Defining 'proportionate reasons'

[Bookcat]

Thanks Bookcat, I’ll read that tomorrow when I get home; however, the question still remains of why the Pope hasn’t spoken up to correct those that supposedly strayed?

The Pope is constantly proclaiming the Truth etc …teaching the Church.

It is up to Catholics to listen and* live* the truth.

(I say all this in general for I have not followed really the thread so am not entirely aware of what anyone has said or what has been discussed)

Keep reading to the end (very rich content)

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html

 

[Iron_Donkey]

It is not possible for the Church to be in error regarding issues of faith and morals.

Very true, except in those cases where it hasn’t definitively said anything. Which don’t tend to be issues of morals, but issues of application. In this case, I do not mean that the Church is incorrect - it hasn’t said anything - but that the position advocated by the majority of the bishops etc could possibly be incorrect, though this is unlikely. An example would be the death penalty. Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil, though it would have to be gravely evil in those cases where it is not allowed, since it involves killing someone. However, nearly everything I’ve heard from any bishop or the previous Pope (I am not aware if our current Pope has made any statements either way) suggests that there are nearly no cases where it would be allowed in a country such as the U.S. and that it should be abolished. But, according to then Cardinal Ratzinger during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II:

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.

So maintaining that the death penalty should remain legal is not technically disagreeing with the Church, but rather disagreeing with the majority of the bishops etc. It is permissible. However, chances are that the bishops and Popes are right.

Abortion is not such an issue - it is absolutely wrong and there is no way to believe otherwise while being faithful to Catholic teaching.
Prodigal Son1:

Just as the Church as declared abortion to be intrinsically evil, it has not declared ‘proportionate reasons’

The phrase ‘proportionate reasons’ is pretty clear by itself though. (And it’s the gravity of the evil that matters, not the… intrinsicalness? for proportionate stuff.

For instance in the abortion case, such a reason must be something as grave as abortion (or as grave as the net effect voting for a particular politician will have on abortion, as compared to others). That means that if one candidate will definitely end abortion entirely (one can dream) and another won’t do anything about it all, the only way to vote for the second would be if the first will do something else as gravely wrong as killing however many million children we kill each year. Nothing realistic comes to mind. I suppose that if a candidate was running on a platform of “illegalize abortion and attempt to nuke every city in China while dismantling any nuclear defense systems that we may have,” that would do it. Whatever issue was chosen would have to be as grave as life and death, which typically means life and death.

Of course, in the U.S. no single candidate is going to end abortion entirely, so you have to consider his impact on abortion. Judgement does come into play here, the Church is not going to go around saying “so and so calls himself pro-life, but is too impotent to do anything about it, so vote for this guy instead because he wants to feed the hungry.”

In general though, it is my policy to always vote for the candidate who most strongly opposes abortion on the grounds that if enough of them get in something might happen (and we’ve seen that at least on the state level such things can happen) and because all politicians want to feed the hungry and I haven’t seen any evidence that those who tend to support abortion are any better at it than those who don’t.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Abortion is not such an issue - it is absolutely wrong and there is no way to believe otherwise while being faithful to Catholic teaching.

The phrase ‘proportionate reasons’ is pretty clear by itself though. (And it’s the gravity of the evil that matters, not the… intrinsicalness? for proportionate stuff.

Okay, hypothetically speaking, let’s say someone disagreed with the Pope on the death penalty and that someone was right. Now wouldn’t that someone be allowed to measure the death penalty as proportionate?

The death penalty is just an example, and can be replaced with other issues, i.e. war, etc.

For instance in the abortion case, such a reason must be something as grave as abortion (or as grave as the net effect voting for a particular politician will have on abortion, as compared to others). That means that if one candidate will definitely end abortion entirely (one can dream) and another won’t do anything about it all, the only way to vote for the second would be if the first will do something else as gravely wrong as killing however many million children we kill each year. Nothing realistic comes to mind. I suppose that if a candidate was running on a platform of “illegalize abortion and attempt to nuke every city in China while dismantling any nuclear defense systems that we may have,” that would do it. Whatever issue was chosen would have to be as grave as life and death, which typically means life and death.

