Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics

[iamrefreshed]

When the Holy Father stood on our soil and asked that we end abortion and the death penalty, did you consider the latter part of that statement “whining?” Personally, I thought he was promoting a culture of life which views *all *human life as sacred.

No. I consider whining to be someone who supports canidates that support abortion but turns around and says they are voting for ALL life.

1,000,000,000 trumps 42!

BTW, I don’t support the death penalty but the FACT remains that the CCC does not totally oppose it. That is a FACT.

 

[frankadams]

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankadams forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*When the Holy Father stood on our soil and asked that we end abortion and the death penalty, did you consider the latter part of that statement “whining?” Personally, I thought he was promoting a culture of life which views *all human life as sacred.

No. I consider whining to be someone who supports canidates that support abortion but turns around and says they are voting for ALL life.

1,000,000,000 trumps 42!

BTW, I don’t support the death penalty but the FACT remains that the CCC does not totally oppose it. That is a FACT.

Thanks for the clarification. Clearly, supporting abortion can not be seen as somehow supporting all life.

 

[estesbob]

Trading moral good for popularity. It goes with the mindset of “If you are going to run as pro-life, you need to at least support abortion in cases of rape or incest, that way you have a better chance of being elected, since more people will vote for you.” It is saying we don’t need to pay no mind to those “disposable” few who are conceived from rape or otherwise.

Let us first note that we are talking about less than 500 abortions a year where rape or incest in concerned.The overwhelming number of pro-life canidates in this country support abortion only in the cases of abortion, incest and direct threat to the Mothers life. The fact they are not in perfect alignement with Church teaching does not gives us Catholics Carte Blanche to vote for one who suports abortion in all circumstances just becuase we like his views on other issues.

Bishop Garcia the Churchs position very well:

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, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.
The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) 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, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).
Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) 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.

catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1321

---

What the Church teaches is we can not let the perfect be the enemy of the possible. We can not let the misguided thinking of a canidate who supports perhaps 500 abortions a year lead us to rationalize voting for a canidate who supports even less restrictions on abortion.

 

[mapleoak]

Let us first note that we are talking about less than 500 abortions a year where rape or incest in concerned.The overwhelming number of pro-life canidates in this country support abortion only in the cases of abortion, incest and direct threat to the Mothers life. The fact they are not in perfect alignement with Church teaching does not gives us Catholics Carte Blanche to vote for one who suports abortion in all circumstances just becuase we like his views on other issues.

Quite correct. It in no way justifies voting for the avowed pro-choice candidate. That is what many will try to justify saying “Since all candidates support abortion at least in some circumstances, we become free to vote for the pro-choice candidate and consider them on different issues instead”. That is a grave mistake. This is where I differ in my viewpoint considerably from many others. I maintain that it certainly would not be permissable to vote for the pro-abortion candidate under any circumstance.

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.

I am only maintaining that one is not required or obliged to support a candidate who supports abortion in any capacity.

 

[frankadams]

Let us first note that we are talking about less than 500 abortions a year where rape or incest in concerned.The overwhelming number of pro-life canidates in this country support abortion only in the cases of abortion, incest and direct threat to the Mothers life. The fact they are not in perfect alignement with Church teaching does not gives us Catholics Carte Blanche to vote for one who suports abortion in all circumstances just becuase we like his views on other issues.

Bishop Garcia the Churchs position very well:

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, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.
The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) 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, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).
Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) 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.

catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1321

---

What the Church teaches is we can not let the perfect be the enemy of the possible. We can not let the misguided thinking of a canidate who supports perhaps 500 abortions a year lead us to rationalize voting for a canidate who supports even less restrictions on abortion.

We must remember that this is YOUR application of what constitutes a “proportionate reason.” YOU have decided to make YOUR assessment of a candidate’s electability a reason for YOU to vote for a candidate who supports an “intrinsic evil.”

My issue is this post is not that your reasoning is reckless or completely lacking in merit. My issue is more in your view of Catholics who make different assessments and reach different conclusions. What if HIS application of what constitutes a “proportionate reason” differs from YOURS? What if HIS assessment of a candidate’s ability to impact abortion and his impact on other life issues provides HIS reason to vote for a candidate who supports an “intrinsic evil?” Why is YOUR assessment and conclusion morally binding?

The bishops’ guidance on this isse is posted below.

