Defining 'proportionate reasons'

[Ender]

Here’s what i really don’t understand. What limits are there on the requirement to oppose abortion?

This is like looking for the border between the US and Mexico in the middle of the Rio Grande; you know it’s there some place but it’s not obvious exactly where. This point may be interesting in some scholarly circles but it is irrelevant in practice. We don’t face such narrow choices in (the vast majority of) real elections.

For example, if the only choices are two pro-choice candidates who differ only in their view of the degree of government subsidies for abortions, does there come a point where prudential judgement may decide if the difference is large enough to ignore all other non-abortion characteristics of the candidates?

That you create such a hypothetical example instead of using the obvious real world example the last presidential election provided suggests to me that you want to avoid, rather than address, the issue. Let me ask the question the other way: what differences in position on abortion would be sufficient for you to say “I must choose B over A because of their positions on this issue?”

Ender

 

[Ender]

Yes it is. It is clearly defined, and proportionate reasons are not.

True, the term “proportionate reasons” is not explicitly defined because no such definition is possible. It would have been possible to give a number of examples but I have the feeling that the term was purposely left vague.

But we can vote for someone who is going to cut social programs, or wage 'preemptive wars, or commit any number of sins/evil to abolish abortion? It’s the same thing.

These are good examples of prudential issues about which the Church takes no position and they therefore cannot be considered proportionate to the issues pertaining to intrinsic evil, on which the Church’s position is unambiguous.

You close your eyes to the fact that the bishops were not of the same opinion, and slur against those that spoke differently than you want to believe.

Yes, politically the bishops have a wide variety of opinions and, regrettably, that seems to have affected the nature of the document they prepared.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is like looking for the border between the US and Mexico in the middle of the Rio Grande; you know it’s there some place but it’s not obvious exactly where. This point may be interesting in some scholarly circles but it is irrelevant in practice. We don’t face such narrow choices in (the vast majority of) real elections.
That you create such a hypothetical example instead of using the obvious real world example the last presidential election provided suggests to me that you want to avoid, rather than address, the issue. Let me ask the question the other way: what differences in position on abortion would be sufficient for you to say “I must choose B over A because of their positions on this issue?”

Ender

I have not claimed anything about the applicability of this line of reasoning to the last election. If you are asking me my personal opinion on how big the difference must be in order to make it the dominant consideration in a particular election, I might give it to you. But I hardly think my personal opinion on that question is relevant because I am not the one who is claiming that my personal opinion is binding on everyone. On the other hand the contention being made in this thread is that there is a binding teaching that says one must put aside all other considerations, regardless of how well-intentioned, and vote according to a specific formula. No allowances are made for individual judgement in applying that formula. So it is natural to ask exactly what that formula is. Most of the questions posted here in CAF are exploring the margins of various rules, despite the fact that real-life experiences are usually not at the margins. So saying that in most cases it is easy to decide who to vote for is not a satisfying answer when the question is about an absolute rule. The thing I really want to know is the extent of individual judgement allowed in the application of this rule. And if you don’t mind I would also like to know if the rule has any extensions beyond voting, as in my yard sign question.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

These are good examples of prudential issues about which the Church takes no position and they therefore cannot be considered proportionate to the issues pertaining to intrinsic evil, on which the Church’s position is unambiguous.

Ender

That’s what I thought until 1holycatholic pointed out a few posts ago an official Church document that listed quite a few intrinsic evils, including violations of human dignity caused by inhuman working conditions. Then when I suggested that they then be considered proportionate, 1holycatholic backpedaled and claimed it was not the intrinsicness of abortion that made it special. It was a unique position occupied by abortion any nothing else because it was foundational. (You can’t enjoy any rights if you are not first allowed to be born, so all other rights are not proportionate.). Again, these were his claims, not mine.

 

[1holycatholic]

That’s what I thought until 1holycatholic pointed out a few posts ago an official Church document that listed quite a few intrinsic evils, including violations of human dignity caused by inhuman working conditions. Then when I suggested that they then be considered proportionate, 1holycatholic backpedaled and claimed it was not the intrinsicness of abortion that made it special. It was a unique position occupied by abortion any nothing else because it was foundational. (You can’t enjoy any rights if you are not first allowed to be born, so all other rights are not proportionate.). Again, these were his claims, not mine.

I did no such thing. A non-intrinsic evil can never justify an intrinsic evil. That does not mean that all evils are equivalent.

The Church teaches that consequentialism (i.e. proportionalism) is contrary to the Catholic faith. cf. Veritatis Splendor

 

[1holycatholic]

But we can vote for someone who is going to cut social programs, or wage 'preemptive wars, or commit any number of sins/evil to abolish abortion? It’s the same thing.

