Voting pro-choice always immoral?

[veronicamarie]

Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate who is pro-choice in order to “weigh in” against a much worse pro-choice candidate if the two front-runners are both pro-choice? Would God look at the voter’s intention which would be never to vote pro-choice except to help prevent a more vehemently pro-choice candidate from becoming president?

 

[buffalo]

This is called a “proportionate reason”.

You can vote for the lesser of two evils, if there is no other choice. If another choice with a reasonable chance to win is in the race then you must cast your vote for him.

Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics

 

[buffalo]

uestions about the FAQVoters Guide for Serious Catholics

 

[veronicamarie]

The Voters Guide for Serious Catholics is very helpful. Thanks for replying!

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

This is called a “proportionate reason”.

You can vote for the lesser of two evils, if there is no other choice. If another choice with a reasonable chance to win is in the race then you must cast your vote for him.

Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics

You do not have to vote a single issue. The USCCB voting guide points out the many different positions. There are no “single” issues that outweigh the others. No one party fulfills the guidelines. It comes down to personal choice.

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html

Also, the USCCB has rejected the CA Voting guide in 2004 and I would expect they will do the same in 2008.

 

[setter]

You do not have to vote a single issue. The USCCB voting guide points out the many different positions. There are no “single” issues that outweigh the others. No one party fulfills the guidelines. It comes down to personal choice.

I am assuming that you are referring to “autonomy of one’s conscience” which the Church has rejected. One’s consciece must be informed and well informed – you need to educate yourself further …see the CCC sections regarding Moral Conscience.

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html

This link to the USCCB statement supports a heriarchy and weighing of issues that recognize the sanctity of life as the essential utmost …it is your personal interpretation that attempts to reduce to and dismiss as “single issue” those who vote with an enlightened mind.

Also, the USCCB has rejected the CA Voting guide in 2004 and I would expect they will do the same in 2008.

Can you please provide a link that has this in writing? …as suspected - Not.

 

[Newbie2]

Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate who is pro-choice in order to “weigh in” against a much worse pro-choice candidate if the two front-runners are both pro-choice? Would God look at the voter’s intention which would be never to vote pro-choice except to help prevent a more vehemently pro-choice candidate from becoming president?

If they’re both pro-choice, you’re not voting pro-choice, right, especially taking into account that not one single person will be able to decide about such “abortion rights”. On the federal level, even if Roe V. Wade was overturned, it would still be up to the states to make decisions on the legality of abortion, and then you’d have a whole other set of politicians in charge of the decision.

On the other hand, someone at the federal level has to start or keep the dominos from falling

Most definitely God would see a voters intentions.

Good reply posts. :tiphat:

 

[gtdannemiller]

If they’re both pro-choice, you’re not voting pro-choice, right :tiphat:

I disagree. Number one, there is third party. Number two, you don’t have to vote. I wouldn’t vote if I felt that neither of the candidates were moral. A lesser evil is still an evil; the ends do not justify the means.

And in answer to the poster of this subject, I do believe that voting for someone who is pro-choice is immoral.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

I am assuming that you are referring to “autonomy of one’s conscience” which the Church has rejected. One’s consciece must be informed and well informed – you need to educate yourself further …see the CCC sections regarding Moral Conscience.

This link to the USCCB statement supports a heriarchy and weighing of issues that recognize the sanctity of life as the essential utmost …it is your personal interpretation that attempts to reduce to and dismiss as “single issue” those who vote with an enlightened mind.

Can you please provide a link that has this in writing? …as suspected - Not.

First off, here is the 2004 example of the USCCB rejecting the CA guide.
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=31706

And the “Life” issue is far from cut and dry and not isolated to just the abortion issue. The “Life” issue in Catholic teachings covers the wide spectrum, which includes wars, capital punishment, etc… This does not make it cut and dry towards one party or the other. The abortion issue and how to minimize it is not a one-solution, one-party issue.

 

[buffalo]

You do not have to vote a single issue. The USCCB voting guide points out the many different positions. There are no “single” issues that outweigh the others. No one party fulfills the guidelines. It comes down to personal choice.