“36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.”
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - USCCB, 2007

In light of this, it appears that a Catholic’s “careful deliberation” may lead HIM to “deem” that a DIFFERENT pro-choice candidate is "less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods," than the pro-choice candidate that YOU support.

 

[iamrefreshed]

We must remember that this is YOUR application of what constitutes a “proportionate reason.” YOU have decided to make YOUR assessment of a candidate’s electability a reason for YOU to vote for a candidate who supports an “intrinsic evil.”

My issue is this post is not that your reasoning is reckless or completely lacking in merit. My issue is more in your view of Catholics who make different assessments and reach different conclusions. What if HIS application of what constitutes a “proportionate reason” differs from YOURS? What if HIS assessment of a candidate’s ability to impact abortion and his impact on other life issues provides HIS reason to vote for a candidate who supports an “intrinsic evil?” Why is YOUR assessment and conclusion morally binding?

The bishops’ guidance on this isse is posted below.

“36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.”
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - USCCB, 2007

In light of this, it appears that a Catholic’s “careful deliberation” may lead HIM to “deem” that a DIFFERENT pro-choice candidate is "less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods," than the pro-choice candidate that YOU support.

Math doesn’t lie. It holds no opinion. In the example provided by estesbob 1,000,000,000 saved lives trumps 500. Save the 1,000,000,000 and live to fight the battle for the 500.

 

[dmelosi]

We must remember that this is YOUR application of what constitutes a “proportionate reason.” YOU have decided to make YOUR assessment of a candidate’s electability a reason for YOU to vote for a candidate who supports an “intrinsic evil.”

My issue is this post is not that your reasoning is reckless or completely lacking in merit. My issue is more in your view of Catholics who make different assessments and reach different conclusions. What if HIS application of what constitutes a “proportionate reason” differs from YOURS? What if HIS assessment of a candidate’s ability to impact abortion and his impact on other life issues provides HIS reason to vote for a candidate who supports an “intrinsic evil?” Why is YOUR assessment and conclusion morally binding?

The bishops’ guidance on this isse is posted below.

“36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.”
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - USCCB, 2007

In light of this, it appears that a Catholic’s “careful deliberation” may lead HIM to “deem” that a DIFFERENT pro-choice candidate is "less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods," than the pro-choice candidate that YOU support.

The fact is that the Democratic platform is for abortion on demand and the Republican platform is against abortion.

There are many so tied to their political party that excuse after excuse to vote for that party is made.

Am I correct in assuming that you are a hardened democrat?

 

[mapleoak]

In light of this, it appears that a Catholic’s “careful deliberation” may lead HIM to “deem” that a DIFFERENT pro-choice candidate is "less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods," than the pro-choice candidate that YOU support.

This is the mental contortion I am talking about. Justifying voting for an avowed pro-choice candidate. One cannot possibly say there is no difference between someone who avowedly supports the serial killing of millions of unborn killed vs. someone who does not support this mass murder, but in a limited sense is passively supportive of (though an error itself) the killing of the unborn in limited circumstances.

 

[SoCalRC]

OK, so we can’t ignore any of the 9 issues, which is what the CA guide does. Do the 9 all get the same weight? I have been generally giving weight to the abortion issue for a number of years. With 50 million since '73, I felt it got some weight over some of those 9. I know we have to be careful not to name names on this forum, but there is also the issue this time around regarding “post birth abortion”.

The issues are all described as fundemental and inalienable rights. In SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS, Pope Benedict again references the list as “non negotiable moral principles” and connects them to fitness for receiving communion.

The Church argues that they are not isolated teachings, but part of a coherent whole. The logic being that you cannot really be, say, pro-life, if you promote a culture of death for the purposes of a single aspect of pro-life teaching.

The question I would pose to Catholics who believe that abortion should be promoted to special status is, if abortion is so important, why compromise on it as well?

In the last 6 presidential elections, only one GOP candidate, Bob Dole, had not supported upholding Roe in his prior political career. All the others had not just publicly supported upholding Roe, but had done so recently in their careers.

Simiarly, only one GOP candidate, George H.W. Bush, has actively campaigned on an abortion stance that matches that of the Church.

So in addition to only marginal alignment with our beliefs, we have a pattern of position shifting, quite possibly for politica gain. George H. W. Bush had supported abortion rights when campaigning against Ronald Reagan, then dramatically shifted his position when running for president in 1988. Conversely, Bob Dole had a solid record on abortion, having raised it as a campaign issue as far back as 1974, but then softened his position in the 1996 election. You may recall that there was a bit of an intra party shuffle as he sought to soften GOP platform language to be more “tolerant” and inclussive.