Of course, in the U.S. no single candidate is going to end abortion entirely, so you have to consider his impact on abortion. Judgement does come into play here, the Church is not going to go around saying “so and so calls himself pro-life, but is too impotent to do anything about it, so vote for this guy instead because he wants to feed the hungry.”

In general though, it is my policy to always vote for the candidate who most strongly opposes abortion on the grounds that if enough of them get in something might happen (and we’ve seen that at least on the state level such things can happen) and because all politicians want to feed the hungry and I haven’t seen any evidence that those who tend to support abortion are any better at it than those who don’t.

How does proportionate reasons play in when someone does not believe a candidate’s sincerity? That was kind of the point LeafByNiggle made in their post, and I agree with.

If the choice really were between 1000’s of murdered babies and something else, then the decision might be that easy. But that is not what is being selected. You are selecting a candidate who is saying “Vote for me and I will stop the babies from being murdered.”. Some of the things you can consider are…

1. Is this candidate sincere in what he says?

1. Even if he is sincere, is he capable of doing what he claims?

In deciding these questions a person is allowed to use his own judgement, and such can be your personal proportionate reasons for voting one way or another.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers:

jimmyakin.org/2004/09/what_ratzinger_.html

While I appreciate Jimmy’s apologetic skills, I’m not inclined to agree with him totally on everything he said in his blog. Not everyone who honestly inquires, with seeking Him in their heart, but questions statements such as the one the Cardinal wrote is a dissident. We often see those type statements in the political discussions on these forums and to be perfectly honest, they lack charity required of all Christians. That automatically makes some suspect of biased interpretations of quotes, such as the Cardinal made. for political reasons.

The point still remains, if all those Catholics accused of such a error as to risk separation from the Church, and their eternal salvation, why hasn’t the one voice of the Church spoken a correction to reign in those in error?

'The question reminds me of a parable that Christ spoke:

Luk 15:3 And he spoke to them this parable, saying:
Luk 15:4 What man of you that hath an hundred sheep, and if he shall lose one of them, doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after that which was lost, until he find it?
Luk 15:5 And when he hath found it, lay it upon his shoulders, rejoicing?
Luk 15:6 And coming home, call together his friends and neighbours, saying to them: Rejoice with me, because I have found my sheep that was lost?
Luk 15:7 I say to you that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance.

The accusations being made is far more than one lost sheep.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Okay, hypothetically speaking, let’s say someone disagreed with the Pope on the death penalty and that someone was right. Now wouldn’t that someone be allowed to measure the death penalty as proportionate?

The death penalty is just an example, and can be replaced with other issues, i.e. war, etc.

To some issues, perhaps, though I can’t think of any that anyone would want to. This would mean voting for someone who was definitely wrong about something because this person thought he was right about the death penalty. This would also be, I think, unwise since as humans we know our reason is not perfect, and even if this person was actually right it would seem likely that he was not.

The main thing though is that even if this person was positive that the death penalty was good, he could only use it to justify voting for a politician whose bad effects would be on the same order as imprisoning someone who deserved to die for life instead of executing him. I cannot think of any particular issue where this would come into play, though I suppose it is possible.

How does proportionate reasons play in when someone does not believe a candidate’s sincerity? That was kind of the point LeafByNiggle made in their post, and I agree with.

Say, for example, and just to pick two random letters that are definitely not at all associated with any politicians who may or may not exist or have run for any particular office recently, we have candidate O vs candidate M.

M says he opposes abortion (for instance). A particular voter doesn’t believe that M will actually do anything about it. Suppose that the voter is obviously and certainly right.

O says he supports abortion. It is pretty clear that he does, and that he will expand it somewhat.

