It is a Sin to Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates

[CMatt25]

What was said was we must vote for the candidate that stands for the lesser evil. Many became confused and using their own fallible conscience voted for economic reasons (I would imagine most voted for this reason), or because they are against war, or the death penalty, or because s/he thought the environment would be saved… But to vote for economic reasons, or any of the other issues seems very short sighted to me… The world is upside down.

That’s exactly right. It seems short sighted to YOU. You can not assume another’s conscience is any more fallible than your own. But I will agree with your last sentence. The world is upside down. We just differ on what priorities should be on the upside. Peace.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Don’t get snippy with me lady.

Don’t order me around. I’m not your servant, nor was I “snippy.” You’re out of line, and you’ve been reported.

Check other sources.

No. That’s not the way an intellectual challenge works. You’re the one challenging the VP of Moral Theology of Catholic Answers, but you don’t have the courage to do it directly. You’d rather use destruction politics on the messengers of the radio program. I’m not the one challenging him; you are. So you challenge him, not me.

Further, I’m confident that he’s right, since I also have an extensive background in classic moral theology, and nothing he says does not ring true with solid, traditional Catholic theology. Catholic theology was not born 10 years ago or 20 years ago. It didn’t originate with a particular Pope or any particular modern cleric, or in the modern political era. Only someone not grounded in Catholic theology would find what C.D. said surprising.

You still haven’t given me a source where I can get a copy of what he said, so I know for myself what he stated. Is there such a source?

I have told you repeatedly. One. More. Time. Check with EWTN to se if they have a podcast of Patrick Coffin’s Thursday show. I doubt they offer transcripts, but you can ask.

 

[Elizabeth502]

There are many errant theologians, who for some reason, do not understand, nor do they abide by the teachings of the Church. Pope Benedict XVI is busy cleaning house. A theologian in name only, does not a theologian make. Many have been mislead by these addled ones.

Given that your question followed my discussion of only Colin Donovan, are you suggesting that he is a theologian in name only? Or “an errant theologian”? Because if you’re not suggesting that, then the words above in the box are irrelevant to this portion of the thread, which is a discussion about a particular EWTN radio show segment on a particular day and time…

 

[Elizabeth502]

Are you sure? Have you done some comparison reading, listening? The time for blindly following should be past.

What an ironic statement. I’m not the one following blindly. That’s the favorite pasttime of certain others on CAF.

(Yes, I’ve done comparison reading and listening. Catholic moral theology is distinctly different than other moral systems, including those that are also highly structured and analytical. It would be O/T to go into them here.)

 

[elts1956]

That is not necessarily true.

Why yes of course.

As you are apparently in the United States, I highly recommend you consult the USCCB’s “Faithful Citizenship” website to find out what the U.S. Bishops teach about these issues. faithfulcitizenship.org/

Hi, haven’t found the quote given by Pope John Paul II regarding the disproportion between other issues and abortion. As soon as I find it, I will post it.

In the meantime here is more food for thought.

A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters
Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD origin.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm
origin.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm
A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters
Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD origin.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

1. Isn’t conscience the same as my own opinions and feelings? And doesn’t everyone have the right to his or her own conscience?Conscience is NOT the same as your opinions or feelings. Conscience cannot be identical with your feelings because conscience is the activity of your intellect in judging the rightness or wrongness of your actions or omissions, past, present, or future, while your feelings come from another part of your soul and should be governed by your intellect and will. Conscience is not identical with your opinions because your intellect bases its judgment upon the natural moral law, which is inherent in your human nature and is identical with the Ten Commandments. Unlike the civil laws made by legislators, or the opinions that you hold, the natural moral law is not anything that you invent, but rather discover within yourself and is the governing norm of your conscience. In short, Conscience is the voice of truth within you, and your opinions need to be in harmony with that truth. As a Catholic, you have the benefit of the Church’s teaching authority or Magisterium endowed upon her by Christ. The Magisterium assists you and all people of good will in understanding the natural moral law as it relates to specific issues. As a Catholic, you have the obligation to be correctly informed and normed by the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium. As for your feelings, they need to be educated by virtue so as to be in harmony with conscience’s voice of truth. In this way, you will have a sound conscience, according to which we you will feel guilty when you are guilty, and feel morally upright when you are morally upright. We should strive to avoid the two opposite extremes of a lax conscience and a scrupulous conscience. Meeting the obligation of continually attending to this formation of conscience will increase the likelihood that, in the actual operation or activity of conscience, you will act with a certain conscience, which clearly perceives that a given concrete action is a good action that was rightly done or should be done. Being correctly informed and certain in the actual operation of conscience is the goal of the continuing formation of conscience. Otherwise put, you should strive to avoid being incorrectly informed and doubtful in the actual judgment of conscience about a particular action or omission. You should never act on a doubtful conscience.
2. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate’s other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.
   COPYRIGHT © 2002

Number 14 was stated by many Bishops during the 2008 POTUS election.

