I Don't Understand This

[daugher-of-Mary]

I know Cardinal Ratzinger's letter is old news, but I only read it today. The last sentence surprised me a lot.

[quote]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 favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, [b]but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.] [/b] [/quote]

What are proportionate reasons for voting for a pro-choice candidate?? I don't get it.

[Aloysius]

the only proportionate reasons i can think of is if the other candidate is also pro-choice.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 1 2004, 11:15 AM'] the only proportionate reasons i can think of is if the other candidate is also pro-choice. [/quote]
good call. then, in such a case, one would have to vote on the degree to which the two candidates align themselves w/ the Church on other issues.

[p0lar_bear]

While not exceptionally likely...

If a pro-choice candidate is running against an anti-abortion candidate who also happens to support the mass murder of all African-Americans....I think you could make a case for voting for the pro-choice candidate...

If the anti-abortion candidates is or intends to become a tyranical dictator who kills anyone who disagrees with him....

If the anti-abortion stance is the only redeemable position (not just a difference of opinion on how to help the economy) or the candidate advocates all sorts of really horrible injustices....

Granted, this isn't very likely in the US, but in some countries a situation wherein an anti-abortion candidate would truly be the greater of two evils (even running against a pro-choice candidate) isn't unthinkable.

[Chrysologus]

I'm really glad you posted that excerpt. Finally, the proof I need to show that these conservative "voter's guides," which claim voting for a pro-abortion candidate is a mortal sin, do not have the support of the magisterium!

[p0lar_bear]

Chrysologus,

Just don't forget that whole "proportionate reasons" part. And, FYI, the economy and education do not constitute proportionate reasons.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='daugher-of-Mary' date='Aug 1 2004, 09:03 AM']I know Cardinal Ratzinger's letter is old news, but I only read it today. The last sentence surprised me a lot.

[quote]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 favor 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.[/quote]

What are proportionate reasons for voting for a pro-choice candidate?? I don't get it. [/quote]
This means that if both candidates were pro-choice, you could licitly vote for the candidate who would put the most restrictions on the practice of abortion. The Pope speaks of this in [u]Evangelium Vitae[/u], for as he points out in that document, one would not be positively voting for abortion, but would be voting to limit the bad effects of an intrinsically evil situation. [cf. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter [u]Evangelium Vitae[/u], no. 73]

There are no proportionate reasons that I can see that would make it morally acceptable to vote for John Kerry, unless of course he repents of his error and publicly renounces the evil of abortion, and becomes pro-life. If Mr. Kerry takes a pro-life position that is even more in line with Catholic teaching than the position presently held by President Bush, then it would become possible to vote for Mr. Kerry.

Edited August 1, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Aug 1 2004, 01:20 PM'] Chrysologus,

Just don't forget that whole "proportionate reasons" part. And, FYI, the economy and education do not constitute proportionate reasons. [/quote]
Well said.

[Dave]

Whoa, hoss!

Read Aloysius' post. Cardinal Ratzinger wasn't saying that you could vote for a pro-abortion candidate (I refuse to call it pro-choice) if, say, you liked their stance on education. Anyone who votes for a pro-abortion candidate is cooperating in their sin. And if they know the Church teaches this, then they sin mortally.

[PedroX]

Polar,

Just FYI but I believe David Duke was anti-abortion. I was too young to vote then, but that fact seems to stick in my mind.

peace...

[daugher-of-Mary]

ooohhhhh *lightbulb goes on*

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='PedroX' date='Aug 1 2004, 05:58 PM'] Polar,

Just FYI but I believe David Duke was anti-abortion. I was too young to vote then, but that fact seems to stick in my mind.

peace... [/quote]
who?

[Guest JeffCR07]

lol, yea I feel bad, but I don't recognise that name.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

I think we also have to remember that this applies to all levels-local, state, and federal. On a local level, whether or not a candidate is pro-choice or pro-life doesn't make a huge difference as they can't make those laws. In the case of a pro-life v. pro-choice mayor, you can vote for the pro-choice mayor assuming the pro-choice mayor isn't going to actively promote abortion through the local government. Suppose there are some strip clubs and pornography shops in your town. If the pro-life candidate says leave them open and the pro-choice candidate wants to shut them down, then for the sake of your community, you can vote for the pro-choice candidate. However, if the pro-choice candidate wants to promote abortion in your town, you shouldn't vote for the pro-choice candidate even though he wants to shut the strip clubs down.

I think proportionate reasons has to be considered in light of how much influence the office has over abortion. If it's none or very very little, then other issues take on more importance. For presidential or Congressional offices, it's of utmost importance and no other reason can be considered more important.

[Dave]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Aug 2 2004, 09:01 AM'] who? [/quote]
[quote]lol, yea I feel bad, but I don't recognise that name. [/quote]

David Duke is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan from Louisiana who has been a member of the Louisiana state legislature and has also run unsuccessfully for governor of that state and even president. He's said in the past that he's no longer a racist, but that's a lie.