Defining 'proportionate reasons'

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

I pretty much agree with the majority of your statement. As we approach the primaries, I believe it is quite right to question when we see the arguments of the ‘lesser of two evils’. Proportionate reasons seems to be the driving force behind some pushing one of the same party over another. This is even in the face of denials of any reasons being proportionate, even when specific issues are discussed. If there are no proportionate reasons in that situation, what proportionate reasons was Cardinal Ratzinger speaking about?

 

[1holycatholic]

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.

I pretty much agree with the majority of your statement. As we approach the primaries, I believe it is quite right to question when we see the arguments of the ‘lesser of two evils’. Proportionate reasons seems to be the driving force behind some pushing one of the same party over another. This is even in the face of denials of any reasons being proportionate, even when specific issues are discussed. If there are no proportionate reasons in that situation, what proportionate reasons was Cardinal Ratzinger speaking about?

Q.E.D.

The Church does not promote one party over others, the Church states what is moral behavior.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I pretty much agree with the majority of your statement. As we approach the primaries, I believe it is quite right to question when we see the arguments of the ‘lesser of two evils’. Proportionate reasons seems to be the driving force behind some pushing one of the same party over another. This is even in the face of denials of any reasons being proportionate, even when specific issues are discussed. If there are no proportionate reasons in that situation, what proportionate reasons was Cardinal Ratzinger speaking about?

Obviously, that depends on what you are talking about. Proportionality is not a difficult concept, though balancing the proportionality of certain political positions, actions or proposals often is.

Among politicians who claim to be prolife and regarding whom there is no compelling reason to believe they are lying about it, there are lots of issues to put in the balance to weigh each candidate.

Among the Repub candidates, it is, in my opinion, difficult to say any of their positions are “evil”. None are “inherently evil”, though one could argue that some position or other might result in effects he believes would likely be evil. It would be remarkable and extremely counterintuitive to think any of them believes his or her position on anything to be “evil”. Probably even Obama doesn’t think his promotion of abortion is “evil”, even though, objectively, it is, and he should know it is.

It is extremely difficult for individuals to have truly informed opinions about issues concerning which we may morally exercise prudential judgment. Oftentimes, the information necessary to form the best opinion is unavailable, unknowable or doubtful. Lots of issues presently are like that. Theoretically, political parties do us the service of engaging the intelligent and well-informed in formulating policies that serve the polity as a whole, not just some limited segment thereof. That they often do not is impossible to truly doubt.

But when it comes to “lesser of two evils” arguments, it does not strike me that there really is much to argue about with the Repub candidates because none appears to espouse an “inherent evil” like abortion. In that contest, it seems to me it is more a matter of “greater of two (perhaps multiple) goods”. Yes, people can wiggle and dance and proclaim this or that policy or action to be “inherently evil” because they believe so strongly in them that any other point of view seems evil. But to my knowledge, none of their policies espouse “inherent evils”.

I include Ron Paul in that; though he is the primary candidate about whom I would have the greatest reservations. Among those, I include his seeming endorsement of legalization of prostitution, though his advocates claim his argument is one of federalism not libertinism; i.e., that he opposes prostitution but also opposes any federal-level measures to curb it. So defined, that’s a “how to”, not a “whether to”.

But if he is the Repub candidate in the general, I would feel compelled to support him against Obama because there is no proportionate reason to support Obama over him, since Obama promotes an “inherent evil”, specifically, abortion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Obviously, that depends on what you are talking about. Proportionality is not a difficult concept, though balancing the proportionality of certain political positions, actions or proposals often is.

Among politicians who claim to be prolife and regarding whom there is no compelling reason to believe they are lying about it, there are lots of issues to put in the balance to weigh each candidate.

Among the Repub candidates, it is, in my opinion, difficult to say any of their positions are “evil”. None are “inherently evil”, though one could argue that some position or other might result in effects he believes would likely be evil. It would be remarkable and extremely counterintuitive to think any of them believes his or her position on anything to be “evil”. Probably even Obama doesn’t think his promotion of abortion is “evil”, even though, objectively, it is, and he should know it is.

