Earn $25,000 For Your Family!

[ironmonk]

Just blow yourself up in a muslim suicide bombing....

Saddam Pays 25K for Palestinian Bombers

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html

Saddam Hussein is paying $25,000 to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers — a $15,000 raise much welcomed by the bombers' families.

http://www.zoa.org/pressrel/20030325a.htm

"Saddam Hussein's regime is also an integral part of the international terrorist network. Iraq's close relations with Yasir Arafat's terrorist Palestinian Authority regime, and Iraq's policy of paying $25,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian Arab suicide bombers, demonstrates that Saddam's evil deeds range far beyond Iraq's borders. America and Israel are fighting the same battle, confronting terrorists on two different fronts in the same war against international terror and its sponsors."

Fueling Terror

http://www.iags.org/fuelingterror.html

While his people lack food and medicine, he takes pride in paying $25,000 to families of Palestinians who carried out suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...cle.asp?ID=2267

"Every day Saddam [Hussein] remains in power [in Iraq] with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States," said Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, last weekend on "Fox News Sunday."

"We have no choice but to eliminate that threat [that Iraq might develop nuclear weapons]," said Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Senator Joseph Biden, Democrat of Delaware, Sunday on NBC’s "Meet the Press."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/14/...ble549229.shtml

RUMSFELD: On one of the buses, they found something like several hundred thousand dollars and a number of leaflets that suggested that people would be rewarded if they killed Americans, which is not surprising. Saddam Hussein's regime was paying $25,000 to people who blew up shopping malls in Israel -- suicide bombers.

Now...

http://www.fdnylodd.com/BloodofHeroes.html

Unjust war????

Was the Pope's statement infallible? No.

I do listen to the Pope and obey... but those who are not Catholic, are not obligated to do so... It was a very just war to them, and I understand why.

Would Saddam have changed and done things peacefully through diplomatic processes... look at his track record... I think not.

God Bless,

ironmonk

Edited September 11, 2003 by ironmonk

[Good Friday]

Unjust war????

Was the Pope's statement infallible? No.

I do listen to the Pope and obey... but those who are not Catholic, are not obligated to do so... It was a very just war to them, and I understand why.

None of this matters. It either is an unjust war, or it isn't. It's not subjective based on your denomination, nor does what Bush believed matter anymore than what liberals believe about abortion. The Pope's interpretation of the just war principles is more important to me than yours, Bush's, or an American theologian's.

[littleflower+JMJ]

i don't think they have the lottery over there do they?

:unsure:

[Winchester]

I say make it the fifty first state, and make it clear that the next time we're attacked in such a manner, we will begin dropping pork fat bombs on their crops and animals.

And if it keeps up, we'll do the same to Mecca.

[PedroX]

Hammas also pays settlements to the families of suicide bombers. Quaddaffi used to pay money to terrorists. Kim Il Sung pays terrorists. It is suspected that Syria pays money to terrorists (they definitely give money to parts of Hammas).

What makes Saddam so different?

peace...

[Good Friday]

Hammas also pays settlements to the families of suicide bombers. Quaddaffi used to pay money to terrorists. Kim Il Sung pays terrorists. It is suspected that Syria pays money to terrorists (they definitely give money to parts of Hammas).

What makes Saddam so different?

Thank you!

The point is that there are Catholic just war criteria. One of those criteria is that Saddam Hussein must have attacked us or the international community in order for us to attack him. He did not attack us or the international community, therefore the war does not meet one of the criteria, therefore the war is unjust.

You can say that he brutally killed his own people, and it's true. You can say that he funded suicide bombers in the Holy Land, and it's true. But there are dictators worldwide who kill their own people. As has been pointed out, there are others who fund suicide bombers in the Holy Land. We don't go after them, so it's hard for me to believe that those factors were our motivation for removing Saddam Hussein from power.

Even if they were, though, they are not part of the just war criteria. One of the just war criteria was never met, so the war was unjust.

[ironmonk]

If they use different criteria and are ignorant of the true criteria it can be just in their eyes.

What part of "I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY DID IT" don't you understand?!

-ironmonk

Edited September 12, 2003 by ironmonk

[Good Friday]

If they use different criteria and are ignorant of the true criteria it can be just in their eyes.

What part of "I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY DID IT" don't you understand?!

I understand why they might have done it too, but that's not the point. Bush was warned by the Catholic Church and many other denominations and religions -- including his own Methodist leaders -- that the war would be unjust. He received letters from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, he received visits from papal representatives. If he is ignorant of the just war criteria of his own fault, then it is not invincible ignorance and he is culpable for that ignorance.