So then we look at the difference: an expansion in abortion vs not much. Net difference: abortion expands. So to vote for O, it must be that voting for M would cause an evil on the order of the expansion in abortion that O would make.

If, however, it was absolutely clear that O would not expand abortion and that M would not reduce abortion at all, then abortion becomes a non-issue, and we move to the next one. This does seem somewhat unlikely, as O and M would probably make at least a token gesture or appoint a judge or something one way or the other to try to get that voting base to stay with them, but it is theoretically possible.

Determining whether or not such a candidate will in fact reduce or expand abortion and by how much is the voter’s job. (It would be nice if that were the politician’s job, but that assumes that they will both actually say something honest about the same thing at more or less the same time, which seems unlikely.)

 

[1holycatholic]

Okay, hypothetically speaking, let’s say someone disagreed with the Pope on the death penalty and that someone was right. Now wouldn’t that someone be allowed to measure the death penalty as proportionate?

The death penalty is just an example, and can be replaced with other issues, i.e. war, etc.

The death penalty and war are not intrinsically evil. The application of the death penalty or the decision to engage in war are matters of prudential judgement. There is no circumstance that permits an intrinsic evil. Matters that are not intrinsically evil are not proportionate to intrinsic evils. Voting in direct support of an intrinsic evil is always wrong.

Let’s look at a scenario where there are only three candidates:

• Candidate A supports unrestricted abortion.
• Candidate B supports unrestricted abortion and euthanasia.
• Candidate C rejects abortion except in cases of incest or “the life of the mother.”

All three support an intrinsic evil to various degrees. The positions of these three candidates on the application of the death penalty etc. are not relevant since the death penalty is not an intrinsic evil and not a proportionate reason with respect to abortion. If there were another candidate the absolutely rejected direct abortion then it would be impermissible to vote for any of the three candidates because each of them supports the intrinsic evil of abortion. However it is permissible to vote for candidate in the absence of an anti-abortion candidate if the pro-abortion position of the candidate is rejected and a proportionate reason applied. In this situation proportionate reason favors candidate C and rejects candidates A and B. If there were only candidates A and B, then A would be preferable to B.

 

[Bookcat]

The point still remains, if all those Catholics accused of such a error as to risk separation from the Church, and their eternal salvation, why hasn’t the one voice of the Church spoken a correction to reign in those in error?

(Again I have not been following the thread…I do not read em all…too many threads…and there are books! to read…)

As I recall Jimmy’s article was long and rather good treatment of the issues (I will leave him to get into it all…feel free to call him on the program)

As to this statement…even those who murder their mothers are do not “risk separation from the Church”…so such is not what was being addressed. Yes murderers certainly risk their salvation though as do othesr who commit mortal sins…for they can die and enter what they have chosen. As to voting…have some committed mortal sins? In say voting for pro-abortion persons in a wrong way? Sure I imagine so.

The Church is constantly proclaiming the Gospel and teaching the truth about moral matters.

No matter how much such is done…still there will be those who act contrary to such.

Heck…sadly abortions themselves continue to go on…

Let us pray and work for a culture of life and the good and true and beautiful

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The death penalty and war are not intrinsically evil. The application of the death penalty or the decision to engage in war are matters of prudential judgement. There is no circumstance that permits an intrinsic evil. Matters that are not intrinsically evil are not proportionate to intrinsic evils. Voting in direct support of an intrinsic evil is always wrong.

Let’s look at a scenario where there are only three candidates:

• Candidate A supports unrestricted abortion.
• Candidate B supports unrestricted abortion and euthanasia.
• Candidate C rejects abortion except in cases of incest or “the life of the mother.”