It is extremely difficult for individuals to have truly informed opinions about issues concerning which we may morally exercise prudential judgment. Oftentimes, the information necessary to form the best opinion is unavailable, unknowable or doubtful. Lots of issues presently are like that. Theoretically, political parties do us the service of engaging the intelligent and well-informed in formulating policies that serve the polity as a whole, not just some limited segment thereof. That they often do not is impossible to truly doubt.

But when it comes to “lesser of two evils” arguments, it does not strike me that there really is much to argue about with the Repub candidates because none appears to espouse an “inherent evil” like abortion. In that contest, it seems to me it is more a matter of “greater of two (perhaps multiple) goods”. Yes, people can wiggle and dance and proclaim this or that policy or action to be “inherently evil” because they believe so strongly in them that any other point of view seems evil. But to my knowledge, none of their policies espouse “inherent evils”.

I include Ron Paul in that; though he is the primary candidate about whom I would have the greatest reservations. Among those, I include his seeming endorsement of legalization of prostitution, though his advocates claim his argument is one of federalism not libertinism; i.e., that he opposes prostitution but also opposes any federal-level measures to curb it. So defined, that’s a “how to”, not a “whether to”.

But if he is the Repub candidate in the general, I would feel compelled to support him against Obama because there is no proportionate reason to support Obama over him, since Obama promotes an “inherent evil”, specifically, abortion.

Then simply what are the proportionate reasons Cardinal Ratzinger mentions?

When we’re weighing between all of the same party and all claiming to be pro-life, not doubting any of them at this time, we see many rejecting other concerns voiced by the Church placing them at odds with Church ‘guidance’. Usually we hear, ‘we’re at liberty to disagree with the men of the Church on those issues’, or ‘that’s not an intrinsic evil’ from the various supporters of various candidates. Either they are teachings of Christ, through His Church, or they’re not. We are not allowed venial sins because proportionately they are not as bad as mortal sins. This is the time to seek out the best candidate possible, and for all the reasons spoken about by the men of the Church, irregardless of someone’s opinion that they are at liberty to disagree, or it’s not intrinsic. The other issues are important. Again, what are the proportionate reasons written about by Cardinal Ratzinger?

 

[1holycatholic]

Obviously, that depends on what you are talking about. Proportionality is not a difficult concept, though balancing the proportionality of certain political positions, actions or proposals often is.

Among politicians who claim to be prolife and regarding whom there is no compelling reason to believe they are lying about it, there are lots of issues to put in the balance to weigh each candidate.

Among the Repub candidates, it is, in my opinion, difficult to say any of their positions are “evil”. None are “inherently evil”, though one could argue that some position or other might result in effects he believes would likely be evil. It would be remarkable and extremely counterintuitive to think any of them believes his or her position on anything to be “evil”. Probably even Obama doesn’t think his promotion of abortion is “evil”, even though, objectively, it is, and he should know it is.

It is extremely difficult for individuals to have truly informed opinions about issues concerning which we may morally exercise prudential judgment. Oftentimes, the information necessary to form the best opinion is unavailable, unknowable or doubtful. Lots of issues presently are like that. Theoretically, political parties do us the service of engaging the intelligent and well-informed in formulating policies that serve the polity as a whole, not just some limited segment thereof. That they often do not is impossible to truly doubt.

But when it comes to “lesser of two evils” arguments, it does not strike me that there really is much to argue about with the Repub candidates because none appears to espouse an “inherent evil” like abortion. In that contest, it seems to me it is more a matter of “greater of two (perhaps multiple) goods”. Yes, people can wiggle and dance and proclaim this or that policy or action to be “inherently evil” because they believe so strongly in them that any other point of view seems evil. But to my knowledge, none of their policies espouse “inherent evils”.

I include Ron Paul in that; though he is the primary candidate about whom I would have the greatest reservations. Among those, I include his seeming endorsement of legalization of prostitution, though his advocates claim his argument is one of federalism not libertinism; i.e., that he opposes prostitution but also opposes any federal-level measures to curb it. So defined, that’s a “how to”, not a “whether to”.

But if he is the Repub candidate in the general, I would feel compelled to support him against Obama because there is no proportionate reason to support Obama over him, since Obama promotes an “inherent evil”, specifically, abortion.