Sorry, but the prudential decision to engage in war, or the prudential decision to cut social programs, or the combination of the two does not justify supporting the intrinsic evil of abortion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sorry, but the prudential decision to engage in war, or the prudential decision to cut social programs, or the combination of the two does not justify supporting the intrinsic evil of abortion.

It’s supporting an evil, or list of evils, to achieve good; only measured by some in an attempt to have partisan control of a political office, It’s the same thing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes, politically the bishops have a wide variety of opinions and, regrettably, that seems to have affected the nature of the document they prepared.

Ender

Surely it affected the nature of the document. Now, was the affect correct or not? There has not been a unified correction made, making it seem that a correction was not necessary.

 

[1holycatholic]

It’s supporting an evil, or list of evils, to achieve good; only measured by some in an attempt to have partisan control of a political office, It’s the same thing.

That doesn’t make grammatical sense.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That doesn’t make grammatical sense.

If you cannot do, or use, evil to do good, the lesser of two evils argument is defeated. It’s hypocritical to attempt force other people’s consciences through that type argument.

It’s like losing a charitable tone to convince someone of a charitable proposition, or using a lack of love to convince someone of love. It will not work.

This discussion has become circular and does not answer what the one voice of our Church defines as proportionate reasons. No one on these forums has a legitimate authority to impose a private interpretation on another and declare the other side wrong. Picking a bishop that agrees with an personal opinion does not support a view as correct, when bishops do not agree. Labeling bishops with an opposing view doesn’t make another bishop correct.

I think people, who have amalgamated secular with spiritual, need to utilize that which is spiritual in all matters. That is simply to forgive, as you expect to be forgiven, judge not, lest you be judged, do unto others, as you want others to do unto you, and love as you want to be loved. Calling others dissenters, or telling them they have condemned themselves, without appropriate authority, is not what the Church teaches or what scriptures tell us to do, and it doesn’t convince anyone of your view.

 

[1holycatholic]

If you cannot do, or use, evil to do good, the lesser of two evils argument is defeated.

That’s borderline scrupulosity. There are forms of cooperation with the evil actions of others (all are sinners) that are permissible, otherwise we would be unable to interact with others.

Someone who vote for a pro-abortion candidate because they endorse their position on abortion constitutes *formal cooperation with evil *and is never permitted.

In addition to formal cooperation with evil there is material cooperation with evil which comes in two forms: proximate and remote. In the case of abortion, proximate material cooperation with evil would be handing the abortionist about to perform an abortion the syringe filled with the abortion drug. The manufacture of the abortion drug would be remote material cooperation with evil since the abortionist still used the drug to commit the evil of abortion. In this example the manufacturer of the drug (which has legitimate uses other than abortion) is involved in remote material cooperation with evil, but his involvement is licit because the manufacturer has no control over the misuse of the drug in the performance of abortions. The same example could be made for the manufacturers of knives, etc… The Church teaches that some forms of remote cooperation with evil are licit.

In the case where all candidates advocate an intrinsic evil, you may only vote (remote material cooperation in evil) licitly based on the presence of proportionate reasons, i.e. to minimize the intrinsic evil. No issue or combination of issues is proportionate to abortion.

It’s hypocritical to attempt force other people’s consciences through that type argument.

I, for one, would not call Pope Benedict a hypocrite.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I, for one, would not call Pope Benedict a hypocrite.

I wouldn’t either and recognize the innuendo comprised as ‘spin’, and question where the Church, or scriptures, teaches such actions? That’s not what I would consider an honest dialogue tactic, or a tactic with charity. It does not convince me that your view is correct, in fact it works quite the opposite. Thanks for taking the time to ‘discuss’ the topic, but I think I’d like to see what others have to say on the topic.

Pray that all are worthy of His mercy, and His promises.

Mat 12:25 And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.
Mat 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself: how then shall his kingdom stand?

 

[1holycatholic]

I wouldn’t either and recognize the innuendo comprised as ‘spin’, and question where the Church, or scriptures, teaches such actions?

You have explicitly called the Church teachings on the matter stated by Benedict XVI when he was head of the CDF as hypocrisy. That’s not spin.

 

[pnewton]

If the candidate for mayor was a pro-arsonist who boasts about plans to permit arsonists to burn down orphanages you couldn’t vote for them just because they promised to put in a traffic light and reduce accidents. The traffic light, while a good thing, does not constitute a proportionate reason. If the only other candidate who was also an pro-arsonist, but they seek to protect orphanages, and only permit single home fires you could vote for them, not because you support arson, but because you have a “proportionate reason” to limit the intrinsic evil of both candidates.