 

[estesbob]

Hi, haven’t found the quote given by Pope John Paul II regarding the disproportion between other issues and abortion. As soon as I find it, I will post it.
.

Here it is:

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, 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.

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

I have posted this to this thread at least twice before and I can tell you that for those who put their political views before their Faith it wont matter.

We have posted direct links to the Pope, Bishops, Caridinals, the Cathecism and vatican documents . The rebuttal has been:

I heard different on the radio
The Church is wrong-Jesus revealed the real answer to me
My Priest told me it was OK
Catholics have to follow their conscience above all else

I suspect , like you, the only reson I keep posting on this is to make sure that someone who stumbles into this thread wont be led astray by false teaching.

 

[CMatt25]

Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate’s other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.
COPYRIGHT © 2002

Number 14 was stated by many Bishops during the 2008 POTUS election.

So the bishops now stick their noses into our private voting booths as well as our bedrooms and wombs to declare their definition of mortal sin? There does seem to be some conflict between your post and Elts1956 saying that of course the bishops did not tell us to vote Republican.

But I guess if the bishops are going to decide for our consciences what is more evil, an abortion to protect the health and life of a mother or in cases of rape and incest vs not caring for the sick, George Bush authorizing the killing of people on death row in TX even though the Church teaches it is indeed rare to need to do so, and so forth, there ya go.

 

[CWBetts]

So the bishops now stick their noses into our private voting booths as well as our bedrooms and wombs to declare their definition of mortal sin? There does seem to be some conflict between your post and Elts1956 saying that of course the bishops did not tell us to vote Republican.

But I guess if the bishops are going to decide for our consciences what is more evil, an abortion to protect the health and life of a mother or in cases of rape and incest vs not caring for the sick, George Bush authorizing the killing of people on death row in TX even though the Church teaches it is indeed rare to need to do so, and so forth, there ya go.

Our faith is not just for showing up on Sunday. It should dictate our lives, and yes it shoul influence the way we vote.

 

[CMatt25]

Our faith is not just for showing up on Sunday. It should dictate our lives, and yes it shoul influence the way we vote.

No argument from me there. Peace.

 

[CPA2]

So the bishops now stick their noses into our private voting booths as well as our bedrooms and wombs to declare their definition of mortal sin? There does seem to be some conflict between your post and Elts1956 saying that of course the bishops did not tell us to vote Republican.

But I guess if the bishops are going to decide for our consciences what is more evil, an abortion to protect the health and life of a mother or in cases of rape and incest vs not caring for the sick, George Bush authorizing the killing of people on death row in TX even though the Church teaches it is indeed rare to need to do so, and so forth, there ya go.

It is not even close. Abortion is the greatest evil!

I too do not believe that capital punishment should not be used and I would like to see the death penalty abolished. However, as someone has already mentioned, there is a vast difference between capital punishment and abortion.

Capital punishment, by definition, is carried out on the guilty. Abortion, by definition, is carried out on the innocent. Capital punishment can sometimes be justified for the protection of life. A criminal poses a threat to society. Abortion can never be justified. A tiny baby growing in the womb never poses a threat to society.

More people have been killed by abortion than were ever killed by capital punishment. The estimates are that 48 million babies in the United States have been killed by abortion since Roe vs. Wade. That is over 4,000 murders per day. I have heard that 43% of the women under 45 years old have had an abortion. If you do not know someone who has had an abortion, chances are that they did not tell you.

“Abortion is legalized murder.” “Life should be protected.” Abortion violates the most fundamental right, the right to life. We, as a nation, have yet to recognize that right. Just because the abortionists do not recognize the unborn as a person, does not lessen our obligation to speak out on behalf of the victims

Abortion is evil. It can never be justified. No circumstances can ever make it right. There are no compromises to abortion. The right to life is non negotiable. Nobody can practice abortion. It is the duty of the state to protect its citizens, even by force. We have the bible and 2000 years of the teaching of the Catholic Church to back us up. “You shall not kill” applies unequivocally to the unborn, without exceptions!

 

[diggerdomer]

I have read it. It is a convoluted mess.

Maybe you need someone to help you understand it? I find it really straightforward and helpful. Maybe your parish priest, or someone else informed on these issues on your parish staff could help?