Abortion is a grave intrinsic evil. Some “pro-life” candidates support abortion in the case of rape or incest. This is a candidate who supports a grave intrinsic evil. It is permissible to vote for such a candidate only in the presence of proportional reasons i.e. reduced number of abortions with respect to other candidates.

 

[fred_conty]

The goodness of a moral reality is as good on one side as on the other.

The real question is, by whose conscience?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Then simply what are the proportionate reasons Cardinal Ratzinger mentions?

When we’re weighing between all of the same party and all claiming to be pro-life, not doubting any of them at this time, we see many rejecting other concerns voiced by the Church placing them at odds with Church ‘guidance’. Usually we hear, ‘we’re at liberty to disagree with the men of the Church on those issues’, or ‘that’s not an intrinsic evil’ from the various supporters of various candidates. Either they are teachings of Christ, through His Church, or they’re not. We are not allowed venial sins because proportionately they are not as bad as mortal sins. This is the time to seek out the best candidate possible, and for all the reasons spoken about by the men of the Church, irregardless of someone’s opinion that they are at liberty to disagree, or it’s not intrinsic. The other issues are important. Again, what are the proportionate reasons written about by Cardinal Ratzinger?

As I recall, he gave none. If he did, you can post them if you feel it important.

But for sure, he didn’t list America’s welfare system as one.

Are you really saying that, for example, opposition to the DREAM Act is a venial sin? In matters where prudential judgment are allowed, one can take a position without ANY sin at all, assuming one has truly attempted to inform himself and form his conscience concerning that issue. Now, I say that, realizing that Jesus said even the “just man” sins seven times/day.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

As I recall, he gave none. If he did, you can post them if you feel it important.

But for sure, he didn’t list America’s welfare system as one.

Are you really saying that, for example, opposition to the DREAM Act is a venial sin? In matters where prudential judgment are allowed, one can take a position without ANY sin at all, assuming one has truly attempted to inform himself and form his conscience concerning that issue. Now, I say that, realizing that Jesus said even the “just man” sins seven times/day.

I’m saying without a definition, or correction as some claim others were wrong, it appears to be up to individual consciences of what are proportionate reasons.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m saying without a definition, or correction as some claim others were wrong, it appears to be up to individual consciences of what are proportionate reasons.

Well, in the widest sense, every moral decision is up to individual consciences. An 18th Century Samurai, for instance, might have felt morally bound to kill himself after cutting off the head of someone who had given him slight offense. But objectively, neither would be a moral decision.

If one cannot see a moral difference between murdering an innocent child and, say, supporting abortion-promoting politicians because one agrees with those politicians’ particular proposed remedies for a high unemployment rate, for example, then it really has to be said that such a person has a great deal of conscience formation to do.

I would suggest that the burden is the other way around from what you suggest. The Pope has, indeed, told us that politically supporting abortion is a grave evil. He felt it so gravely evil that he felt compelled to tell us that, but did not feel compelled to do so about other political issues of our day. It is not the Pope’s duty to tell us what position the Church takes concerning every political issue of the day. To require that of the Pope is to twist his words in order to justify a surrender to moral relativism. It is our duty to utterly avoid those things which he warns us are gravely evil, period.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, in the widest sense, every moral decision is up to individual consciences. An 18th Century Samurai, for instance, might have felt morally bound to kill himself after cutting off the head of someone who had given him slight offense. But objectively, neither would be a moral decision.

The head of Christ’s Church on earth would certainly have spoken up a correction had he believed a wrong had been committed, especially on a scale people have said has taken place. We’ve heard nothing, not even instructions for even the possibility of a mass wrong that had taken place. It seems he gave the instructions and accepted that Catholics voted their consciences accordingly. The great majority of those that have spoken up about a great wrong, seemed to have done so for partisan reason.

 

[Ender]

I’m saying without a definition, or correction as some claim others were wrong, it appears to be up to individual consciences of what are proportionate reasons.