I like to this thought experiment. It separates the abortion issue while at the same time providing a parallel to it.

On an unrelated note, I see one strawman that is used too much here. That is the balancing of millions of abortions, which of course, is not accurate. No one goes into the abortion booth and commits millions of abortions. They vote for a candidate that in turn might have a part in permitting the possibility of others to commit an abortion. Likewise, we sometimes buy products from companies that in turn use part of the profits the make off us to support organizations that help others perform abortion. Unfortunately, in the world today, it is impossible to avoid some remote cooperation with evil. We are simply too interconnected. That is why I try not to judge people who vote for the less pro-life candidate because they consider him more electable. It is also why we have to consider whether a person is truly sincere in their promise to fight abortion rights.

Wouldn’t electability (or honesty) also be a proportionate reason?

 

[pnewton]

Not exactly. Bishops conferences (e.g. USCCB) have no explicit teaching authority, which means that their pronouncements are not binding.

They are bishops. Authority is inherent in their position. I was clear that my post was my opinion, so I was “speaking for myself”. I know human nature enough to know that people will only tend to listen to what they want anyway, as I made clear in my earlier post, and you demonstrated in yours. You keep saying how they have no authority in this matter and we are free to ignore them. I’ll keep encouraging others not to start down this path, but rather to listen and learn from their shepherds.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You have explicitly called the Church teachings on the matter stated by Benedict XVI when he was head of the CDF as hypocrisy. That’s not spin.

Since the discussion between has sadly taken an evident turn for the worse, I think it best if we don’t continue our discussion. I have not said anything ill of the Pope, and would not. I have already said that once before, yet you continue to tell me what I believe. That’s purely a false allegation against me. But, I can see it’s wasted trying to explain it further.

Our Church is rich with documents, written by men of the Church. I don’t always agree with individual interpretations and will ask many questions. I don’t think it’s right to use a legalistic approach with those documents to support my view. It seems more in line to come to an understanding so that my view supports what is taught.

God bless you on your journey.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

God does not force His will against free will, yet man attempts to do this by legislating morality on others. What makes man think he can do what God does not, but most certainly could?

In reality, it seems more of using a single, and important issue, to sway people for a partisan purpose in the secular business of politics for other issues, the same as some politicians use issues to pander to a bloc of voters to serve other interests. As long as it’s suspect as such, it will never draw a great majority to it as ‘truth’. As I said earlier, one cannot drop charity to talk someone into a charitable proposition. One cannot lack love for another and talk another into love.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Since the discussion between has sadly taken an evident turn for the worse, I think it best if we don’t continue our discussion. I have not said anything ill of the Pope, and would not. I have already said that once before, yet you continue to tell me what I believe. That’s purely a false allegation against me, or it shows a misinterpretation of what I was saying, which can be corrected by me since I wrote it. But, I can see it’s wasted trying to explain it further.

Our Church is rich with documents, written by men of the Church. I don’t always agree with individual interpretations and will ask many questions. I don’t think it’s right to use a legalistic approach with those documents to support my view. It seems more in line to come to an understanding so that my view supports what is taught.

God bless you on your journey.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Since the discussion between has sadly taken an evident turn for the worse, I think it best if we don’t continue our discussion. I have not said anything ill of the Pope, and would not. I have already said that once before, yet you continue to tell me what I believe. That’s purely a false allegation against me, or a misinterpretation of what I said. I can correct it, since I know what I wrote. But, I can see it’s wasted trying to explain it further in light of the tactics being used.

Our Church is rich with documents, written by men of the Church. I don’t always agree with individual interpretations and will ask many questions. I don’t think it’s right to use a legalistic approach with those documents to support my view. It seems more in line to come to an understanding so that my view supports what is taught.

God bless you on your journey.

 

[1holycatholic]

Wouldn’t electability (or honesty) also be a proportionate reason?

Electability or honesty would not be a proportionate reason. I saw an example of a proportional reason that would trump abortion here:
This writer has a hypothetical reason why one might vote for a candidate who supports procured abortion in all instances. The reason might be that the opposite candidate, the one who would limit the number of abortions, suddenly turned psychotic. He promised if elected he would release 50 nuclear missiles throughout the world to eliminate most of mankind, and he would then reign as King of the earth. Then, someone might vote for a candidate who supports abortion in all instances, without incurring formal cooperation in evil by limiting the harm.
The author also cites multiple examples in papal encyclicals etc. that define proportionate reason, e.g. Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evagelium Vitae:
“…When it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”
I’m sure that some will rejected this as well.