Worthiness to Receive Communion - and Voting

  • Thread starter Thread starter ANNE_2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ANNE_2

Guest
“WORTHINESS to RECEIVE COMMUNION - General Instructions” by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6041&CFID=79690252&CFTOKEN=45231136

" Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. "

“5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”

" 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. "

CCC - " 2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.
Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. "

In today’s society as it exists in 2011, what “proprotionate reasons” would be the same as or more important than the murder of more than approx., 1.4 MILLION innocent children per year in the US (abortion) ? (No hypothetical issues please, only reality.)
 
ANNE_2 said:
“WORTHINESS to RECEIVE COMMUNION - General Instructions” by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6041&CFID=79690252&CFTOKEN=45231136

" Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. "

“5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”

" 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. "

CCC - " 2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.
Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. "

In today’s society as it exists in 2011, what “proprotionate reasons” would be the same as or more important than the murder of more than approx., 1.4 MILLION innocent children per year in the US (abortion) ? (No hypothetical issues please, only reality.)
Click to expand...
I think that the “proportionate” part refers to the fact that not every degree of co-operation has the same degree of culpability. So for instance if a politician was pro-abortion in theory, but did not directly or materially support actual abortions on the one hand, than he would have some degree of guilt for that, but a good Catholic might still support the politician because the same person is opposed to the death penalty, and actively working against it.

Obviously, the abortion issue is itself much more important than the death penalty issue, but you really and truly can’t (I don’t mean “shouldn’t” I mean “can’t”) make it the most important issue with regards to every interaction. You don’t for instance go to the grocery store and ask the owner, manager, and cashier if they are pro-life, right? You go there to buy groceries. When you are introduced to a new person at a party, you don’t say “Hello, my name is Sally Smith. Are you pro-life?” before you shake their hand.
 
ANNE_2 said:
…In today’s society as it exists in 2011, what “proprotionate reasons” would be the same as or more important than the murder of more than approx., 1.4 MILLION innocent children per year in the US (abortion) ?
Click to expand...
One possible proportionate reason would be the assessment of how likely it is that having a particular candidate elected would have any effect on abortions. For example, if you happen to know that a local candidate for a seat on the District Library Board of Directors is personally neutral on abortion rights, you could still vote for that person because of his extensive background in understanding Library funding issues and fiscally responsible management practices, even though there was an alternate candidate who was personally a pro-life advocate, but had no background in issues relating to libraries. It is unlikely that in the performance of his duties the pro-life candidate would have any opportunity to influence abortion policy one way or the other. But it is very likely that such a candidate could lead the library to financial ruin through his lack of experience in public library issues. And if you don’t think an inept candidate could ever win such an election, in a recent election in our district, one of the Board of Directors won his position with just 7 votes total!

Of course a position like a federal legislator or president has as much greater chance of having influence on abortion policy. But it is ultimately up to the conscience of the individual voter to decide when proportionate reasons like these exist. An election is usually not a choice between one policy or another. It is a choice between one person and another. Campaign rhetoric is often ambiguous, since it is designed to appeal to the widest possible electorate. Therefore it takes some prudential judgment to determine what the likely result on policy would be for any particular choice. You rarely get a chance to make a real choice between stopping an abortion and promoting some alternate public good. So the “proportionate reasons” do not have to be reasons for evaluating the alternate public good vs. the good of stopping an abortion. The “proportionate reasons” involve the whole chain of events that are likely to come from one choice vs. another, along with their respective probabilities.
 
ANNE_2 said:
“WORTHINESS to RECEIVE COMMUNION - General Instructions” by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6041&CFID=79690252&CFTOKEN=45231136

" Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. "

“5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”

" 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. "

CCC - " 2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.
Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. "

In today’s society as it exists in 2011, what “proprotionate reasons” would be the same as or more important than the murder of more than approx., 1.4 MILLION innocent children per year in the US (abortion) ? (No hypothetical issues please, only reality.)
Click to expand...
The quotes (other than the CCC) are from Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004 when he headed up the Sacred Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith.
That is why the link has been provided, so it can be read in entirety as it was intended.

All the sentences in his each of paragraphs must be taken together in total, not separating sentences out for our own purposes. When he mentioned “proportionate reason”, he was talking about Catholic Voters, not the Polticians.

His choice of words “remote material cooperation” was very interesting.