To believe this is to believe that words have no real meaning. It cannot be true that whatever I believe a proportionate reason to be, it is true simply because I believe it. To say that there is room for personal interpretation does not therefore mean that any interpretation is valid. So far, I haven’t seen a cogent argument that there is another moral issue proportionate to abortion.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

The head of Christ’s Church on earth would certainly have spoken up a correction had he believed a wrong had been committed, especially on a scale people have said has taken place. We’ve heard nothing, not even instructions for even the possibility of a mass wrong that had taken place. It seems he gave the instructions and accepted that Catholics voted their consciences accordingly. The great majority of those that have spoken up about a great wrong, seemed to have done so for partisan reason.

He certainly did speak up about abortion. What your post seemed to suggest is that he leaves “proportionate reason” up to the individual simply by not comparing abortion with every other political issue. When the Pope says something like abortion is a “grave evil” and “inherently evil”, what more do you need to hear him say? You either accept that or you don’t. If, then, he does not say, e.g., that supporting things like WIC are evil, or that opposing them is evil, one may reasonably conclude that he does not consider either their presence or absence a “grave evil” or an “inherent evil”, but simply one means among perhaps many that could be brought to bear to accomplish a worthwhile societal objective.

Do you really think the “great majority” of those who oppose abortion and abortion-supporting politicians are doing so for political reasons? I don’t know what evidence there is for that, and, in the absence thereof, and considering that they all pay a price for it, I don’t find that particular conclusion persuasive.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

He certainly did speak up about abortion. What your post seemed to suggest is that he leaves “proportionate reason” up to the individual simply by not comparing abortion with every other political issue. When the Pope says something like abortion is a “grave evil” and “inherently evil”, what more do you need to hear him say? You either accept that or you don’t. If, then, he does not say, e.g., that supporting things like WIC are evil, or that opposing them is evil, one may reasonably conclude that he does not consider either their presence or absence a “grave evil” or an “inherent evil”, but simply one means among perhaps many that could be brought to bear to accomplish a worthwhile societal objective.

Do you really think the “great majority” of those who oppose abortion and abortion-supporting politicians are doing so for political reasons? I don’t know what evidence there is for that, and, in the absence thereof, and considering that they all pay a price for it, I don’t find that particular conclusion persuasive.

He gave what appears to be a clear statement; however, after the election many said it was strict. It was not. It was not defined and there has been no correction.

The Church also teaches that one should follow their conscience, and to do otherwise puts one at risk for condemnation. It also teaches against forcing someone against their conscience.

There is a conflict, if we go by those who say it was strict and only one way. If that had been, the message would not have given any other options.

Now, some of those who say it was only one way for all, are promoting against immigration reform, social programs, including a universal healthcare. They demand the death penalty. mass deportation, etc. It has appearances of forcing through a very important issue. We cannot choose one issue and forget others, that people truly believe to be a part of Christian principles and expect the individual consciences to believe that is the total truth.

Then there was the issue of the last election. I, myself, found McCain to be untrustworthy, as I do any one partisan political party. But, that’s not acceptable to many as a proportionate reason. We cannot know what the future would have, or would not have, been if the election had gone differently, yet how many have said many things which appear to be an attempt to divide the Church on these forums? It’s as if the turnout gave license to drop charity against brothers and sisters. Scriptures tell us ‘charity in all things’, but people argue their right to act without charity because ‘it’s instructing’. It’s not. You cannot expect charity without using charity. Love does not come without love being expressed.

It is wrong to say these bishops are right and those bishops are wrong. We have one voice that leads us all, including bishops. I do not believe the one voice would remain silent if so many had risked communion with the Church, and their eternal salvation. Why hasn’t he saw the error and tried to correct those accused of such things? You can’t say these bishops are right and those bishops are wrong.

There cannot be a ‘lesser of two evils’ found in Christ’s teachings. He told people to ‘go and sin no more’. He said a ‘house divided cannot stand’. His messages were not as legalistic as some make the Church out to be. And if we accepted the real legalistic, it’s those without authority trying to be authoritative and impose their individual view of the legalism. We have an authoritative voice, why hasn’t he spoken out to correct what others say is a ‘grave travesty’? It’s that simple.

 

[Ender]

The Church also teaches that one should follow their conscience, and to do otherwise puts one at risk for condemnation.

