If you think Catholics are required to throw their vote away on non-viable candidates then you should do so .But as Bishop Kicanas points out voting often requires us to make tough choices and one of those would be to choose a viable candidate over one who is more in line with Catholic teaching on abortion but has no chance whatsoever to win .
Once again you’re asking us to rely upon your personal interpretation of what Bishop Kicanas “meant” Can you point out a single instance where Bishop Kicanas or any other member of the magisterium specifically stated it was licit for a Catholic to vote for pro-abortion candidate when a more pro-life alternative was available ?
Will you be burning your social security checks later in life?
I can understand StinkCat’s concern though. According to Bishop Vasas, “Just as a vote for a genocidal maniac is a vote for genocide and a vote for the avowed torturer is a vote for torture … so a vote for a promoter of abortion, when there is another less evil alternative, is a vote for abortion.”
Voting for “the lesser if two evils” is capitulation, pure and simple.
It is so discouraging to see people interpret what a person, in this case a bishop, means when he makes a statement. Seems like reading into the statement what one wants to hear. I have always been taught that abortion is a mortal sin and to cooperate in that sin is, in itself, a sin. When did the teachings of the church change?
Of course, I don’t want any reader to rely on my personal interpretation as I’m sure you wouldn’t want any reader to rely on your personal interpretation. I think everyone should read all the resources available to them including the Forming Consciences document and what individual bishops and decide for themselves what they mean.
It is not clear that voting for a pro-choice politician is material cooperation with evil and hence a sin. But I do agree, many around here do read into a statement what they want to hear.
I am not asking for your opinion, but for Church teaching on the issue. Cite some documents. You have stated before that there are no proportionate reasons for voting for a pro-abortion candidate when a pro-life candidate is available.
So there are proportionate reasons for voting for a pro-abortion candidate?
And it begs the question of the morality of voting for trump as well. Would voting for trump, who supports torture and summary execution of the families of “suspected” terrorists not be material cooperation with evil?
I don’t know. But, by Bishop Vasas’ statement, you would clearly be a supporter of torture and summary execution of families.
Exactly.
As always it is best to let’ a member of the Magestrium to explain:
Since President Bush was that election, then we can measure how many innocent lives were saved by legislation restricting abortion on demand. What? No legislation. Well, at least we got some unjust wars and torture out of the deal.
While one could vote for Bush, there was no moral obligation to vote for Bush. While one may vote for most republicans, not on their own merits, but because they are a lessor evil. One is not morally obligated to vote for a republican.
Was he the lessor evil?
Unfortunately many do this and then come into Catholic forums and continually mistate Catholic teaching to buttress their personal political views. Lest other Catholics be misled it necessary to refute them with direct quotes from members of the Magestruim and Vatican documents. A Catholic simply cannot vote for pro-abortion candidate unless their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. I have yet to see anyone be able to refute this simple statement with anything other than their personal interpretation of a few linesc of a USCCB document and an interview with a Bishop where the assertion is we are not to look at what he says but what he doesn’t say
No one ever said we are morally obligated to vote for Republican. Party is totally irrelevant .
Of course bad for the billionaires. They have to start paying taxes