Incumbent politicians in addition to their public words, have a public voting record showing action.
All politicians must be held accountable for their votes - both Federal and State legislators.

In 2011 we already have the official roll call vote for both the US House and Senate, for “H CON RES 36” to DEFUND Planned Parenthood and its affiliates.

In the US there isn’t much for the Catholic voter to discern. Just pay attention to our own elected representatives as part of our voting obligation.

senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00060#state

http:clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll271.xml

At the State level many States have various votes and public statements.
 
ANNE_2 said:
In 2011 we already have the official roll call vote for both the US House and Senate, for “H CON RES 36” to DEFUND Planned Parenthood and its affiliates.

In the US there isn’t much for the Catholic voter to discern. Just pay attention to our own elected representatives as part of our voting obligation…
Click to expand...
I don’t think your first statement above is sufficient reason to declare “there isn’t much for the Catholic voter to discern”. You have cited one of the very few instances in which a vote on record gives a clear indication of the position of the current legislators. And even in that case, it does not help to determine the position of a rival candidate who is not an incumbent and does not have a record. In most elections, at least one candidate has a thin or non-existent record, in which case we have only their campaign rhetoric to use as a guide. So I think discernment is still necessary. Perhaps you are just worried that people will use the opportunity of discernment to excuse some very bad choices. And of course that is true. Choices made by providential judgment can still be very bad choices. But the alternative - taking away all chance for individual judgment - has its dangers too. If a group (like say, faithful Catholics) declares that it will choose according to some simple automatic rule, then politicians will take advantage of that fact to say just the right “magic words” to satisfy the rule, and thus ensure them a large block of votes, without having to be sincere about what they say. So getting Catholics to give up their duty to “discern” could actually do more damage to the pro-life cause than good.
 
Question:
2 candidates:
  1. One is pro-life and will not compromise his Faith by voting for any legislation that perpetuates the legal right to abortions
  2. Pro-Choice candidate who wants to spend money on social services to the poor single mothers, reinforce child-support laws, provide healthcare and education, etc.
As a matter of conscience am I allowed to vote for the Pro-choice candidate on the sole condition that I believe that his policies will cause less abortions?
I guess I am asking if a pro-choice candidate could indirectly serve the pro-life movement?
 
Birdpreacher said:
Question:
2 candidates:
  1. One is pro-life and will not compromise his Faith by voting for any legislation that perpetuates the legal right to abortions
  2. Pro-Choice candidate who wants to spend money on social services to the poor single mothers, reinforce child-support laws, provide healthcare and education, etc.
As a matter of conscience am I allowed to vote for the Pro-choice candidate on the sole condition that I believe that his policies will cause less abortions?
I guess I am asking if a pro-choice candidate could indirectly serve the pro-life movement?
Click to expand...
Well, yes, you could. But before you do, consider this: Have you researched what proportion of abortions are due to poor desperate single mothers feeling they have no alternative, as compared to abortions done out of blatant convenience? All the social services in the world are not going to do much to stop abortions done out of convenience and not poverty.

So while you can use your own judgment on questions like this, at the same time your own judgment could be very wrong.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Well, yes, you could. But before you do, consider this: Have you researched what proportion of abortions are due to poor desperate single mothers feeling they have no alternative, as compared to abortions done out of blatant convenience? All the social services in the world are not going to do much to stop abortions done out of convenience and not poverty.

So while you can use your own judgment on questions like this, at the same time your own judgment could be very wrong.
Click to expand...
In the USA today we have food stamps, housing subsidies, Medicaid, educational assistance, child care, free school breakfast and lunch programs, etc, for the poor.
There also are many non-governmental groups such as Salvation Army, Soup Kitchens, Food Pantries and St. Vincent de Paul Society who help those in need.

There is never an excuse for killing an innocent human being, because that is murder for convenience.
ehd.org/movies.php?mov_id=44
We must all take responsbility for our own actions, including sexual actions.

American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for the killing of babies through our tax dollars.

Adoption of an infant for those who are not capable to raise a child is very appropriate. In the USA, infants are in demand.
 