The teaching here is a good bit more nuanced than “it’s ok to do whatever you want if your conscience is clear.”

Now, some of those who say it was only one way for all, are promoting against immigration reform, social programs, including a universal healthcare.

Two points: this claim is incorrect and these are prudential - not moral - issues. The Church has no doctrines on how to solve immigration problems and opposing your solution is not the same as “promoting against reform.”

We cannot choose one issue and forget others, that people truly believe to be a part of Christian principles and expect the individual consciences to believe that is the total truth.

Which other issues are comparable with abortion? You mentioned immigration, health care, and social programs. Do you consider them proportionate?

It is wrong to say these bishops are right and those bishops are wrong.

It is not wrong to point it out when anyone, including a bishop, says something that is untrue. It is not a question of my bishops vs your bishops; it is a question of truth vs error.

We have an authoritative voice, why hasn’t he spoken out to correct what others say is a ‘grave travesty’?

He did speak out. He said that cooperation with evil can be permitted if there is a proportionate reason to do so. I think we are expected to be able to figure out what that means. After all, he doesn’t tell us how to feed the hungry and heal the sick even as he gives us the charge to do so.

Stop dancing around the issue. What do you consider a proportionate reason to support a politician who supports abortion?

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The teaching here is a good bit more nuanced than “it’s ok to do whatever you want if your conscience is clear.”
Two points: this claim is incorrect and these are prudential - not moral - issues. The Church has no doctrines on how to solve immigration problems and opposing your solution is not the same as “promoting against reform.”
Which other issues are comparable with abortion? You mentioned immigration, health care, and social programs. Do you consider them proportionate?

Without a definition of ‘proportionate reasons’, as used by the author of this particular writing, it is subject to interpretation. I agree that’s it’s more than whatever you want, if your conscience is clear. Where disagreement enters in is when another person perceives their own conscience to override another person’s conscience. That is tricky and needs to be handled so that you are not forcing another against their conscience.

The same thoughts come as one makes claims of what’s prudential and what’s moral, especially when it appears the ones making the claims has ‘conveniently’ interpreted to fit their views. Reality for me is to fit the view to the teaching, and even then discernment is required of all things.

It is not wrong to point it out when anyone, including a bishop, says something that is untrue. It is not a question of my bishops vs your bishops; it is a question of truth vs error.
He did speak out. He said that cooperation with evil can be permitted if there is a proportionate reason to do so. I think we are expected to be able to figure out what that means. After all, he doesn’t tell us how to feed the hungry and heal the sick even as he gives us the charge to do so.

Stop dancing around the issue. What do you consider a proportionate reason to support a politician who supports abortion?

Ender

Bishop vs. bishop, truth vs. error, is the same thing. It’s a person without authority in the Church making the determination that these bishops are right and those bishops are wrong, even when changed to say these bishops speak truth and those bishops speak error.

If we are expected to figure out what that means, and no correction came it seems all did as instructed.

There is no dancing around an issue. If there is a dance, it comes equally from both sides of an argument between two who have no authority in the Church. If this is the best you can approach the discussion, maybe you should leave it to others who would truly try, with charity, to help us ‘sort it all out’.

I would love to see the Pope’s definition of proportionate reasons to put this type discussion to rest. You cannot say, he spoke the truth, you just didn’t get it, because no correction has come. It would be the earthly highest authority leaving the correction to those without authority in the Church. It just goes against common sense to think that’s the way it is. It seems the lack of a correction should tell us that no correction is necessary.

We believe in ‘baptism of desire’, the same can apply to desiring to follow Christ correctly, even if it truly was in error it is right. Even then a correction may be necessary, but it cannot come from a non-authoritative opinion, that also could be desiring correctly, but in error. Correction cannot come from the clergy, if the clergy are not of the same mind and judgment. There is one voice over all Catholics, bishops included. If that one voice does not speak a correction, it is correct for each to form their consciences and make decisions accordingly.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Without a definition of ‘proportionate reasons’, as used by the author of this particular writing, it is subject to interpretation. I agree that’s it’s more than whatever you want, if your conscience is clear. Where disagreement enters in is when another person perceives their own conscience to override another person’s conscience. That is tricky and needs to be handled so that you are not forcing another against their conscience.

