I’ve heard it said that the Democrat Party is the Party of the poor, or of the working man. There is no tangible evidence that Democrats help either.
That’s not necessarily true. The Democratic party has supported policies that are in line with various aspects of Catholic teaching, like medicare and medicaid, and secular research appears to support that those policies have the beneficial impact predicted by the Church. Partisan politics is the pursuit of earthly power by coallition. My obligation is to promote the Church’s point of view.
If you look carefully, I’ve taken no partisan stand. I’ve quoted the portions of the teaching of the Magisterium that would, potentially, make it licit to vote for someone, like the last GOP presidential candidate, even though he/she holds an intrinsically evil position on abortion.
Maybe we should contemplate that our moral consciences may be in error. 1.2 million - 800,000 leaves 400,000 Human Beings that would not otherwise survive.
I think that you missunderstood my points (and math). My concerns about Estabob’s argument fall into several areas of Church teaching.
First, his argument is based on the idea that the morality of an intrinsically evil act is impacted by scale. The Church disagrees (Veritatis Splendor), intrinsically evil is intrinsically evil, it cannot be mitigated by a simple reduction in volume.
Second, his argument implies that the value of life can be measured by simple counts. This is not the Catholic point of view. Each life has *infinite *value and none can rightfully be abridged by state or man (Christifideles Laici). In theology there is a concept of Eucharistic consistency. If I accepted Estabob’s argument I would have to accept arguments like ‘What is 1.2 million abortions compared to 1 billion children whose lives will be cut short by globaly poverty?’ I accept the Church’s position, life is an inalienable right of very child of God and must be consistantly defended in every state and stage, so I must reject both types of numerical dehumanization.
Third, his argument appears to imply that cooperation with intrinsic evil is morally required. The Pastoral Constitution of the Church (Gaudium et spes) states exactly the opposite. We are *never *required to cooperate with instrinsic evil. This path is noted in the Bishops’ document that I cited earlier, it is not permitted in Estabob’s reasoning.
Fourth, he is asserting moral certainty in a situation where the Magesterium teaches the possibility of uncertainty and disagreement. This is an area where I, absolutely, cannot follow. I am bound by an Oath of Fealty and there is no ambiguidy of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church for me (Lumen Gentium #25).
Regarding ‘math’, I should have been clearer. The CDC has tracked legal abortion since before Roe. The methodology undercounts, but remains unchanged so that the numbers can be compared to each other meaningfully. To get 1.2 million, we have to look to the Guttmacher Institute, which does have an excellent trackrecord for this type of research. But if we are going to look there for total abortions, then we should look there for the total abortions related to incest, rape, and marternal health instead of pulling a dramatically lower number from some source unknown. In other words, I was gently reminding that we have an obigation to the truth and should resist using hyperbole in our arguments.
But your math interests me. If you truly believe that there is a 400,000 life swing directly associated with a specific application of proportionate reasons, why did abortion rates drop 5% under the first Obama term? Historically, since Roe, rates have dropped faster under Democratic presidents (example it dropped faster under Clinton than either Bush).
My point is not ‘vote democratic for abortion’. The point is two fold. First, there is often not a 1:1 correlation between stated policy and political result. It is potentially licit for Catholics to consider that in voting (see the Bishops’ pastoral document). Second, abortion rates are driven by more than just secular law. For example, there is a strong statistical correlation to poverty. It is licit for Catholics to consider that in applying proportionate reasons as well (that is covered both by the Bishops and Rome’s doctrinal note).
To be clear, I’ve taken no sides and recommended no application. I’ve also never contended that any Catholics are morally superior or in any way ‘better’ than others. I’m promoting life as being of infinite value and promoting the Church’s position on intrinsic evil as carrying special weight; and pointing Cathoics to the Magisterium for guidance. This raises a reasonable question - why am I drawing ire?
It is not my place to guess, but if I found our positions reversed, it is one I would want to ask myself.