All of this is neither here nor there. Politics is inherently about alliances of convenience for the pursuit of power. But, again, if abortion is going to be elevated to special status, so important that even other moral values that the Church has specifically called “non negotiable” can and should be compromised, wouldn’t it seem reasonable to at least hold out for a wholly Catholic position on abortion and reasonable pro-life political credentials?

 

[estesbob]

We must remember that this is YOUR application of what constitutes a “proportionate reason.” YOU have decided to make YOUR assessment of a candidate’s electability a reason for YOU to vote for a candidate who supports an “intrinsic evil.”

My issue is this post is not that your reasoning is reckless or completely lacking in merit. My issue is more in your view of Catholics who make different assessments and reach different conclusions. What if HIS application of what constitutes a “proportionate reason” differs from YOURS? What if HIS assessment of a candidate’s ability to impact abortion and his impact on other life issues provides HIS reason to vote for a candidate who supports an “intrinsic evil?” Why is YOUR assessment and conclusion morally binding?

The bishops’ guidance on this isse is posted below.

“36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.”
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - USCCB, 2007

In light of this, it appears that a Catholic’s “careful deliberation” may lead HIM to “deem” that a DIFFERENT pro-choice candidate is "less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods," than the pro-choice candidate that YOU support.

The statements I posted were clear and unequivocable. The idea that their can be proportinality between a canidate who supports abotion on demand and one who would allow for rape and incest abortions (less than 500 a year) is specious-as Bishop Garcia eloquently explained.

I know that many will use this excuse to continue to support pro-abortion canidates, which is their right. But they should not in any way mislead other Catholics into believing that such action are in any way in agreement with Catholc Teaching.

 

[SoCalRC]

Math doesn’t lie. It holds no opinion. In the example provided by estesbob 1,000,000,000 saved lives trumps 500. Save the 1,000,000,000 and live to fight the battle for the 500.

One could point out that if you do not properly value the 500, you probably do not truly appreciate the 1,000,000,000. Remember, abortion and euthanasia are both infallibly evil even if the life destroyed is that of a Stalin or a Hitler.

However, the math is a bit more dishonest than that. Voting for, say, a George W. Bush, who supported upholding Roe during the 2000 election, made pro-choice judicial appointments in Texas and, to this day, contends that some abortions are licit, does not save 1,000,000,000 lives. Nor does it save 1,000,000 lives. Abortions have continued to go down nationally, but they fell more under Clinton!

If Catholics want to apply “proportionate reasons” and vote for such a candidate, fine. But at least be honest. One is not voting to save a billion lives, or even a million. One is voting for a position on abortion that the Church considers an abomination (EVANGELIUM VITAE #58) and lip service to a change in secular law that the candidate flip flopped on in just a few years. If one is not honest and realistic about what one is supporting, the theological concept of “proportionate reasons” cannot be properly applied.

 

[estesbob]

The fact is that the Democratic platform is for abortion on demand and the Republican platform is against abortion.

There are many so tied to their political party that excuse after excuse to vote for that party is made.

Am I correct in assuming that you are a hardened democrat?

Party is irrelevant as far as Church teaching goes. Although one could argue that a pro-life democrat cannot accomplish as much as a pro-life republican that does not enter into Catholic teaching. When faced with two pro-life candidates you can vote for either. When faced with a situation where one or both are pro-choice you either vote for the one who is more restrictive on abortion or don’t vote for either.

 

[dmelosi]

Party is irrelevant as far as Church teaching goes. Although one could argue that a pro-life democrat cannot accomplish as much as a pro-life republican that does not enter into Catholic teaching. When faced with two pro-life candidates you can vote for either. When faced with a situation where one or both are pro-choice you either vote for the one who is more restrictive on abortion or don’t vote for either.

I would think that a pro-life democrat would accomplish more, simply by paving the way for others to buck their party.

 

[mapleoak]

I would think that a pro-life democrat would accomplish more, simply by paving the way for others to buck their party.

Good point. Probably never going to happen though!

 

[estesbob]

I would think that a pro-life democrat would accomplish more, simply by paving the way for others to buck their party.