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html

Also, the USCCB has rejected the CA Voting guide in 2004 and I would expect they will do the same in 2008.

Uh NO. It is clear that there are voting priorities. Life itself comes before quality of life issues.

 

[fix]

First off, here is the 2004 example of the USCCB rejecting the CA guide.
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=31706

And the “Life” issue is far from cut and dry and not isolated to just the abortion issue. The “Life” issue in Catholic teachings covers the wide spectrum, which includes wars, capital punishment, etc… This does not make it cut and dry towards one party or the other. The abortion issue and how to minimize it is not a one-solution, one-party issue.

Cardinal Ratzinger spoke to the issue:

In a 2003 letter to the US Bishops’ Conference, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in a bracketed afterthought: “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.”
Key to understanding the statement is the phrase “proportionate reasons”.

And a good bishop explains:

“Note that this does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions.”

So, any guide that contradicts what Cardinal Ratzinger said would seem to be in error.

 

[Newbie2]

I disagree. Number one, there is third party. Number two, you don’t have to vote. I wouldn’t vote if I felt that neither of the candidates were moral. A lesser evil is still an evil; the ends do not justify the means.

And in answer to the poster of this subject, I do believe that voting for someone who is pro-choice is immoral.

I was assuming that there were only two candidates.

I get your point, but if you didn’t vote, (even for that third party candidate or do a write-in), wouldn’t that be an omission in not trying to keep the “pro-choicer” of the two front runners out of office?

Just not voting is not the answer, methinks, for two reasons:

1. It is our civic duty; many thousands of people have died to defend our rights and way of life in this country.
2. If you don’t vote, you lose the right to complain about whoever gets elected.

Personally, Steven Colbert is my choice for President. Pro-life, Running as both a Democrat and Republican. What’s not to like?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I was assuming that there were only two candidates.

I get your point, but if you didn’t vote, (even for that third party candidate or do a write-in), wouldn’t that be an omission in not trying to keep the “pro-choicer” of the two front runners out of office?

Just not voting is not the answer, methinks, for two reasons:

1. It is our civic duty; many thousands of people have died to defend our rights and way of life in this country.

I have voted in every statewide and national election I am eligible, but I have decided to not vote on certain issues or offices because I didn’t feel comfortable voting for either. Bush v. Kerry was one of them. I did vote on other issues on that ballot, though.

1. If you don’t vote, you lose the right to complain about whoever gets elected.

Nonsense! The First Amendment doesn’t give any qualifications.

Personally, Steven Colbert is my choice for President. Pro-life, Running as both a Democrat and Republican. What’s not to like?

LOL!

 

[SoCalRC]

Uh NO. It is clear that there are voting priorities. Life itself comes before quality of life issues.

Fix has hit the issue nicely. We do not have to rely in the laity, the Church has given us quite a bit of guidance. In addition to the document Fix notes, there is a guide written by then Caridnal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

The whole thing is well worth reading. But two things to consider:

The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person.[17] Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle, for otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent.

The citation is to the Second Vatican Council. Which gives a fairly extensive explanation of the correct understanding of the human person. This would not seem to permit the concept of accepting policies which, say, oppress and exploit the poor in exchange for a proper policy on abortion.

This idea, that faith should be viewed and respected as a coherent whole is also reiterated in the Doctrinal Note, specifically in the context of limiting harm from secular laws:

In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

(emphasis added)

Notice it is “contents”, plural. The document follows by giving examples of “fundemental and inalienable ethical demands” which “do not admit” exception. The list is more extensive than the laity group’s guide, and includes issues like education, religious freedom, socially just economic growth, protection of minors, and peace.

 

[Ender]

I wouldn’t vote if I felt that neither of the candidates were moral.

I think there are cases where not voting might well be the appropriate action, but I suspect such circumstances are rare … and this presidential race is not in that category. There are significant differences between the parties and it matters greatly which one controls the White House and Congress.

