Worthiness to Receive Communion - and Voting

[ANNE_2]

The original post was intended for US Federal and State offices, current (2011), and “proportionate reasoning” about abortion as stated in Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter to US Bishops.
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

I personally could not think of anything that would be proportionate to the murder of approx 1.4 Million babies.
Wanted to know if someone could come up with something I may have missed.

The only thing I could think of would be when all candidates on the ballot are pro-abortion, then we would be obligated to vote for the lessor of the evils based on other considerations.

I’ve lived in MI, CA, VA and FL. Library Boards have never been on any ballot where I lived. Those were always appointed positions.
Appointments for Judges, etc., are important - and that is another reason that we should not vote for pro-abortion candidates. Example: Obama and Supreme Court appointee/nominee Elana Kagan.

For incumbents we have the voting record. For new candidates we can simply ask them at a public meeting where it will be difficult for them to deny his/her statement.

The question still stands. Approx 1.4 murdered innocents vs ? ? ? ?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The original post was intended for US Federal and State offices, current (2011), and “proportionate reasoning” about abortion as stated in Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter to US Bishops.
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

I personally could not think of anything that would be proportionate to the murder of approx 1.4 Million babies.
Wanted to know if someone could come up with something I may have missed.

Well, let’s see if maybe you can come up with proportionate reasons if I suggest specific candidates. If Mark Kirk (Illinois senator) were running against Joe Donnelly (Representative from Indiana), who would you vote for?

 

[Ender]

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.

It is clear in theory that if the election of either candidate has the same effect on abortion then the issue is essentially irrelevant in determining who to vote for. From this truism, however, come innumerable spurious claims that gee, no one can have (or has had) any effect so the difference in position doesn’t matter.

In the real world it does matter and - in the elections that matter - this is the choice we face and the OP’s position remains unchallenged.

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.

Why torture his meaning this way? His point is as obvious as it is simple: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.” What issue is proportionate to the extermination of 1.3 million children every year? The gloss you put on his words are entirely your own.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is clear in theory that if the election of either candidate has the same effect on abortion then the issue is essentially irrelevant in determining who to vote for. From this truism, however, come innumerable spurious claims that gee, no one can have (or has had) any effect so the difference in position doesn’t matter.

Agreed. Any truism can be misapplied. That doesn’t mean we should be afraid of stating truisms for fear they might be abused. If you think I have misapplied that truism in any example I have given, then point it out.

Why torture his meaning this way? His point is as obvious as it is simple: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.” What issue is proportionate to the extermination of 1.3 million children every year? The gloss you put on his words are entirely your own.

The portion of Cardinal Ratziner’s quote that you left off was …it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons. What “gloss” am I adding that Cardinal Ratzinger did not intend? Would he have included this comment about “proportionate reasons” if he thought that it was impossible for proportionate reasons to exist?

And as for the main point, “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.”, I have not contradicted it. I am not claiming that any one issue has the same moral weight as these issues. One does not need to claim moral equivalency in order to justify including other factors when deciding how to vote.

 

[Ender]

The portion of Cardinal Ratziner’s quote that you left off was …it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons. What “gloss” am I adding that Cardinal Ratzinger did not intend?

There is nothing in any of his comments that touched on the question of the effectiveness of legislators; that was entirely your contribution.

Would he have included this comment about “proportionate reasons” if he thought that it was impossible for proportionate reasons to exist?

No, he was clearly allowing for that possibility, which is quite reasonable given the vast number of conceivable situations arising from individual races between candidates.

One does not need to claim moral equivalency in order to justify including other factors when deciding how to vote.

We don’t need to disagree in theory to strongly disagree in application, and I’m not quite sure how to understand your comment here. Remote material cooperation with evil is morally acceptable only where there are proportionate reasons for doing so, and no, those reasons don’t have to include issues that are morally equivalent with the evil.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We don’t need to disagree in theory to strongly disagree in application

OK, I can go along with that. I don’t insist that everyone agree with me in application. But I would be curious to know how you would vote in the race described in posting #22 above.

…and I’m not quite sure how to understand your comment here. Remote material cooperation with evil is morally acceptable only where there are proportionate reasons for doing so, and no, those reasons don’t have to include issues that are morally equivalent with the evil.

I think you stated it very well. That is exactly what I meant.

 

[Ender]

I don’t insist that everyone agree with me in application.

Well in this case the devil is in the details. I’ve seen how this question has been “resolved” (by others) so I tread very carefully whenever it comes up.