 

[diggerdomer]

Hi, haven’t found the quote given by Pope John Paul II regarding the disproportion between other issues and abortion. As soon as I find it, I will post it.

In the meantime here is more food for thought.

A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters
Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD origin.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm
origin.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm
A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters
Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD origin.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

1. Isn’t conscience the same as my own opinions and feelings? And doesn’t everyone have the right to his or her own conscience?Conscience is NOT the same as your opinions or feelings. Conscience cannot be identical with your feelings because conscience is the activity of your intellect in judging the rightness or wrongness of your actions or omissions, past, present, or future, while your feelings come from another part of your soul and should be governed by your intellect and will. Conscience is not identical with your opinions because your intellect bases its judgment upon the natural moral law, which is inherent in your human nature and is identical with the Ten Commandments. Unlike the civil laws made by legislators, or the opinions that you hold, the natural moral law is not anything that you invent, but rather discover within yourself and is the governing norm of your conscience. In short, Conscience is the voice of truth within you, and your opinions need to be in harmony with that truth. As a Catholic, you have the benefit of the Church’s teaching authority or Magisterium endowed upon her by Christ. The Magisterium assists you and all people of good will in understanding the natural moral law as it relates to specific issues. As a Catholic, you have the obligation to be correctly informed and normed by the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium. As for your feelings, they need to be educated by virtue so as to be in harmony with conscience’s voice of truth. In this way, you will have a sound conscience, according to which we you will feel guilty when you are guilty, and feel morally upright when you are morally upright. We should strive to avoid the two opposite extremes of a lax conscience and a scrupulous conscience. Meeting the obligation of continually attending to this formation of conscience will increase the likelihood that, in the actual operation or activity of conscience, you will act with a certain conscience, which clearly perceives that a given concrete action is a good action that was rightly done or should be done. Being correctly informed and certain in the actual operation of conscience is the goal of the continuing formation of conscience. Otherwise put, you should strive to avoid being incorrectly informed and doubtful in the actual judgment of conscience about a particular action or omission. You should never act on a doubtful conscience.
2. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate’s other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.
   COPYRIGHT © 2002

Number 14 was stated by many Bishops during the 2008 POTUS election.

I still defer to the teaching and formation of conscience provided by the US Bishops, as opposed to individuals’ personal opinions and thoughts. Thanks, though.

 

[CMatt25]

It is not even close. Abortion is the greatest evil!

I too do not believe that capital punishment should not be used and I would like to see the death penalty abolished. However, as someone has already mentioned, there is a vast difference between capital punishment and abortion.

Capital punishment, by definition, is carried out on the guilty. Abortion, by definition, is carried out on the innocent. Capital punishment can sometimes be justified for the protection of life. A criminal poses a threat to society. Abortion can never be justified. A tiny baby growing in the womb never poses a threat to society.

More people have been killed by abortion than were ever killed by capital punishment. The estimates are that 48 million babies in the United States have been killed by abortion since Roe vs. Wade. That is over 4,000 murders per day. I have heard that 43% of the women under 45 years old have had an abortion. If you do not know someone who has had an abortion, chances are that they did not tell you.

“Abortion is legalized murder.” “Life should be protected.” Abortion violates the most fundamental right, the right to life. We, as a nation, have yet to recognize that right. Just because the abortionists do not recognize the unborn as a person, does not lessen our obligation to speak out on behalf of the victims

Abortion is evil. It can never be justified. No circumstances can ever make it right. There are no compromises to abortion. The right to life is non negotiable. Nobody can practice abortion. It is the duty of the state to protect its citizens, even by force. We have the bible and 2000 years of the teaching of the Catholic Church to back us up. “You shall not kill” applies unequivocally to the unborn, without exceptions!

CPA, you state the Catholic Church’s views and definitions and interpretations and interpretation of Herself and your views regarding abortion and politics very well. I don’t follow the Church as well as you when it comes to what She emphasizes today in politics. My emphasis is elsewhere in what Christ spoke more directly to us on. And it are those things in which I most carry to my politics. We will have to agree to disagree. God bless you and peace.

 

[elts1956]

So the bishops now stick their noses into our private voting booths as well as our bedrooms and wombs to declare their definition of mortal sin? There does seem to be some conflict between your post and Elts1956 saying that of course the bishops did not tell us to vote Republican.

But I guess if the bishops are going to decide for our consciences what is more evil, an abortion to protect the health and life of a mother or in cases of rape and incest vs not caring for the sick, George Bush authorizing the killing of people on death row in TX even though the Church teaches it is indeed rare to need to do so, and so forth, there ya go.