A lesser evil is still an evil …

True, but look at the situation from the perspective of good instead. Your position also means this: “Because I can’t do as much good as I would like I won’t even do a little good.” Faced with the impossibility of doing a great good, what sense is there in failing to do even the small good that is within our power?

… the ends do not justify the means.

This is true - but it does not apply to this situation. The means - voting for a candidate in spite of his position on abortion in the absence of any viable alternative - is not immoral, as Cardinal Ratzinger made clear.

Ender

 

[bilop]

And the “Life” issue is far from cut and dry and not isolated to just the abortion issue. The “Life” issue in Catholic teachings covers the wide spectrum, which includes wars, capital punishment, etc… This does not make it cut and dry towards one party or the other. The abortion issue and how to minimize it is not a one-solution, one-party issue.

This is not true. Life issues cover Abortion, Euthanasia, annd stem cell research that kills embryos. On these issues there is no disagreement possible while remaining faithful to the Church.

Wars and capital punishment are allowed under appropriate circumstances. These are prudential judgements for the competent authorities.

One can support a war, or the application of capital punishment in a given society while being in total fidelity to the Church. One can not support abortion and be a Catholic in good standing.

God Bless

 

[buffalo]

Fix has hit the issue nicely. We do not have to rely in the laity, the Church has given us quite a bit of guidance. In addition to the document Fix notes, there is a guide written by then Caridnal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

The whole thing is well worth reading. But two things to consider:

The citation is to the Second Vatican Council. Which gives a fairly extensive explanation of the correct understanding of the human person. This would not seem to permit the concept of accepting policies which, say, oppress and exploit the poor in exchange for a proper policy on abortion.

This idea, that faith should be viewed and respected as a coherent whole is also reiterated in the Doctrinal Note, specifically in the context of limiting harm from secular laws:

(emphasis added)

Notice it is “contents”, plural. The document follows by giving examples of “fundemental and inalienable ethical demands” which “do not admit” exception. The list is more extensive than the laity group’s guide, and includes issues like education, religious freedom, socially just economic growth, protection of minors, and peace.

So it’s Ok to vote for a pro-death pol as long as they help the poor?

If the right to life is lost then why does the quality of life even matter?

 

[fix]

Fix has hit the issue nicely. We do not have to rely in the laity, the Church has given us quite a bit of guidance. In addition to the document Fix notes, there is a guide written by then Caridnal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

The whole thing is well worth reading. But two things to consider:

The citation is to the Second Vatican Council. Which gives a fairly extensive explanation of the correct understanding of the human person. This would not seem to permit the concept of accepting policies which, say, oppress and exploit the poor in exchange for a proper policy on abortion.

This idea, that faith should be viewed and respected as a coherent whole is also reiterated in the Doctrinal Note, specifically in the context of limiting harm from secular laws:

(emphasis added)

Notice it is “contents”, plural. The document follows by giving examples of “fundemental and inalienable ethical demands” which “do not admit” exception. The list is more extensive than the laity group’s guide, and includes issues like education, religious freedom, socially just economic growth, protection of minors, and peace.

Actually the Ratzinger letter says:

The main text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter backs up the point by indicating abortion and euthanasia are more serious considerations than even war or the death penalty. “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia,” wrote Cardinal Ratzinger.

 

[vern_humphrey]

There are no issues of the magnitude of abortion and euthanasia. That means we cannot “offset” those issues against other issues – we cannot reject a pro-life candidate and vote for a pro-abortion candidate on the grounds of the latter’s position on other issues, regardless of what they are.

 

[SoCalRC]

Actually the Ratzinger letter says:

Notice that the letter is addressed to Bishops, and only used examples where there is no significant guidance from Scripture and Holy Tradition is divided.

There cannot be division among Bishops on Euthanasia or Abortion because the teachings themselves rely on the Ordinary Magisterium for their infallibility.

Notice the section on the Cardinal’s explanation of the concept of Peace intended for the voting of the laity. It acknowledges that the issues are incredibly complex and that there is room for disagreement, but it also lays out some inviolate principles. The principles themselves are not prudential, but part of the Dogmatic Constitution of hte Church. In other words, the principles themselves are not prudential.