All three support an intrinsic evil to various degrees. The positions of these three candidates on the application of the death penalty etc. are not relevant since the death penalty is not an intrinsic evil and not a proportionate reason with respect to abortion. If there were another candidate the absolutely rejected direct abortion then it would be impermissible to vote for any of the three candidates because each of them supports the intrinsic evil of abortion. However it is permissible to vote for candidate in the absence of an anti-abortion candidate if the pro-abortion position of the candidate is rejected and a proportionate reason applied. In this situation proportionate reason favors candidate C and rejects candidates A and B. If there were only candidates A and B, then A would be preferable to B.

When we speak of proportionate reasons we are not talking about reasons for accepting one evil or another. If we were, then perhaps your reliance on the intrinsicness of some evils would be a relevant deciding factor. But the fact is you are voting for a person, not a policy. So the question is “What is the effect of voting for one person or another?”. The proportionate reasons refer to selecting one person over another, not selecting one policy over another. So even if one of those policies concerns an intrinsic evil, that does not mean a vote for any one particular person is a vote for that evil. That depends on a lot of personal judgement, as I said before. As one example, weighing the sincerity of the candidate espousing one position or another. The Church wisely leaves that up to informed individuals to decide.

 

[pnewton]

The death penalty and war are not intrinsically evi

Matters that are not intrinsically evil are not proportionate to intrinsic evils…

I agree with the first statement, but not the second. Just because evil is not intrinsic to the act, but rather to the particular circumstance does not lesson the evil. For example, war is not intrinsically evil. However, a particular war (say to capture oil or destroy a people) might be very evil. The deaths involve might outweigh other issues (e.g homosexual acts) that are intrinsically evil.

 

[BVM_1221]

Having read the replys since my previous posting here, I at least have a better idea how some Catholics regard issues for voting.:coffeeread:

The most obvious problem is with the word “intrinsic”. Somehow, someway, the word “intrinsic” got inflated to mean “infinitely so”. It has been transformed from a quality to a quantity. :tsktsk:

So we have the pathetic examples of those who claim their intrinsic sin is more intrinsic then another’s intrinsic sin, as far as voting goes.

Of course, as a math major, I know all about ZF set theory, as well as ZFC, ZFCh, and ZFCCh set theory; which allow some infinite Large Cardinals (not be confused with a baseball team) to be larger then other infinite Large Cardinals.

But none of this will help the poor voter who is trying to cast an informed vote. As long as “intrinsic” is confused with “infinite”, no realistic dialog is possible.:sad_yes:

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The death penalty and war are not intrinsically evil. The application of the death penalty or the decision to engage in war are matters of prudential judgement. There is no circumstance that permits an intrinsic evil. Matters that are not intrinsically evil are not proportionate to intrinsic evils. Voting in direct support of an intrinsic evil is always wrong.

The point of the ‘hypothetical’ situation I provided was not an attempt to prove an ‘example’ was proportionate as viewed by every individual. If the Pope allows disagreement with himself on certain issues, the issue lacks a definite absolute. Without a definite absolute, it is possible through the disagreement that the Pope is wrong in his view and the disagreeing party is correct. Even though it lacks the absolute from the Church, in it’s correctness it is right, absolutely. Then who can say it is not proportionate, or intrinsic even?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

The point of the ‘hypothetical’ situation I provided was not an attempt to prove an ‘example’ was proportionate as viewed by every individual. If the Pope allows disagreement with himself on certain issues, the issue lacks a definite absolute. Without a definite absolute, it is possible through the disagreement that the Pope is wrong in his view and the disagreeing party is correct. Even though it lacks the absolute from the Church, in it’s correctness it is right, absolutely. Then who can say it is not proportionate, or intrinsic even?

Generally, matters of legitimate disagreement will be matters of application rather than principle (that is, not is the just war criteria correct, but does it apply in this situation, etc).

In such a case, we can figure it out. How grave is it to participate in an unjust war? How grave is it not to participate in a war when we are required to do so? Presumably, if you have come to a conclusion that a war is just that bishops think is unjust or the other way around, you’ve weighed things like the deaths of innocents etc to figure this out, so you should have a fairly good idea of how grave (assuming you’re right which, presumably, you are) such an action would be.

