Defining 'proportionate reasons'

[pnewton]

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

I didn’t say it could. We are not talking about intrinsic evil. Voting is not intrinsically evil. Aborton is. Having or performing an abortion can never be justified.

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

No need to be nasty or judgmental.

 

[1holycatholic]

So then, if people did not believe the ‘pro-life’ candidate last presidential election, what do you say their choices were?

Which “pro-life” candidate would that be? IIRC there were half a dozen parties on the ballot. I don’t recall any of them being 100% pro-life.

 

[1holycatholic]

I didn’t say it could. We are not talking about intrinsic evil. Voting is not intrinsically evil. Aborton is. Having or performing an abortion can never be justified.

Neither can one ever justify supporting abortion through the ballot box.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Which “pro-life” candidate would that be? IIRC there were half a dozen parties on the ballot. I don’t recall any of them being 100% pro-life.

Come on. The last presidential ‘general’ election, if someone did not believe the ‘pro-life’ candidate was telling the truth, what options did someone have in reference to casting a vote?

 

[1holycatholic]

Come on. The last presidential ‘general’ election, if someone did not believe the ‘pro-life’ candidate was telling the truth, what options did someone have in reference to casting a vote?

Since you aren’t going to answer, I can tell you this: doubt over the veracity of a “pro-life” politician doesn’t warrant voting for a pro-abortion candidate.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Neither can one ever justify supporting abortion through the ballot box.

Okay, a hypothetical scenario, two candidates only, one is pro-abortion, one says he is pro-life but a voter’s conscience tells the voter the pro-life candidate is lying. What are the voter’s options and does proportionate reasons apply, in your opinion?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Since you aren’t going to answer, I can tell you this: doubt over the veracity of a “pro-life” politician doesn’t warrant voting for a pro-abortion candidate.

Even if one’s conscience tells him that the pro-life candidate is not telling the truth?

 

[pnewton]

You omitted the statement:

A person with a well formed conscience (CCC 1783) may never do evil so that good may result from it (CCC 1789.) Since abortion is an intrinsic evil it may never be supported. To do so (i.e. voting for a pro-abortion candidate when an anti-abortion candidate exists) with a well formed conscience would be to condemn oneself (CCC 1790.)

Here are the sections you referenced.
[1783](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1783.htm’)* Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. *

[1789](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1789.htm’)* Some rules apply in every case: *
*- One may never do evil so that good may result from it; *
*- the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."56 **- charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."57 Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."58 *

*1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed. *

None of these mention abortion or voting.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Neither can one ever justify supporting abortion through the ballot box.

Then please explain Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement that one could vote for a pro-abortion candidate for proportionate reasons, in your view?

 

[pnewton]

Neither can one ever justify supporting abortion through the ballot box.

I agree, if the issue is ever on the ballot. Also, when one is voting for a candidate, the protection of innocent life (in all forms) takes absolute precedence over issues of comfort. The problem is, even though abortion is black and white, people are not. Some are candidates are more aggressive in their stand on abortion than others. Some have proven to be disingenuous and their stand can not be trusted. Still others may not be deemed to be electable. When one moves beyond the one issue (which we are allowed to do, btw) we may find other innocent life being wasted that needs to be accounted for, or even some other form of injustice that needs to be addressed.

In the final analysis, I hope the Catholics here will read the document that the USCCB puts out on faithful citizenship and move beyond the rhetoric that flies around here on both sides.

 

[1holycatholic]

Here are the sections you referenced.
[1783](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1783.htm’)* Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. *

[1789](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1789.htm’)* Some rules apply in every case: *
*- One may never do evil so that good may result from it; *
*- the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."56 **- charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."57 Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."58 *

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

None of these mention abortion or voting.

Nor do they explicitly mention stabbing your neighbor to death with a kitchen knife because she’s engaged in prostitution, yet they prohibit exactly that.

 

[1holycatholic]

Then please explain Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement that one could vote for a pro-abortion candidate for proportionate reasons, in your view?

I’ve already given an example with candidates A. B and C.

 

[pnewton]

Your interpretation contradicts the sensus fidelium.

You are right that this is not a strawman. It is begging the question. You as a poster here do not have the power or the authority to define what is the Sense of the Faithful within Holy Mother Church.

 

[pnewton]

Nor do they explicitly mention stabbing your neighbor to death with a kitchen knife because she’s engaged in prostitution, yet they prohibit exactly that.

No, that is prohibited elsewhere. These passages are more general.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ve already given an example with candidates A. B and C.

I’m sorry if it’s too much trouble for you to repeat. I have repeated several explanations, points, and questions, in hopes of a better understanding on everyone’s part in this discussion. Many of which have been repeatedly overlooked. Please share you view of the last hypothetical question I asked you.

Okay, a hypothetical scenario, two candidates only, one is pro-abortion, one says he is pro-life but a voter’s conscience tells the voter the pro-life candidate is lying. What are the voter’s options and does proportionate reasons apply, in your opinion?

 

[1holycatholic]

I’m sorry if it’s too much trouble for you to repeat. I have repeated several explanations, points, and questions, in hopes of a better understanding on everyone’s part in this discussion. Many of which have been repeatedly overlooked. Please share you view of the last hypothetical question I asked you.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8261749&postcount=26

Okay, a hypothetical scenario, two candidates only, one is pro-abortion, one says he is pro-life but a voter’s conscience tells the voter the pro-life candidate is lying. What are the voter’s options and does proportionate reasons apply, in your opinion?

If you know the candidate is an outright liar either way why would you vote for them?

Now show proof of your claim that there are Bishops who state it is absolutely OK to vote pro-abortion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…Vertatis Splendor lists homicide as an intrinsic evil.:
80. Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.131 The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”.

Thank you for pointing that out. I had no idea that the list of intrinsic evils was so extensive. But this makes it a lot easier to see possible “proportionate reasons” to vote for a candidate who does not have the ideal position on abortion. According to this document you so kindly posted I can see that allowing degrading conditions of work which treats labourers as mere instruments of profit is also an intrinsic evil. Therefore I may decide that the nominally anti-abortion candidate also has a blind spot with regard to the dignity of migrant workers. Depending on the degree of that violation, I might legitimately conclude that it is a proportionate reason to vote for the other guy who does respect the dignity of migrant workers, but is a little less determined in his opposition to abortion.

 

[1holycatholic]

You are right that this is not a strawman. It is begging the question.

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.

You as a poster here do not have the power or the authority to define what is the Sense of the Faithful within Holy Mother Church.

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

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If you know the candidate is an outright liar either way why would you vote for them?

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.

Now show proof of your claim that there are Bishops who state it is absolutely OK to vote pro-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 haven’t given your view of this point.

 

[1holycatholic]

No, that is prohibited elsewhere. These passages are more general.

Yet they prohibit it too.