Just to make myself feel good, I will say I didn’t vote for Bush the first time around. I thought the death penalty was terrible in TX. But then I woke up and looked at the hierarchy of good and evil and decided the unborn need more protection than a likely criminal on death row.

NOTHING can compare with the killing of innocent, vulnerable babes in the womb. bo even advocates partial birth abortion. How does that stack up against adults who have made choices in their lives and have to take responsibility for them.

Well if you are a dyed in the wool Dem, or Pub. and not looking at the moral issues I suppose you could say the Bishops are sticking their noses into the confessional, BUT NOT INTO THE VOTING BOOTH. AGAIN, the directions WERE that we needed to vote for the candidate least likely to promote abortion. You can’t have it both ways. You can either have the leadership of the Magisterium, or you can fumble around with your conscience. Luckily for me, my conscience coincided with what the Magisterium directs. So far I haven’t gotten way laid by relativism, proportionalism, or minimalism.

Forget Bush, bo, Clinton, Carter ad naseum. Check out what the Church really says. We must protect the innocent unborn, the elderly, the ill, the disabled from conception to natural death. If you have read anything of the Terry Schievo case, you will recognize evil at first glance. Is this what you want for your children, grandchildren, if you have any? I am not being neurotic. In 1973 Roe vs. Wade was passed. We tried to fight it, but unfortunately didn’t have the resources we now have. At that time, the leader of our Right to Life Group told us, abortion now and euthanasia will be coming. It took some time and our indifference, but there are at least three states that have passed pro assisted suicide laws. Is this protecting the weak? I do not understand anyone who puts politics above morals and Church teaching. You can gripe all you want, but the TRUTH will not change. The Church will, at her core, no matter what some errant clergy and laity say,continue to teach what she has taught for over 2000 years.

mayimhayim.org/Academic%20Stuff/Abortion.htm

justthefacts.org/clar.asp

The Church of Yeshua Messiah (Jesus Christ) has always condemned the sin of abortion as pure evil, a sin right from the very pit of hell its self. Believers in Yeshua Messiah during the first-century wrote about it in work entitled the Didache, a first-century document. This page will show it, and other writing that show it as pure sin. Fortunately, abortion like all sins, is a forgivable sin when one asks God for that gift of forgiveness found in Yeshua’s holy name and by His blood. Forgiveness is near and dear to God because God’s mercy has no shoreline. Think of that, no shoreline! Our merciful God wants you to know the facts on the taking of a life of the unborn

The Didache

"And this is the second commandment of the teaching. Thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not corrupt boys. Thou shalt not commit fornication. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not deal in magic. Thou shalt do no sorcery. Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods. Thou shalt not perjure thyself, nor shalt you bear false witness. Thou shalt not speak evil. Thou shalt not cherish a grudge, and thou shalt not be double-minded nor double-tongued. (Didache 2:1–2 A.D. 50-80

 

[elts1956]

Given that your question followed my discussion of only Colin Donovan, are you suggesting that he is a theologian in name only? Or “an errant theologian”? Because if you’re not suggesting that, then the words above in the box are irrelevant to this portion of the thread, which is a discussion about a particular EWTN radio show segment on a particular day and time…

I do believe I have asked you for your post # where you quote Colin Donovan from the radio show. I would appreciate your letting me know that. Thanks.

 

[elts1956]

Given that your question followed my discussion of only Colin Donovan, are you suggesting that he is a theologian in name only? Or “an errant theologian”? Because if you’re not suggesting that, then the words above in the box are irrelevant to this portion of the thread, which is a discussion about a particular EWTN radio show segment on a particular day and time…

Nowhere is this more true than on CAF, where the single-issue fanatics choose to hear only the most extreme statements than fit within their own moral, political, and religious agendas, rather than understanding fully the entire theology of the Roman Catholic Church.

I made no statement that the subject of the call was “a vote for Obama.” The subject was the theoretical situation of a decision to vote based both on moral positions of the candidates and the likelihood of a particular “morally best” candidate winning.

Moral theology in the Catholic Church is wonderful and complex. It’s not a list of military orders. It’s an entire, unified system. Although anyone who has studied all the classic moral theology of the Church — from the Fathers, the Doctors, and forward from that – does know how it fits together. Donovan often talks about this on his various radio shows. But unless one has been trained also in philosophy (some of us have been), it takes some careful, non-reactive listening to understand how the pieces fit together within that unified system.

