Voting based on one issue - Abortion

[Sure]

Well, since we’re quoting Cardinal Ratzinger of the Office of the Inquisition:
“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and /or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
the Cardinal as quoted by A. M. Greeley in “The Making of the Pope: 2005”

That being said it is the task of the voter to look at the platform of the candidate and the party and evaluate stands on education, public welfare, health, war, capital punishment, global warming, etc. and see how the candidate (party) stacks up to what the voter constitutes as social good. It still comes back to your own personal conscience. The Church cannot order you to vote for or against any given candidate or party.

Matthew

Your assessment missed the “proportionate” reason part of the quote. Please indicate what would be proportionate to abortion. Perhaps it would be useful to use a different example other than abortion because many people do not grasp the evil of abortion. So, in your mind, what would be a valid “proportionate” reason to vote for a candidate who also favors a policy to kill all Jews in the United States? If you find a proportionate reason for such a vote, then you will have found a proportionate reason for voting for a pro-abortion candidate.

As for your second comment on weighing the issues, remember the teaching of the Church in Christifideles Laici:

Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

This means quite plainly that any candidate’s positions on all these other issues are false and illusory (they are deceptive lies) if that candidate is pro-abortion.

 

[Palladio]

Is it immoral to vote for a politician who supports abortion? That depends on if I vote for him BECAUSE he supports abortion or IN SPITE of his pro-abortion position.
Voting pro-choice(i.e., pro abortion) because I believe in abortion would be immoral and I commit a mortal sin, cutting myself off from God. This would be formal cooperation in allowing to end a life so that another could supposedly live (better).
When the pro-life politician strongly supports what I consider immoral, such as unjustified war, I may choose the pro-choice candidate who otherwise supports what I consider moral. I made this choice because I perceive this politician’s decisions are more right than wrong. I cannot weigh who’s life is more important to God, the unborn child to be killed or the adult child sent off to war which kills him. Both are terrible choices, and in the case of unjustified war, sinful choices.
I believe one-issue voting was a deciding factor in the last general election. I’d like to hear what you think about what we Catholics should use to make our choices in the upcoming elections.

One-issue voting is a cant term.

Abortion is a matter of life and death. In voting for someone pro-abortion, you are voting for someone for murder.

 

[estesbob]

Too bad the priest did not define what is meant by proportionate reasons. Has the Church said such reasons include capital punishment, healthcare, education…?

And conscience must be informed that includes never contradicting the Church teachings on faith and morals.

Heres what Bishop Rene Henry Gracida had to say about proportinalily:

***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

---

You can read Jimmy Akins thoughts about this here:
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411fea4.asp

One should keep in mind that the whole proportinality argument is based on a one line footnote in Ratzingers message about voting for pro-abortion canidates If you read the entire article you will see that Bishop Garcias article properly reflects Chuirch teaching on proportionality-that is you can vote for a pro-abortion canidate only if his opponent is more pro-abortion than he is.

 

[Donna_Mc]

I always vote based on the life issues. To me there is nothing
more important, everything else comes after that. There are many
important issues but I just can’t see how other issues can possibly
come near the importance of the basic right to life.

 

[fix]

Heres what Bishop Rene Henry Gracida had to say about proportinalily:

***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

You can read Jimmy Akins thoughts about this here:
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411fea4.asp

One should keep in mind that the whole proportinality argument is based on a one line footnote in Ratzingers message about voting for pro-abortion canidates If you read the entire article you will see that Bishop Garcias article properly reflects Chuirch teaching on proportionality-that is you can vote for a pro-abortion canidate only if his opponent is more pro-abortion than he is.

I agree completely. I wonder if the other poster does?

 

[Publisher]

What if it is one’s solemn belief that to vote for “B”-Bush, untold death and destruction due to war, poverty, lack of health insurance due to warmongering and “conservative” policies on welfare and the war against the middle class and the poor, calls one to see the necessity to vote for Kerry, choosing “the lesser of two evils”?

I will vote my conscience and place it in God’s hands.

 

[Palladio]

What if it is one’s solemn belief that to vote for “B”-Bush, untold death and destruction due to war, poverty, lack of health insurance due to warmongering and “conservative” policies on welfare and the war against the middle class and the poor, calls one to see the necessity to vote for Kerry, choosing “the lesser of two evils”?

I will vote my conscience and place it in God’s hands.

I’m not sure I follow, but whereas a policy may fail no matter how well intentioned or written, abortion entails the murder of an unborn child. No need for conscience on that one, just commonsense.

 

[estesbob]

What if it is one’s solemn belief that to vote for “B”-Bush, untold death and destruction due to war, poverty, lack of health insurance due to warmongering and “conservative” policies on welfare and the war against the middle class and the poor, calls one to see the necessity to vote for Kerry, choosing “the lesser of two evils”?

I will vote my conscience and place it in God’s hands.

People can always rationalize supportng evil. As a Quaker I doubt you really care what the Church teaches on this but if your conscience tell you its ok to support one who supports killing 1.2 million children a year i would say your conscience is not very well formed.

Readng your list of the usual Democrat talking points I supect your politcs form your faith. It should be the other way around.