ANNE_2 said:
“WORTHINESS to RECEIVE COMMUNION - General Instructions” by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6041&CFID=79690252&CFTOKEN=45231136

" Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. "

“5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”

" 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. "

CCC - " 2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.
Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. "

In today’s society as it exists in 2011, what “proprotionate reasons” would be the same as or more important than the murder of more than approx., 1.4 MILLION innocent children per year in the US (abortion) ? (No hypothetical issues please, only reality.)
Click to expand...
Don’t you already have a thread on the same topic?

Your error here is in describing what is considered proportionate reasons. If you phrase proportionate as something compared to the death of 1.4 million innocent children, then obviously nothing is proportionate to that. If the Pope, then Cardinal wanted to say anyone who votes for a pro-life candidate should not receive communion, he would not have added that qualifier.

The point is that voters should be aware of their politicians stand on issues that the Church is against.

A politician who is pro-choice is not necessarily responsible for 1.4 million innocent children anymore than a woman who has an abortion has killed 1.4 million babies.

Just because a candidate is pro-life doesn’t mean he or she will be out there fighting to change laws either.

If a candidate is staunchly pro-choice and has made it their mission to make laws to make it easier for women to make abortions, then I wouldn’t vote for that candidate.

However, telling people to vote on one issue makes us naive and foolish and easy to manipulate by politicians as some have pointed out.
 
Birdpreacher said:
Question:
2 candidates:
  1. One is pro-life and will not compromise his Faith by voting for any legislation that perpetuates the legal right to abortions
  2. Pro-Choice candidate who wants to spend money on social services to the poor single mothers, reinforce child-support laws, provide healthcare and education, etc.
As a matter of conscience am I allowed to vote for the Pro-choice candidate on the sole condition that I believe that his policies will cause less abortions?
I guess I am asking if a pro-choice candidate could indirectly serve the pro-life movement?
Click to expand...
No you can’t.
All Catholics are required to form a correct conscience. There is no way the intentional murder of millions of innocent persons can be justified.
Through God’s Commandments, and through the Church, Catholics know “thou shall not kill”.
Catholics have all been taught that abortion is a Mortal Sin. The Church has provided us with the teachings we need to know this - including the “CCC 2nd Ed”.

CCC - “2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life.
Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law.
The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.”

CCC " 1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful.
It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator.
The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings."

CCC - " 1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt."

CCC - " 1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
  • by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
  • by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
  • by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
  • by protecting evil-doers.
(As an aside, the senario provided in the question is non-existant. In the USA education, child support laws, services to the poor including healthcare (Medicaid) is already provided.
Adoption of infants is appropriate when the birth parents are unable to cope with a child. Americans have been going to other Countries to adopt infants, since there are not enough to fill the need in the US.)
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

“Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church?” - required in order to receive Holy Communion.
 
ANNE_2 said:
In the USA today we have food stamps, housing subsidies, Medicaid, educational assistance, child care, free school breakfast and lunch programs, etc, for the poor.
There also are many non-governmental groups such as Salvation Army, Soup Kitchens, Food Pantries and St. Vincent de Paul Society who help those in need.

There is never an excuse for killing an innocent human being, because that is murder for convenience.
ehd.org/movies.php?mov_id=44
We must all take responsbility for our own actions, including sexual actions.

American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for the killing of babies through our tax dollars.

Adoption of an infant for those who are not capable to raise a child is very appropriate. In the USA, infants are in demand.
Click to expand...
These are all very good arguments, and as a matter of fact, I personally agree with them. But they are prudential judgments. And I thought you started this thread to question why Catholic doctrine, as shown by the Church documents you quoted, made any provisions for individual judgment (“proportionate reasons”) in the issue of voting. The Church is wise to declare as doctrinally true only those things that are beyond the possibility of individual judgment. She then exhorts us to use our reason to see how doctrine can be applied. That is where your arguments come in. They are showing how you used your reason to conclude something about specific elections. But those arguments do not invalidate the need for Church documents you cited.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I thought you started this thread to question why Catholic doctrine, as shown by the Church documents you quoted, made any provisions for individual judgment (“proportionate reasons”) in the issue of voting.
Click to expand...
The Church cannot come out with an absolute statement in the case of voting because there can always be a valid exception. The problem with the comment is not that it recognizes the obvious but that it is often used as an excuse to simply skirt the issue. It is not wrong in what it says; the wrong comes from how it is used.