You may call me a single issue fanatic if you wish. But then that would make the Bishops, at least those who spoke out against voting for a party promoting abortion in the last POTUS election, single issue fanatics too. I think I am in good company. They know their faith and their theology. Now those who did not guide their sheep by directly telling them if they voted for the abortion platform just didn’t have the spine to stand up and tell their people what was in effect, that abortion was the most evil single issue on the ballot of the Dem. party. Before you call me a Pub. let me assure you my name is on the Dem. list. Gasp yes, I have voted Dem. before I got rid of my stupid pills. Neither do I consider that I am affiliated with the Pub. party. I consider myself an independent who votes Catholic moral issues, abortion being the most important in this past POTUS election.

Morally best? Hierarchy of good and evil? That is why bo didn’t get my vote.

 

[elts1956]

It also depends on comparative factors – who else is running. One is allowed to calculate the practical results of that vote in the particular election, according to the VP of Moral Theology for Catholic Answers, Colin Donovan. (Not sure if I spelled his name right.) He was on CA Live today, on Patrick Coffin’s show.

Here it is:

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, 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.

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

I have posted this to this thread at least twice before and I can tell you that for those who put their political views before their Faith it wont matter.

We have posted direct links to the Pope, Bishops, Caridinals, the Cathecism and vatican documents . The rebuttal has been:

I heard different on the radio
The Church is wrong-Jesus revealed the real answer to me
My Priest told me it was OK
Catholics have to follow their conscience above all else

I suspect , like you, the only reson I keep posting on this is to make sure that someone who stumbles into this thread wont be led astray by false teaching.

Hi estes. Thanks for the post. That isn’t the one I am looking for. I thought it was in Evangelium Vitae, but I have looked and looked and don’t see it. It is one of my favorite quotes and I copy and save it every time I see it. But can I find it???Nooooooooooooooo, of course not.

He said something like material things such as food, clothing, shelter do not matter unless life itself is dignified. Sound familiar at all?

 

[elts1956]

Maybe you need someone to help you understand it? I find it really straightforward and helpful. Maybe your parish priest, or someone else informed on these issues on your parish staff could help?

Of course it’s straightforward in their lingo. Nothing definite. No hierarchy of evil emphasized. First they mention abortion and then in the next para. they say something like “Of course other issues (of social justice) should not be ignored.” Now how does that clear one’s mind? If one decided to vote in the past election because of economic, or other Prudential issues one had the clear go ahead from these guys. As I said ,a convoluted mess in which they say nothing.

People needed clear concise guidance in this past election. Most parishes didn’t get it, because most of the Bishops were sitting on their hands trying to molify the pols.

 

[elts1956]

Maybe you need someone to help you understand it? I find it really straightforward and helpful. Maybe your parish priest, or someone else informed on these issues on your parish staff could help?

Given that your question followed my discussion of only Colin Donovan, are you suggesting that he is a theologian in name only? Or “an errant theologian”? Because if you’re not suggesting that, then the words above in the box are irrelevant to this portion of the thread, which is a discussion about a particular EWTN radio show segment on a particular day and time…

I would really really appreciate seeing the full context of Colin Donovan’s statement so I can know what you are saying. I have looked through your posts, but have found only bits and pieces.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I would really really appreciate seeing the full context of Colin Donovan’s statement so I can know what you are saying. I have looked through your posts, but have found only bits and pieces.

elts, thank you for your respectful tone. I’m not trying to be difficult or evasive. I was on a road trip at the time, listening on the radio, trying to keep my attention on the road, and obviously not taking notes. Truth be told, I was suprised and pleased that my local EWTN feed carried that far! Iin fact, I was shocked.

A caller called in and asked about the hypothetical of one candidate being slightly, or even greatly, more pro-life than another, or two others, but having virtually no chance of winning. Donovan went into an explanation of how weighing practical results can legitimately influence one’s voting decisions, so that then you have to look at less harm, or less evil, or however he put it, given extremely likely outcomes in a political contest. I hesitate to quote because I was unable to write things down without endangering self and other drivers, even though I had a notepad handy. That’s why I say, if I were curious about the literal content, I would call EWTN and ask for the podcast (which might already be available oline), or ask if they have printed transcripts available by mail for a fee, for example.

I wish I could be more specific. Donovan likes to reference the theoretical, as that is his expertise, so that’s why I said earlier: he usually first gets the important details or context of the question from the caller, then gives the appropriate Catholic answer, then expounds further on the Catholic reasoning behind that – often comparing and contrasting different hypotheticals, which does help to frame it for the listener, making the specific question and answer more concrete. I’ve never heard a listener say that Donovan’s explanations are confusing or hard to understand; they almost always say that providing such contexts helps to understand the answer better. He gives examples, then explains why Example A is a good or bad choice (moral or immoral), Example B is the opposite (and why, in the dynamic of moral theology & philosophy), etc.