say contraception is not evil. Do they have that right? Does every Catholic get to determine for themselves what the sense of the faithful is? I don’t think so.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…Not all intrinsic evils are equivalent. Nothing trumps abortion.

Is that just opinion or official teaching of the Church that all the faithful are bound to believe? If so, please provide a reference.

 

[1holycatholic]

The candidate’s truthfulness is relevant though. If that candidate is not perceived to be telling the truth, or pandering to a bloc of voters, then proportionate reasons can apply. I believe that may have had a lot to do with the results of the last presidential election.

I doubt it. Abortion was way down on the list of issues for most voters. Given the demonstrable track record of the candidates and their statements during the election, any “perception of pandering” seems to be little more than rationalization to assuage a guilty conscience.

None of it matters if a candidate is not trusted as being truthful. No where, or no one, has said that Catholics must vote for a candidate if they do not believe that candidate is not truthful.

You don’t have to be Catholic to have the common sense to not vote for a liar.

And again, what are your thoughts on why the Pope has not called those in err to correction and back to a full Communion with the Church?

It is an unnecessary demand that maligns the pontiff. The magisterium has spoken on the matter.

 

[1holycatholic]

They have it, but they do not get to define it, as you do. Some lay people have done as you have done and defined it themselves, in that they say contraception is not evil. Do they have that right? Does every Catholic get to determine for themselves what the sense of the faithful is? I don’t think so.

If they say contraception is not evil then they are at odds with the magisterium and not articulating the sensus fidelium.

 

[pnewton]

If they say contraception is not evil then they are at odds with the magisterium and not articulating the sensus fidelium.

Absolutely! There is often a blur between the role of the laity and the clergy today. We here who are lay, can not speak beyond what the Church has said because we believe it is the sense of the faithful.

 

[1holycatholic]

Is that just opinion or official teaching of the Church that all the faithful are bound to believe? If so, please provide a reference.

Abortion: The Primary Issue
According to Statements from the Pope and Bishops

 

[1holycatholic]

Absolutely! There is often a blur between the role of the laity and the clergy today. We here who are lay, can not speak beyond what the Church has said because we believe it is the sense of the faithful.

The only blur is among dissidents who berate the bishops and lecture them on what they think Catholic doctrine ought to be instead of what it is.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Abortion: The Primary Issue
According to Statements from the Pope and Bishops

The quotes referenced do say that abortion concerns a most fundamental right. But it does not say that consideration of abortion must trump all other considerations, even when the effect on abortion is minimal. Show me which quote binds me to vote for a candidate who is only slightly more anti-abortion than the other. You are reading more into these statements than is clearly there.

 

[1holycatholic]

The quotes referenced do say that abortion concerns a most fundamental right. But it does not say that consideration of abortion must trump all other considerations, even when the effect on abortion is minimal. Show me which quote binds me to vote for a candidate who is only slightly more anti-abortion than the other. You are reading more into these statements than is clearly there.

The Cardinal Ratzinger Letter
…
All six paragraphs of the letter plus half of the footnote make it clear that Catholics who support abortion by voting for pro-abortion candidates are cooperating in evil and may not receive Communion.

The second half of the footnote addresses cases where a person who opposes abortion could cast a vote for a pro-abortion candidate, in the presence of “proportionate reasons.” The single sentence of the Cardinal simply applies a standard Catholic moral teaching about “remote material cooperation.” Again, this is a brief reference to terms that carry centuries of reflection by Catholic (and other) ethicists.

It would be a mistake to interpret this teaching to mean that all issues are equal, and that a voter can choose a pro-abortion candidate because they don’t like the pro-life candidate’s position on capital punishment or war. Cardinal Ratzinger, in the same letter, stated, “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. …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.”

An example of the “proportionate reasons” that would justify voting for a candidate who approved of some abortions would be the case when the only two candidates able to win an election were both in favor of abortion. It is morally permissible to vote for the one who supports fewer abortions than his opponent.

The Pope and bishops have indicated that other human rights issues, like health, education, and poverty, are not proportionate to abortion and euthanasia. Click here to see various quotations that emphasize this point.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Cardinal Ratzinger Letter

…
All six paragraphs of the letter plus half of the footnote make it clear that Catholics who support abortion by voting for pro-abortion candidates are cooperating in evil and may not receive Communion…
​

This is commentary expressing personal opinion and not binding Church teaching. As soon as you elevate one issue to be infinitely more important than all other issues then you automatically demote all other issues to zero importance. You can’t say that other issues matter only when the candidates have equal positions on abortion because you can always find some small difference between candidate’s position on abortion. And if that small difference means no other issue can be considered, then no other issue can be considered ever. That contradicts the statements made in your quoted reference that say other issues are very, very important. In your interpretation all other issues are of zero importance.​

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is an unnecessary demand that maligns the pontiff. The magisterium has spoken on the matter.