 

[Sure]

What if it is one’s solemn belief that to vote for “B”-Bush, untold death and destruction due to war, poverty, lack of health insurance due to warmongering and “conservative” policies on welfare and the war against the middle class and the poor, calls one to see the necessity to vote for Kerry, choosing “the lesser of two evils”?

I will vote my conscience and place it in God’s hands.

So, in this example you have 2 choices in Candidates:

1. Bush - who as you noted MIGHT have policies that are evil this is a prudential judgement and could be correct or could be incorrect.
2. Kerry - who because of his pro-abortion stance has policies that are CERTAINLY and ABSOLUTELY evil since he supports an intrinsically evil act and since this is SPECIFICALLY condemned in Christifideles Laici.

So, just to simplify:

1. Bush - Possibly Evil
2. Kerry - Certainly Evil

Seems like an obvious choice.

Let’s make it more interesting. Would your position still hold if Kerry supported say, rape, but Bush was opposed? Logically, it should. If it doesn’t, then why not? Aren’t rape and abortion equally abhorrent?

I look forward to your response.

 

[Palladio]

So, in this example you have 2 choices in Candidates:

1. Bush - who as you noted MIGHT have policies that are evil this is a prudential judgement and could be correct or could be incorrect.
2. Kerry - who because of his pro-abortion stance has policies that are CERTAINLY and ABSOLUTELY evil since he supports an intrinsically evil act and since this is SPECIFICALLY condemned in Christifideles Laici.

So, just to simplify:

1. Bush - Possibly Evil
2. Kerry - Certainly Evil

Seems like an obvious choice.

Let’s make it more interesting. Would your position still hold if Kerry supported say, rape, but Bush was opposed? Logically, it should. If it doesn’t, then why not? Aren’t rape and abortion equally abhorrent?

I look forward to your response.

I would add that without five RC justices, the ruling on partial birth abortion would not have been what it was, and we have to credit Bush on that one.

 

[Publisher]

So, in this example you have 2 choices in Candidates:

1. Bush - who as you noted MIGHT have policies that are evil this is a prudential judgement and could be correct or could be incorrect.
2. Kerry - who because of his pro-abortion stance has policies that are CERTAINLY and ABSOLUTELY evil since he supports an intrinsically evil act and since this is SPECIFICALLY condemned in Christifideles Laici.

So, just to simplify:

1. Bush - Possibly Evil
2. Kerry - Certainly Evil

Seems like an obvious choice.

Let’s make it more interesting. Would your position still hold if Kerry supported say, rape, but Bush was opposed? Logically, it should. If it doesn’t, then why not? Aren’t rape and abortion equally abhorrent?

I look forward to your response.

So another question, is the Catholic church against voting according to one’s conscience?

I seek to vote according to the best understanding of the issues…Bush is a canidate who I know from present experience seeks to wage war on other nations, has no concern for those children living among us now, has little or no concern for the elderly living among us now, has little or no concern for the poor living among us now who’s “campaign promises” are empty as he has no real desire to “reduce abortions” as then he would have no platform on which to sway the conservative vote, which in my opinion he really is giving lip service to keep this a “hot” item and has no real concern for the “unborn”, then if I truly beleive that Kerry can help the elderly, the poor, provide health care and keep our nation from war, and even though he may not give lip service to truly being against abortion, but perhaps be more honest in the way he states his position…then I don’t see how I could not vote for Kerry instead of Bush…according to my conscience…

Does that answer your question? I am not a single issue voter…and while none of the canidates truly appeal to me…I would choose the lesser of two evils…and even the lesser of “possible evils”…as I do not truly believe Bush has any intention of reducing abortions, but merely panders to “conservatives.”…and it appears to succeed.

 

[rwoehmke]

I find it fascinating the reaction of people who rant against “one-issue voting” and I pose this question:

Well, maybe you’re a one-issue spouse. Would you marry someone if you agreed with them on finances, houses, cars, religion, children, in-laws and where to spend vacations, but the only issue that you disagreed with them on was the other person believed adultery was perfectly okay and one had a right to stray?

Well, maybe you’re a one-issue spouse. Would you marry someone if you disagreed with them on finances, houses, cars, religion, children, in-laws and where to spend vacations, but the only issue that you disagreed with them on was the other person believed adultery was absolutely out?

 

[estesbob]

So another question, is the Catholic church against voting according to one’s conscience?

I seek to vote according to the best understanding of the issues…Bush is a canidate who I know from present experience seeks to wage war on other nations, has no concern for those children living among us now, has little or no concern for the elderly living among us now, has little or no concern for the poor living among us now who’s “campaign promises” are empty as he has no real desire to “reduce abortions” as then he would have no platform on which to sway the conservative vote, which in my opinion he really is giving lip service to keep this a “hot” item and has no real concern for the “unborn”, then if I truly beleive that Kerry can help the elderly, the poor, provide health care and keep our nation from war, and even though he may not give lip service to truly being against abortion, but perhaps be more honest in the way he states his position…then I don’t see how I could not vote for Kerry instead of Bush…according to my conscience…

Does that answer your question? I am not a single issue voter…and while none of the canidates truly appeal to me…I would choose the lesser of two evils…and even the lesser of “possible evils”…as I do not truly believe Bush has any intention of reducing abortions, but merely panders to “conservatives.”…and it appears to succeed.