Whether or not something is intrinsically wrong is always a matter of principal rather than application, so I don’t see there being much disagreement over that issue. But again, intrinsic wrongness is completely separate from gravity. If something is intrinsically evil, that just means that it is always wrong. It may also be very wrong, but that’s a different question.

 

[Julian0404]

Quote taken from response from PRODIGAL SON1 as regards the Bishops not providng more direct authority through defining “proportionate” to the laity.

“With the lack of correction, or a definition of proportionate reasons, it gives an appearance of proportionate reasons being up to the individual well formed faith based conscience.”

I agree, but sadly “well informed” has long ago been replaced by “what have you done for me lately”, which in turn translates to “Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, etc.”

I believe the appearance of proportionate reasons is being made “without a well informed faith and a selfish conscience”, and a huge gap in leadership and evangelization by the Bishops in the continuance of not providing very specific and direct “thou shall not…” guidance - to include excommunication.

Honestly, I find it very hard to accept that the murder of innocents is knowingly and intentionally being traded by others for selfish gains through the vote - I have to believe that ignorance in their faith and lack of firm guidance from Bishops, Priest and the pulpit is the primary foundation. We can all “kid” ourselves, until the Bishop or our parish priest explains to us that “thou shalt not kill” includes voting for those who would kill - by their vote.

 

[Julian0404]

If the choice really were between 1000’s of murdered babies and something else, then the decision might be that easy. But that is not what is being selected. You are selecting a candidate who is saying “Vote for me and I will stop the babies from being murdered.”. Some of the things you can consider are…

1. Is this candidate sincere in what he says?
2. Even if he is sincere, is he capable of doing what he claims?

In deciding these questions a person is allowed to use his own judgement, and such can be your personal proportionate reasons for voting one way or another.

Well said, and I agree, but your comparison to my arguement is ‘apples/oranges’. My point is if someone declares they support abortion, what can you claim is proportionate to yourself or your country such that you would then vote to elect a proclaimed candidate who openly and knowling will continue with the murder of innocent babies? ? ?

Your repsonse is to focus on the candidate that declares they will NOT support abortion, and unless they have a record, you are correct in declaring that you cannot know if they are telling the truth, but you are also NOT GUILTY of openingly and knowingly supporting murder if they then vote for abortion.

However the second part of your response is purely weak and unreasonable. (,sincere in doing what he claims…) All any candidate can do is vote against abortion - not single handly stop abortion. If they say they will vote against abortion, then that is their right in the senate or congress to vote their conscience, and they are all capable of voting as they claim.

 

[BVM_1221]

I agree, but sadly “well informed” has long ago been replaced by “what have you done for me lately”, which in turn translates to “Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, etc.”

I believe the appearance of proportionate reasons is being made “without a well informed faith and a selfish conscience”, and a huge gap in leadership and evangelization by the Bishops in the continuance of not providing very specific and direct “thou shall not…” guidance - to include excommunication.

Honestly, I find it very hard to accept that the murder of innocents is knowingly and intentionally being traded by others for selfish gains through the vote

I find it hard to believe it also, because I know many Catholics who have voted Democrat for reasons NOT selfish. Really:yup:

People in their 20s and 30s do note vote for Social Security etc etc etc. for selfish reasons, unless looking ahead 40 years is selfish. No, most of those Catholics vote for Democrats precisely because the Democrats want to help the poor. NOW.

 

[1holycatholic]

When we speak of proportionate reasons we are not talking about reasons for accepting one evil or another. If we were, then perhaps your reliance on the intrinsicness of some evils would be a relevant deciding factor. But the fact is you are voting for a person, not a policy. So the question is “What is the effect of voting for one person or another?”. The proportionate reasons refer to selecting one person over another, not selecting one policy over another. So even if one of those policies concerns an intrinsic evil, that does not mean a vote for any one particular person is a vote for that evil. That depends on a lot of personal judgement, as I said before. As one example, weighing the sincerity of the candidate espousing one position or another. The Church wisely leaves that up to informed individuals to decide.