The same thoughts come as one makes claims of what’s prudential and what’s moral, especially when it appears the ones making the claims has ‘conveniently’ interpreted to fit their views. Reality for me is to fit the view to the teaching, and even then discernment is required of all things.

Bishop vs. bishop, truth vs. error, is the same thing. It’s a person without authority in the Church making the determination that these bishops are right and those bishops are wrong, even when changed to say these bishops speak truth and those bishops speak error.

If we are expected to figure out what that means, and no correction came it seems all did as instructed.

There is no dancing around an issue. If there is a dance, it comes equally from both sides of an argument between two who have no authority in the Church. If this is the best you can approach the discussion, maybe you should leave it to others who would truly try, with charity, to help us ‘sort it all out’.

I would love to see the Pope’s definition of proportionate reasons to put this type discussion to rest. You cannot say, he spoke the truth, you just didn’t get it, because no correction has come. It would be the earthly highest authority leaving the correction to those without authority in the Church. It just goes against common sense to think that’s the way it is. It seems the lack of a correction should tell us that no correction is necessary.

We believe in ‘baptism of desire’, the same can apply to desiring to follow Christ correctly, even if it truly was in error it is right. Even then a correction may be necessary, but it cannot come from a non-authoritative opinion, that also could be desiring correctly, but in error. Correction cannot come from the clergy, if the clergy are not of the same mind and judgment. There is one voice over all Catholics, bishops included. If that one voice does not speak a correction, it is correct for each to form their consciences and make decisions accordingly.

There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between this view and the protestant view that conscience is supreme. In no way is this a Catholic position.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between this view and the protestant view that conscience is supreme. In no way is this a Catholic position.

Submitting one’s self to the one voice of the Catholic Church is a protestant view? I don’t think so. It’s more protestant to pick and choose what you’re willing to believe.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Submitting one’s self to the one voice of the Catholic Church is a protestant view? I don’t think so. It’s more protestant to pick and choose what you’re willing to believe.

Nosir. Unless I completely misunderstood you, what you’re saying is that determining “proportionate reason” is totally up to the individual conscience. In other words, and in this context, I may determine myself whether supporting something the Church leaves in the realm of “prudential judgment”, should be elevated to the same level as supporting something the Church declares to be “inherently evil”. That is “supremacy of conscience” and is as protestant as protestant gets. But for that, protestantism would almost certainly not exist at all.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Nosir. Unless I completely misunderstood you, what you’re saying is that determining “proportionate reason” is totally up to the individual conscience. In other words, and in this context, I may determine myself whether supporting something the Church leaves in the realm of “prudential judgment”, should be elevated to the same level as supporting something the Church declares to be “inherently evil”. That is “supremacy of conscience” and is as protestant as protestant gets. But for that, protestantism would almost certainly not exist at all.

Determining proportionate reasons is under Church guidance, the same as forming a faith based conscience. What seems to be proposed is finding an agreeing bishop and declaring that as enough. All Catholics are guided by the same shepherd. He hasn’t said a correction was needed on the issue of proportionate reasons. I, and I imagine a majority of Catholics, would submit to what the Pope has to say. The problem is, he hasn’t spoken on a necessary correction. Either a correction is needed, or it is not. I believe it’s not, because he hasn’t spoken of one.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Determining proportionate reasons is under Church guidance, the same as forming a faith based conscience. What seems to be proposed is finding an agreeing bishop and declaring that as enough. All Catholics are guided by the same shepherd. He hasn’t said a correction was needed on the issue of proportionate reasons. I, and I imagine a majority of Catholics, would submit to what the Pope has to say. The problem is, he hasn’t spoken on a necessary correction. Either a correction is needed, or it is not. I believe it’s not, because he hasn’t spoken of one.

I do understand that some desire, fervently, to justify supporting politicians who support the 'grave evil" of abortion by putting it on the same par with some social policy one feels strongly about, but about which we are free, in conscience, to exercise prudential judgment. It just doesn’t work within the context of Catholicism. It just isn’t Catholic at all. It’s defying the Magesterium in favor of one’s political inclinations and claiming they’re on equal footing.