The mental mastrubation required by those who claim to be pro-life yet support pro-abortion canidates is a terrible thing to behold. You have been given links on the church’s teachings and we have given you quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger that specifcally adress the points you make. You ignore them under the theory that those who support abortion really want to end it and those who oppose abotion really want to continue it. And of course those who believe what a pro-life canidate says are suckers becuase you JUST know it not true.

You want to vote Democrat and it doesnt matter how many babies die.

 

[Palladio]

So another question, is the Catholic church against voting according to one’s conscience?

You should look up what the RCC means by conscience.

If you really cannot see that abortion is murder, I think that you should do that sooner than later.

God bless.

 

[fix]

So another question, is the Catholic church against voting according to one’s conscience?

Yes, if the conscience is culpably erroneous.

 

[Sure]

So another question, is the Catholic church against voting according to one’s conscience?

I seek to vote according to the best understanding of the issues…Bush is a canidate who I know from present experience seeks to wage war on other nations, has no concern for those children living among us now, has little or no concern for the elderly living among us now, has little or no concern for the poor living among us now who’s “campaign promises” are empty as he has no real desire to “reduce abortions” as then he would have no platform on which to sway the conservative vote, which in my opinion he really is giving lip service to keep this a “hot” item and has no real concern for the “unborn”, then if I truly beleive that Kerry can help the elderly, the poor, provide health care and keep our nation from war, and even though he may not give lip service to truly being against abortion, but perhaps be more honest in the way he states his position…then I don’t see how I could not vote for Kerry instead of Bush…according to my conscience…

Does that answer your question? I am not a single issue voter…and while none of the canidates truly appeal to me…I would choose the lesser of two evils…and even the lesser of “possible evils”…as I do not truly believe Bush has any intention of reducing abortions, but merely panders to “conservatives.”…and it appears to succeed.

So, I can absolutely conclude that you would support a candidate who had good (according to you) positions on social/war issues but approved the legalization of rape???

If Bush was anti-rape and Kerry was pro-rape and all other issues were the same, for whom would you vote?

Please answer the question.

 

[rwoehmke]

The assumption seems to be that the two Bush Candidates for the supreme court were appointed because they would be anti-abortion.I would be more inclined to believe that it was more that they would be in line with what is good for business and commerce as opposed to minorities, the working class, etc.

Their decision on abortion was a good one, but I would really hesitate to say that was a substantial part of the reason they were appointed.

It looks as though the most likely candidates for the Grand Old Party are going to be pro choice. Apparently being pro-life is a political stigma even they don’t want. When push comes to shove neither party is that idealistic. Whatever it takes to get elected is the rule.

 

[Teflon93]

The mental mastrubation required by those who claim to be pro-life yet support pro-abortion canidates is a terrible thing to behold. You have been given links on the church’s teachings and we have given you quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger that specifcally adress the points you make. You ignore them under the theory that those who support abortion really want to end it and those who oppose abotion really want to continue it. And of course those who believe what a pro-life canidate says are suckers becuase you JUST know it not true.

You want to vote Democrat and it doesnt matter how many babies die.

There comes a time when each of us must decide whether to serve Christ or Mammon. One cannot serve both. And, given the present composition of the Democratic Party, one cannot be a good Catholic and vote for a Democrat for President—the party simply refuses to put forth staunch pro-life candidates, has made abortion a fundamental part of their platform, and actively drives the few remaining pro-life Democrats out.

“First Things” had an excellent article on how this all came to be a few months ago—worth a read.

Still, if you are ignoring the clear Catholic teaching on this matter in order to justify voting Democrat, you have clearly decided you would rather be a good Democrat than a good Catholic.

As God will be your judge and not the chairman of your favored political party, I would beg anyone so thinking to reconsider.

And on that glorious day when all major political parties become pro-life across the board, we will at last be able to freely vote based on other issues.

For now, however, we must fight for these innocent babies. Their slaughter is a direct affront to God and the signal evil of our age.

 

[Publisher]

So, I can absolutely conclude that you would support a candidate who had good (according to you) positions on social/war issues but approved the legalization of rape???

If Bush was anti-rape and Kerry was pro-rape and all other issues were the same, for whom would you vote?

Please answer the question.

You should probaly include beastiality, murder, pedophilia and any other crime while you’re at it.

 

[Publisher]

The assumption seems to be that the two Bush Candidates for the supreme court were appointed because they would be anti-abortion.I would be more inclined to believe that it was more that they would be in line with what is good for business and commerce as opposed to minorities, the working class, etc.

Their decision on abortion was a good one, but I would really hesitate to say that was a substantial part of the reason they were appointed.

It looks as though the most likely candidates for the Grand Old Party are going to be pro choice. Apparently being pro-life is a political stigma even they don’t want. When push comes to shove neither party is that idealistic.** Whatever it takes to get elected is ******the rule.

Finally a voice of reason that doesn’t resort to amazing hyperbole to seek to demonize a member of this board…agreed.