Could be. The other side of the argument is that becuase of the way committe assignements work in congress the Democrat would have little or no impact on the issue or will fold under pressure and vote pro-abortion(Senator Casey being a good example of this) The point, howerver, is that the Church does not endorse either party. It is the issue we must look at, not the party.

 

[SoCalRC]

I know that many will use this excuse to continue to support pro-abortion canidates, which is their right. But they should not in any way mislead other Catholics into believing that such action are in any way in agreement with Catholc Teaching.

In a strictly Catholic sense, everyone here (with the seeming exception of Mapleoak and myself) is using one excuse or another to vote for pro-abortion candidates.

Mapleoak pointed out that it is a stretch to assert that there is no moral distinction between openly supporting abortion on demand and openly supporting a more restrictive position.

But I would contend that it is also a stretch to assert that the moral difference between candidate who currently supports upholding Roe, and one who seems to have switched from supporting Roe to opposing it in the span of one election cycle is all that large - particularly if the candidate’s new position is still one we consider an abomination.

The way I see it, if a politician has no credible history on the subject and I still would have to compromise on abortion to vote for him, my vote would hardly be the best litmus test of my committment to Catholicism.

 

[fix]

OOne is voting for a position on abortion that the Church considers an abomination (EVANGELIUM VITAE #58) and lip service to a change in secular law that the candidate flip flopped on in just a few years. If one is not honest and realistic about what one is supporting, the theological concept of “proportionate reasons” cannot be properly applied.

One would vote to limit evil, which is a moral good. One is not formally cooperating with evil in such a case.

 

[estesbob]

One would vote to limit evil, which is a moral good. One is not formally cooperating with evil in such a case.

Correct-and that is line with teaching. of course if one feels that voting for one who supports Rape/Incest abortions is co-operating with evil they exercise their option to not vote. What they cannot do, and still be in line with Catholic teaching, is make the quantum leap to voting for the abortion on demand candidate claiming there is no difference between the two on abortion.

 

[mapleoak]

Correct-and that is line with teaching. of course if one feels that voting for one who supports Rape/Incest abortions is co-operating with evil they exercise their option to not vote. What they cannot do, and still be in line with Catholic teaching, is make the quantum leap to voting for the abortion on demand candidate claiming there is no difference between the two on abortion.

Quantum leap is an understatement.

 

[estesbob]

Jimmy Akins discusses "Proportionality here:
[jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2004/09/what_ratzinger_.html](http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2004/09/what_ratzinger_.html)

An Exceprt

The Abortion Numbers
Consider: A million and a half new Americans are murdered every year by abortion.

While particular historical circumstances increase or decrease the number of Supreme Court appointments a president gets to make (some presidents get many and some get none), if we average out the differences then it turns out that a pro-abort president on average could extend the abortion holocaust by four years equivalent to the four year term he spends in office.

At a million and a half kids killed per year, that means that a pro-abort president would be responsible for extending the abortion holocaust to include six million additional murders.

When one takes into account the fact that about half of the recent presidents have had second terms, that would mean a pro-abort president would be responsible for extending the abortion
holocaust to include approximately nine million Americans.

No other issue involves numbers that high. Nothing short of a full-scale nuclear or biological war between well-armed nation states would kill that many people, and we aren’t in imminent danger of having one of those. Not even terrorists with WMDs could kill that many people. As vital as the issue of terrorism is, it does not get us up into the number of deaths caused by abortion. It would take three thousand 9/11-size events in a president’s average term of office (more than one a day) to rack up sufficient deaths to make terrorism proportionate to abortion. Al-Qa’eda simply does not have enough suicidal fanatics to make terrorism proportionate to abortion.

Jobs? The economy? Taxes? Education? The environment? Immigration? Forget it. We do not have nine million people dying in a typical president’s term of office due to bad job programs, bad economic policies, bad taxes, bad education, bad environmental law, bad immigration rules—or even all of these combined.** All of them together cannot provide a reason** proportionate to the need to end abortion.

Make no mistake: Abortion is the preeminent moral issue of our time. It is the black hole that out-masses every other issue. Presenting any other issues as if they were proportionate to it is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

---

So let’s apply Akins equation to a Rape/Incest only candidate as opposed to a straight pro-abortion candidate. In the former his election could mean 1,600 more dead children. In the latter his election could result in 6 million more dead children. How can one possible vote for the latter even if they are perceived to be superior on all other social issues?