To be fair, I could dissect the Republican Party platform with regards to other elements of Church doctrine, but none of them are as essential as the right to life and the sanctity of marriage, which the Republican party has right.
I believe in the integrity and the worth of the enterprise from which I accept money.
I’m pretty sure most business owners say the exact same thing.
Here’s what Cardinal Ratzinger said in July 2004 on the subject of voting for a political candidate who is pro-choice:
How do you square your support for a candidate who wants to keep the act of sucking unborn babies out of the womb with a vacuum legal, and the above statement? Do you seriously think that there is a more important issue than protecting the unborn currently? What, school lunches for kids? Please let us know what “proportional reasons” you have for supporting the most pro-abortion president in history.
Shouldn’t it be the case that Catholic women should show the way to others in society with regard to contraception and abortion? However, is it not true that the percentage of Catholic women who either use contraception or who abort is roughly the same as in the population at large?
“Yet another proof”
It is curious that some of those who support Gingrich accept the way that the media is portraying Michelle Bachmann in unflattering photos which they say make her look bad. I don;t think she looks bad at all. I would say she looks great next to some of the other candidates.
It’s true that the Republican Party Platform on those vital moral issues is better. Unfortunately, I do not believe any of the mainstream candidates really believe in the platform or have gone out on a limb to advocate those issues in a substantive way. They simply pay lip service. So you’re left with a directly morally evil party, democrats, or a deceptive evil party, republicans. No thanks.
You can not use that quote from Pope Benedict as an excuse for you or other Catholics to vote for Obama, because the definition of reasons specified as “proportionate reasons” are not given.
Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or aids, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.
There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.
Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: Candidate A, who is completely for abortion-on-demand, Candidate B, who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion, and Candidate C, a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable. The Catholic voter cannot vote for Candidate A because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation which would remove restrictions on abortion-on-demand. The Catholic can vote for Candidate C but that will probably only help ensure the election of Candidate A. Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for Candidate B, since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of Candidate A and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if Candidate B is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances*.Proportionate rEason has been explained repeatedly by the Church as a candidates opponent being more pro- abortion than they are. If you can fin one single member of the Magestruim that supports you definition please Do so. As usual in these discussions one side posts voluminous documentation of Chirch teaching while the other side posts opinions and out of context snippets that they demand we accept their personal interpretation of.
You are still guilty of material cooperation in the continuation of abortion. I hope that sits well with you. So, like I said, which of the other reasons makes the Democrats more appealing, in light of their glowing support of the right to kill the unborn? Same Sex Marriage? Disregard of personal property rights? Embryonic Stem Cell research?
Alan, thank you for explaining voting so well in your recent posts. And for then Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement.
This isn’t the first time that Romney has articulated this position, and I agree with him 100%. There is nothing inconsistent about supporting a state solution but opposing the same solution at the federal level. It is an example of the principle of subsidiarity.
*This could not mean . . . that support for a pro-abortion . . . candidate could be justified by his support for economic proposals, whether of a ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ character. The protection of life is greater than the protection or redistribution of wealth [CCC #2197-2198]. **Cardinal Ratzinger had already affirmed the priority of protecting innocent life when he stated that ‘not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia**.
**Cardinal Ratzinger’s remark would have to mean that support for a pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia candidate could only be licit where the alternative was more detrimental to the defense of innocent life**. A candidate who supports legal abortion with a number of restrictions would be proportionately better than a candidate who supports abortion “on demand.”*