I think your comments on the difficulty of assessing a politician’s position on abortion is a case in point. Really, it isn’t that hard. Someone else’s comment that a politician may support abortion “in theory” but as long as he doesn’t materially assist in an actual abortion he may be an acceptable candidate is also a subterfuge. There is a disparate political impact here: Democrats generally support abortion, Republicans generally oppose it and this is what accounts for the mental gymnastics involved in trying to minimize the moral significance of that fact.

Ender
 
The reason for the post was to see if anyone could come up with any real reason using “proportionate reason” in 2011 to vote for a pro-abortion politician in the USA.

Any reasonable, logical reason based in reality, not hypothetical.

(Using Church Documents, and links would be appropriate to insure the issues are not hypothetical.)

MURDER of approx 1.4 million innocents vs ???
 
ANNE_2 said:
The reason for the post was to see if anyone could come up with any real reason using “proportionate reason” in 2011 to vote for a pro-abortion politician in the USA.

Any reasonable, logical reason based in reality, not hypothetical.

(Using Church Documents, and links would be appropriate to insure the issues are not hypothetical.)

MURDER of approx 1.4 million innocents vs ???
Click to expand...
Well, what about my example of the pro-abortion candidate for library board of directors who really knows libraries vs a pro-life candidate who is clueless about libraries? What chance does such a candidate have to influence abortion policy?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Well, what about my example of the pro-abortion candidate for library board of directors who really knows libraries vs a pro-life candidate who is clueless about libraries? What chance does such a candidate have to influence abortion policy?
Click to expand...
This is an interesting question for a couple of reasons, the first of which is that it seeks to avoid the real question being asked. I’m pretty confident the OP was asking about candidates for at least state office and surely for federal ones. Your posts indicate you’re an intelligent person; I’m sure you understood the point so I’m not clear on why you’re avoiding that issue.

Second, though - what of the library board of directors? At what point should we ignore a person’s morals and support him based solely on competence? I think there is such a point and your example may be close to it, although even in this case I would not vote to put the town abortionist on the board regardless of his qualifications. There is more involved than simply passing laws for and against abortion; there is also the question of affecting public perceptions about the propriety of abortion. If believers act as if it isn’t important it is likely the lukewarm will accept that judgment.

Ender
 
Ender said:
This is an interesting question for a couple of reasons, the first of which is that it seeks to avoid the real question being asked. I’m pretty confident the OP was asking about candidates for at least state office and surely for federal ones. Your posts indicate you’re an intelligent person; I’m sure you understood the point so I’m not clear on why you’re avoiding that issue.
Click to expand...
I’m avoiding it because on the issue of voting for people who have direct or indirect responsibility for setting abortion policy, I agree that it would be hard to find a proportionate reason to ignore their position on abortion to vote for them for less important reasons. But the OP was questioning whether one could ever judge that proportionate reasons exist. I don’t know the state and federal bureaucracy well enough to offer comparable examples in those areas, but it is not inconceivable that such offices might exist.
Second, though - what of the library board of directors? At what point should we ignore a person’s morals and support him based solely on competence? I think there is such a point and your example may be close to it, although even in this case I would not vote to put the town abortionist on the board regardless of his qualifications. There is more involved than simply passing laws for and against abortion; there is also the question of affecting public perceptions about the propriety of abortion. If believers act as if it isn’t important it is likely the lukewarm will accept that judgment.
Click to expand...
You will notice that in my first posting of that example I supposed that the pro-abortion candidate was merely neutral on the issue. Presumably I would not even hear about his position from his public statements since there would be no reason to make public statements about abortion if you were running for a seat on the library board. Presumably I could only come by this information by personal contact - maybe he is my neighbor and we talk about things. Of course if the candidate was a vocal proponent of abortion and made it a point that he intended use whatever power and influence he had to influence policy in that direction, then I would decide to risk the ruin of the library just to forestall that chance, and I would vote for the less-experienced candidate who is not a supporter of abortion, precisely because the of side-effects that you mentioned - having the ability to affect public perceptions. The point is, these are thoughtful processes, not to be short-circuited.

