Formal Cooperators With Abortion

[Seven77]

This is something that i've been thinking about:

Who are considered to be formal cooperators with abortion and are formal cooperators murderers? Specifically, is it morally accurate to refer to President Obama and like-minded politicians as murderers?

Thanks for the response(s).

[cappie]

Catechism of The Catholic Church: [url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art4.shtml#1755"]http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art4.shtml#1755[/url]

Principles of cooperation

The principles of double effect and tolerance show that it is impossible, under many circumstances, for an individual to do good in the world without being involved to some extent in evil. The principles of cooperation were developed in the Catholic moral tradition as a way of helping individuals discern how to properly avoid, limit, or distance themselves from evil (especially intrinsic evil) in order to avoid a worse evil or to achieve an important good.

1. Formal Cooperation. Formal cooperation occurs when a person freely participates in the action(s) of a principal agent, or shares in the agent’s intention, either for its own sake or as a means to some other goal. Implicit formal cooperation occurs when, even though the cooperator denies intending the object of the principal agent, the cooperating person or organization participates in the action directly and in such a way that the it could not be done without this participation. Formal cooperation in intrinsically evil actions, either explicitly or implicitly, is morally illicit.

2. Immediate Material Cooperation. Immediate material cooperation occurs when the cooperator participates in circumstances that are essential to the commission of an act, such that the act could not occur without this participation. Immediate material cooperation in intrinsically evil actions is morally illicit. There has been in the tradition a debate about the permissibility of immediate cooperation in immoral acts under "duress." When individuals are forced under duress (e.g. at gunpoint) to cooperate in the intrinsically evil action of another, they act with diminished freedom. Following Church teaching, the matter of their action remains objectively evil, but they do not intend this object with true freedom. In such cases, the matter remains objectively evil as such, but the subjective culpability of the cooperator is diminished.

3. Mediate Material Cooperation. Mediate material cooperation occurs when the cooperator participates in circumstances that are not essential to the commission of an action, such that the action could occur even without this cooperation. Mediate material cooperation in an immoral act might be justifiable under three basic conditions:

1. If there is a proportionately serious reason for the cooperation (i.e.,for the sake of protecting an important good or for avoiding a worse harm); the graver the evil the more serious a reason required for the cooperation;

2. The importance of the reason for cooperation must be proportionate to the causal proximity of the cooperator’s action to the action of the principal agent (the distinction between proximate and remote);

3. The danger of scandal (i.e. leading others into doing evil, leading others into error, or spreading confusion) must be avoided. [url="http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/8a.htm"]http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/8a.htm[/url]

Although it is impossible to judge the state of another’s soul, it is possible to know whether his actions violate the dictates of right reason and are objectively sinful. A politician who supports immoral practices formally cooperates in the immoral acts that others perform. The essential difference between formal and material cooperation is found in the disposition of the cooperator’s will, which is expressed both in what he does and in his motive(s) for acting.

In formal cooperation, the secondary agent wills the same evil as the primary agent, whereas in material cooperation, the secondary agent opposes the evil willed by the primary agent, but nevertheless contributes to that evil while pursuing some good. Objectively, a politician who supports abortion promotes the killing of unborn children, irrespective of any claim he may make to be personally opposed to such killing, or any good motive he may have for acting. If an act is immoral by reason of its object, no motive or good consequence can purify it. As John Paul II explained:

[i]"The rational ordering of the human act to the good in its truth and the voluntary pursuit of that good, known by reason, constitute morality. Hence human activity cannot be judged as morally good merely because it is a means for attaining one or another of its goals, or simply because the subject’s intention is good. Activity is morally good when it attests to and expresses the voluntary ordering of the person to his ultimate end and the conformity of a concrete action with the human good as it is acknowledged in its truth by reason. If the object of the concrete action is not in harmony with the true good of the person, the choice of that action makes our will and ourselves morally evil, thus putting us in conflict with our ultimate end, the supreme good, God Himself." Veritatis splendor[/i]

A politician who supports abortion (and other immoral practices) wills that evil be done. He wrongly affirms that a woman has a right to abort her unborn child and wills that this “right” be legally enforced. Whenever a candidate promotes (and is not trying only to limit) immoral acts, he manifests an evil will, and is a formal cooperator in evil. Formal cooperation in abortion, and other gravely immoral acts, constitutes grave objective sin. [url="http://www.wf-f.org/06-2-CatholicPolitics.html"]http://www.wf-f.org/06-2-CatholicPolitics.html[/url]

As an Australian I wouldn't like to comment on your politics. I will leave this to others here