It’s not a demand, it’s a question, and most certainly not maligning. It’s unnecessary if there was no error in the mind of the Holy Father. Our Church has a hierarchy, and the Pope is the prime minister over all Catholics, layperson up. When we had two different opinions, he is the only one that can correct, or clarify.

 

[1holycatholic]

This is commentary expressing personal opinion and not binding Church teaching.

Sorry, but the teaching of ordinary universal magisterium on issues of faith and morals is binding.

As soon as you elevate one issue to be infinitely more important than all other issues then you automatically demote all other issues to zero importance.

Non-sequitur.

You can’t say that other issues matter only when the candidates have equal positions on abortion because you can always find some small difference between candidate’s position on abortion. And if that small difference means no other issue can be considered, then no other issue can be considered ever. That contradicts the statements made in your quoted reference that say other issues are very, very important. In your interpretation all other issues are of zero importance.

Non-sequitur.

 

[1holycatholic]

It’s not a demand, it’s a question, and most certainly not maligning. It’s unnecessary if there was no error in the mind of the Holy Father. Our Church has a hierarchy, and the Pope is the prime minister over all Catholics, layperson up. When we had two different opinions, he is the only one that can correct, or clarify.

There aren’t two opinions.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There aren’t two opinions.

Denying it repeatedly does not make is so. There were two opinions, we are proof of that, and there are many more like us. This is evident by the Bishops conference viewing the document, with some hoping to remove what is viewed as ‘vague’ by some. Last election people were able to pick and choose those bishops that gave support to their own view, and before you go there again neither gave permission to vote for a pro-abortion candidate to support abortion, but one side said there were proportionate reasons. Without the one leading voice of the Church, two trains of thought remain, each formed by our consciences.

 

[1holycatholic]

Denying it repeatedly does not make is so. There were two opinions, we are proof of that, and there are many more like us. This is evident by the Bishops conference viewing the document, with some hoping to remove what is viewed as ‘vague’ by some. Last election people were able to pick and choose those bishops that gave support to their own view, and before you go there again neither gave permission to vote for a pro-abortion candidate to support abortion, but one side said there were proportionate reasons. Without the one leading voice of the Church, two trains of thought remain, each formed by our consciences.

You’ve repeatedly been asked to provide evidence of these purported dissenting bishops, but you’ve never been able to do so.

 

[Ender]

Agreed. However the practical question is what exactly constitutes “support of abortion”?

This seems like asking “What is good?” or saying “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” This concept is not all that complicated.

That is where I think personal opinion enters in. One person may think that a certain action supports abortion while another may believe that same action does not.

I’m sure it is possible to imagine scenarios where such actions exist, but in the world in which we actually live this is usually a no-brainer.

The hypothetical case I proposed in post #38 is an extreme example of making a choice that in some twisted sense might be construed as supporting abortion, but most people would probably say that it does not.

That such an extreme hypothetical is necessary to make this point should indicate that, in the normal world we inhabit, such determinations are not all that difficult to make.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This seems like asking “What is good?” or saying “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” This concept is not all that complicated.

The question of what constitutes support of abortion is indeed that complicated. The many many posting here on CAF asking if buying from such and such a company is cooperation with evil gives testimony to that complexity. There are some clear cut cases, and I am not arguing statistics about how many are clear cut and how many are uncertain. The mere fact that some are uncertain proves that some personal judgment is needed in particular cases. It is like saying that it is a sin to miss mass on Sunday unless you are sick. In most cases any reasonable person can see if someone is too sick to attend mass. But the decision of exactly how sick is too sick is left up to the individual (within reason). And so in a particular race the degree of difference between candidates can be small enough that some people will judge it to be too small to justify voting exclusively on that basis.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sorry, but the teaching of ordinary universal magisterium on issues of faith and morals is binding.

Except that what you quoted was not the teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium.

Non-sequitur. (referring to my statement: “As soon as you elevate one issue to be infinitely more important than all other issues then you automatically demote all other issues to zero importance. You can’t say that other issues matter only when the candidates have equal positions on abortion because you can always find some small difference between candidate’s position on abortion. And if that small difference means no other issue can be considered, then no other issue can be considered ever. That contradicts the statements made in your quoted reference that say other issues are very, very important. In your interpretation all other issues are of zero importance.”)

How is that a non-sequitur? The conclusion is that your position implies nothing else besides abortion can ever matter in an election. Ever. Do you dispute that or accept it?