You are voting for a person and the policies that the candidate will execute. You don’t get two votes per candidate: I’ll vote for Bob, but not Bob’s policies. :hypno:

 

[1holycatholic]

I agree with the first statement, but not the second. Just because evil is not intrinsic to the act, but rather to the particular circumstance does not lesson the evil. For example, war is not intrinsically evil. However, a particular war (say to capture oil or destroy a people) might be very evil. The deaths involve might outweigh other issues (e.g homosexual acts) that are intrinsically evil.

Sorry, but intrinsic evil can never be justified. Read Veritatis Splendor.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sorry, but intrinsic evil can never be justified. Read Veritatis Splendor.

Suppose you had the power to decide which of two people would be released from custody. One is a fanatic Muslim fundamentalist who has vowed to kill the pope. Furthermore he is known to be an excellent shot, and very determined. The other is a guy who once said he thought he should become an abortion doctor because he felt sorry for women who had to carry an unwanted child. Furthermore this guy has no medical training and has been known to be poor at following through with his plans. He mostly tells tall tales as he sits and drinks. You cannot keep both of these two men in custody. One of them will be released. Only you get to decide which one stays and which one goes.

So let’s see. If the first guy is released, there is a significant chance he will kill the pope. But being a Muslim he is opposed to abortion. If the second guy is released, he will very likely go back to his favorite fishing spot and keep talking about something he will never do. But killing the pope is not an intrinsic evil, whereas abortion is an intrinsic evil. Releasing the second guy amounts to justifying an intrinsic evil, which can never be justified. So the first guy goes free. You see how focussing exclusively on whether an evil is intrinsic can lead to a nonsensical decision?

 

[Julian0404]

I find it hard to believe it also, because I know many Catholics who have voted Democrat for reasons NOT selfish. Really:yup:

People in their 20s and 30s do note vote for Social Security etc etc etc. for selfish reasons, unless looking ahead 40 years is selfish. No, most of those Catholics vote for Democrats precisely because the Democrats want to help the poor. NOW.

A good response and at the same time a good example we can discuss pursuant to a model of “proportionate”.

So, is “…helping the poor.” - which is a claim for “why” someone might vote for a candidate that supports abortion “proportionate” to that same candidate “also” supporting abortion?

Are welfare payments, subsidized housing, food stamps, etc. proportionate to accepting and/or trading for the deaths of thousands/millions of innocent lives by abortion?

If you put all the poor on one scale and all the dead babies on the other would they balance?

Helping the poor vs murdering the innocent? ?

 

[1holycatholic]

Suppose you had the power to decide which of two people would be released from custody. One is a fanatic Muslim fundamentalist who has vowed to kill the pope. Furthermore he is known to be an excellent shot, and very determined. The other is a guy who once said he thought he should become an abortion doctor because he felt sorry for women who had to carry an unwanted child. Furthermore this guy has no medical training and has been known to be poor at following through with his plans. He mostly tells tall tales as he sits and drinks. You cannot keep both of these two men in custody. One of them will be released. Only you get to decide which one stays and which one goes.

So let’s see. If the first guy is released, there is a significant chance he will kill the pope. But being a Muslim he is opposed to abortion. If the second guy is released, he will very likely go back to his favorite fishing spot and keep talking about something he will never do. But killing the pope is not an intrinsic evil, whereas abortion is an intrinsic evil. Releasing the second guy amounts to justifying an intrinsic evil, which can never be justified. So the first guy goes free. You see how focussing exclusively on whether an evil is intrinsic can lead to a nonsensical decision?

Sorry, but intrinsic evil can never be justified. I’m sorry you oppose the Church on this matter.