I would be curious to know how you would vote in the race described in posting #22 above.

I don’t know anything about either of them, but I have to say the question about this hypothetical situation seems a bit akin to asking who would win a fight between Godzilla and the Blob. Interesting to speculate about but I don’t know how relevant it is.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t know anything about either of them, but I have to say the question about this hypothetical situation seems a bit akin to asking who would win a fight between Godzilla and the Blob. Interesting to speculate about but I don’t know how relevant it is.

As you say, the devil is in the details. And in the case of the two I mentioned, their details (including their positions on life issues) are readily available if you just Google each name. Such a race is not that far-fetched. They are both current federal legislators from adjacent states. If you say it is difficult to determine their positions, then that supports my point that applying the general principles we have been discussing is not trivial.

 

[ANNE_2]

Well, let’s see if maybe you can come up with proportionate reasons if I suggest specific candidates. If Mark Kirk (Illinois senator) were running against Joe Donnelly (Representative from Indiana), who would you vote for?

It does make a difference who we vote for regarding abortion expecially at Federal and State levels.
It affects not only votes on abortion, but also appointments of Judges, Administratrion appointees, Cabinet seats, laws that are passed, etc.
On the local level in can even affect appointment to various Boards, County or City Ordinances, Who is hired as County or City Manager who then hires the head of Social Services etc.
Elected persons have a snowball effect.
Abortion is a moral and ethical Cancer that spreads throughout the system.

I don’t know anything about these Candidates but their voting record on abortion in 2011 is as follows:
Rep Donnelly (D) of IN - voted in favor of the “NO TAXPAYER FUNDING of ABORTION ACT” - HR 3 (Roll Call Vote 292)
Rep Donnelly - voted in **favor **of DEFUND Planned Parenthood and its affliliates, H CON RES 36 (Roll Call Vote ) 271.
Sen Mark Kirk (R) of IL - voted **against **DEFUND Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, H Con Res 36

Your question shows voters need to check the records and can not depend only on Party Politics.
These are the politicians votes to DEFUND abortion in 2011. These were stand alone bills with no other considerations.
House:
clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/ROLL_200.asp - - - - #271 Defund PP
clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/ROLL_200.asp - - - - #292 No Taxpayer Funds for abortion

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

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote his letter to the Bishops for the permanent record in his role as Cardinal-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

In 2011, I can’t think of anything proportionate in the USA to killing over 1 million innocent babies each year.
(This does not mean that there is not, nor has ever been anything proportionate in each of the Countries of the World.)
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…
I don’t know anything about these Candidates but their voting record on abortion in 2011 is as follows:
Rep Donnelly (D) of IN - voted in favor of the “NO TAXPAYER FUNDING of ABORTION ACT” - HR 3 (Roll Call Vote 292)
Rep Donnelly - voted in **favor **of DEFUND Planned Parenthood and its affliliates, H CON RES 36 (Roll Call Vote ) 271.
Sen Mark Kirk (R) of IL - voted **against **DEFUND Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, H Con Res 36

Your question shows voters need to check the records and can not depend only on Party Politics.

You are true to your word.

 

[valentino]

If Obamacare looked the same but banned all forms of abortion, would it be preferable to the status quo?

Abortion isn’t significant issue in terms of whether Obamacare should be passed or not.I believe it were removed it would have much to do with whether you are for it or aganist it.

 

[valentino]

I’ll say it again.A uninformed voter shouldn’t vote.

 

[Cojuanco]

Well, it all goes to show - be informed. Don’t just listen to party propaganda, either way. Look at their proposals and platforms. Otherwise you may very well inadvertently vote in something worse.

 

[ANNE_2]

Look at the voting record of your individual representatives.

We already have their 2011 voting record on murdering babies.

 

[Cojuanco]

Of course, that raises the question - but what if the opposing candidate has no record of elected office, and makes vague generalities that could be spun either way?

 

[ANNE_2]

Of course, that raises the question - but what if the opposing candidate has no record of elected office, and makes vague generalities that could be spun either way?

A 50-50 is better than someone who is known to support the murder of innocents.

However better yet - so a 50-50 vote is unnecessary, each one of us can personally take the responsibility to contact all candidates within our State either at a ‘meet the candidates’ or otherwise and ask the pointed questions -

Do you support a woman’s right to choose murder ?
If elected (or re-elected) will you work for or against taxpayer funded abortion? And are you willing to put your answer in writing?