Personal moral character is not unimportant, as it obviously informs the candidates appreciation of the moral dimension of public issues, but it is the stated commitment to public policy in keeping with the common good which is the most significant factor.
Its important to note that there is a caveat, moral character is not
unimportant which would imply if someone has a history of lying 100% of the time, then the moral character can be taken into account when trusting the person. However, since an administration is composed of multiple people that each with some form of power, it is less important. (That is also described later in the article).
And though Benedict never explicitly held that there are negotiable values (and Francis affirmed that no values are negotiable), there are situations and instances were the issue is more complex. For example, abortion is wrong in all cases, no matter what. That is a non-negotiable issue because it is an intrinsic evil and there is no form of justification that makes it right. Thievery on the other hand, can be justified, if a family is starving to death, and they’re only method of survival is to steal something, then that is the lesser of two evils. This would be a negotiable issue. Or, something that has many complex conflicting values. So something like the death penalty is wrong, but in some extreme examples its justified. So its considered negotiable. Here’s a good article on proportionality I’d recommend giving it a read:
Proportionality and Voting: What Is Non-Negotiable?| National Catholic Register
Though I agree with you that in order for abortion to be effectively eliminated we need to change the culture and hearts of the American people, that doesn’t justify voting for a candidate that supports abortion. (That’s also mentioned in the article) While we work on changing our culture, we must also actively work to protect the unborn. Also, I believe reversing roe v wade would effect federal law, so that would make abortion illegal in every state, but thats besides the point. That means putting politicians in power that can do anything to prevent an innocent child from being killed. The intent of saving an unborn child, acting on it by putting someone in power who can do that, then the outcome of protecting that child is a good action. You also have to note, that the action of killing an unborn baby is far worse then the de-humanizing actions and statements of a politician. Again back to the negotiable example, those actions or statements aren’t intrinsically evil like abortion is, they are instead (for the most part) actions that can be justified in certain conditions. (lesser of two evils) Finally, election pro choice positions is not only wrong, but perpetuates the cycle of killing.