If the absolute policy is followed of making everything having to do with abortion infinitely more important than anything else, then where does it end? You suggested voting against the competent library board candidate just to prevent him from some day affecting public perception. OK, suppose that same guy is trying to get into a private country club that I happen to belong to, and he asks me to speak on his behalf. I suppose I should refuse because he may talk to someone at the country club and maybe the discussion will turn to abortion and maybe he will have an opportunity to sway someone to his view. OK, then suppose his car breaks down and he asks me for a lift to the airport to attend an important business meeting. It is too late to call a cab. I suppose I should refuse that too because if he does well at his business meeting then he may rise in the business world and have an opportunity to influence many more people. So I should do nothing to allow him to be successful in anything he does, because if he is allowed to succeed in life, that might be bad for the pro-life cause. Does this not begin to sound like nonsense? But we have a continuum here - all the way from refusing to vote for him as library board member to actively working for his failure in life. On what basis do you draw a line in that continuum and say that beyond this point it is nonsense?

The parameter that defines that continuum is probability. At one end you have a choice that has a high probability of affecting abortion policy. At the other end you have a choice that has a very low probability of affecting abortion policy. Clearly the probability must be taken into account when determining proportionate reasons.

Keep in mind that I am not disagreeing with the OP’s basic premise - that 1.4 million babies cannot be balanced against any lesser public good. I am only disagreeing with the automatic nature of the decision that is being proposed.
 
If Obamacare looked the same but banned all forms of abortion, would it be preferable to the status quo?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
But the OP was questioning whether one could ever judge that proportionate reasons exist.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. The OP asked a very specific question and requested a specific answer.

what “proprotionate reasons” would be the same as or more important than the murder of more than approx., 1.4 MILLION innocent children per year in the US (abortion)?
The point is, these are thoughtful processes, not to be short-circuited.
Click to expand...
I presume you mean one is justified in thinking about the question and should not simply assume that no proportionate reason could ever exist. That’s not what the OP was saying: there was a blanket challenge to everyone to come up with such an exception. We may think about it all we like but at the end of the day either we have an example or we don’t.
But we have a continuum here - all the way from refusing to vote for him as library board member to actively working for his failure in life. On what basis do you draw a line in that continuum and say that beyond this point it is nonsense?
Click to expand...
I disagree that there is any kind of continuum involved. The obligations we have to a person as a private individual are not the same as those we have for that same person in his public life and we surely have no obligation to sabotage someone’s life.
Keep in mind that I am not disagreeing with the OP’s basic premise - that 1.4 million babies cannot be balanced against any lesser public good. I am only disagreeing with the automatic nature of the decision that is being proposed.
Click to expand...
Again, what the OP offered was a challenge to identify a “proportionate reason” and implied that such a reason did not exist; the inference that this meant “no need to think about this one” is just that, an inference. Still, if such a reason does not exist then the OP’s statement and what you think it implied are both true.

Ender
 
Ender said:
Not exactly. The OP asked a very specific question and requested a specific answer.

what "proprotionate reasons" would be the same as or more important than the murder of more than approx., 1.4 MILLION innocent children per year in the US (abortion)?
…there was a blanket challenge to everyone to come up with such an exception.
Click to expand...
Sure, if you want to interpret the OP’s question that narrowly, then there is nothing proportionate to the murder of 1.4 million babies. But the context of the question was Cardinal Ratzinger’s quote dealing with voting and proportionate reasons to vote for a candidate that did not share your stand on abortion. In that case what is on one side of the balance is not the importance of the murder of 1.4 million babies. It is the importance of the consequences of the vote, which is not the same thing as illustrated by the library board example. When the correlation between the outcome of the election and its effect on abortions is sufficiently weak, then the importance of that vote vis-a-vis abortions is proportionately reduced. If it is sufficiently reduced, then other considerations can be proportionately more important. That is what I think proportionate reasons means in the context of Cardinal Ratzinger’s quote. If the OP had only asked the question without any context, then I would not have replied. But when it was put in the context of the Ratzinger quotation, then I felt it needed to be addressed in that context.
I disagree that there is any kind of continuum involved. The obligations we have to a person as a private individual are not the same as those we have for that same person in his public life and we surely have no obligation to sabotage someone’s life.
Click to expand...
Are you implying that we do have an obligation to sabotage this man’s efforts to be on the library board just because it is an election in public life? What if the library board position became an appointed position instead of an elected one? Would that mean that I suddenly should do what I could when called upon to help him get that appointment? There is no fundamental difference helping him get the job by means of an election and helping him get the job when it is not an election. It is the same job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top