Regardless of why they think it was just, it was only truly just if it met the just war criteria of the Catholic Church. I have already demonstrated that it did not. Bush was not invincibly ignorant, so he is culpable for having violated the just war principles. It's not like nobody was telling him about them.

[Paladin D]

I have only one question.

Let's put this in a "What if" perspective.

What if Saddam was about to attack? Should've we waited to get attacked, than counter-attack?

I'm just curious. :o

[ironmonk]

I understand why they might have done it too, but that's not the point. Bush was warned by the Catholic Church and many other denominations and religions -- including his own Methodist leaders -- that the war would be unjust. He received letters from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, he received visits from papal representatives. If he is ignorant of the just war criteria of his own fault, then it is not invincible ignorance and he is culpable for that ignorance.

Regardless of why they think it was just, it was only truly just if it met the just war criteria of the Catholic Church. I have already demonstrated that it did not. Bush was not invincibly ignorant, so he is culpable for having violated the just war principles. It's not like nobody was telling him about them.

protestant mindset is the problem...

They don't have to listen to their leaders... for the protestant leaders to expect the laymen to fall in rank and file is hypocritical... for they, the protestant leaders, disagreed with the Church and left...

So in the laymen's mindset... if they feel that they are right, they can do whatever they see as just... just like the protestant fathers... and the thousands of denominations that have started up the past 30 years.

PD... we should have waited for him to attack, then counter and take him out. Think of it this way, should someone be put in prison for what they might do.

I'm not justifying the war... but I understand why they think it's justified.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[JP2Iloveyou]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with all of you again. I still think the war was just. We are all in agreement that at least three of the criteria have been met and that all four MUST be met. So, to determine if the war was just or not, we are only concerned about the first criteria. Here it is from CCC 2309, "The damage inflicted on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain."

Now, there is a problem. I'm not sure how they are defining "nation." Usually, we think of the term "nation" to be another term for "country." The U.S. is a nation, Iraq is a nation, France is a nation. However, this is not how a political scientist looks at the term, which is what I'm doing. The actual definition of "nation" is a group of people sharing common traits. So, the Kurds are a nation. The Sioux Indians are a nation. The Japanese are a nation, whether they live in Japan or not. Using that definition then, Hussein did attack a nation, the Kurds. He attacked them repeatedly and visciously. Therefore, IMO, we were completely justified in coming to their defense.

Now, there certainly are other leaders throughout the world who are doing similar things to Hussein. I'm not condoning them either. Hopefully they will stop or share in Saddam's fate. Rome wasn't built in a day though. In other words, we can't do everything at once.

[cmotherofpirl]

President Bush doesn't answer to the CAtholic Bishops, or the Pope.

Remember the principle of private interpretation and the supremacy of conscience?

AS far as President Bush is concerned , he answers to God.

[vianney]

i woudl rather have a prez who is god fearing then a prez like clinton who could give a rip

[Good Friday]

JP2...

So, the Kurds are a nation. The Sioux Indians are a nation. The Japanese are a nation, whether they live in Japan or not. Using that definition then, Hussein did attack a nation, the Kurds. He attacked them repeatedly and visciously. Therefore, IMO, we were completely justified in coming to their defense.

I realize you're a seminarian, but I think you're misinterpreting the just war criteria. I think by "the nation," the just war criteria are referring to the aggressor nation. In other words, the aggressor nation -- in this case, the United States -- must have been attacked by Iraq in order for it to be a just war. One other option is that the community of nations must have been attacked, but I don't think the Kurds represent the entire community of nations. Many would argue, despite your definition, that since they do not have their own country they're not even members of the community of nations except for the fact that they're citizens of Iraq.

If by nation the Kurds would be included, then certainly the Kurds would have been justified in attacking Iraq under Saddam Hussein. As I have said elsewhere, I think that a civil war within Iraq fought by the Iraqi people against Saddam Hussein would have been entirely justified. I even think that a war fought against Saddam Hussein by Iran may have been justified, given what he's done to them in the past. However, he has done nothing to us, and nothing to the community of nations since prior to the Gulf War. Therefore, I still contend that this war was not justified.

Cheryl...

President Bush doesn't answer to the CAtholic Bishops, or the Pope.

Remember the principle of private interpretation and the supremacy of conscience?

AS far as President Bush is concerned , he answers to God.

That's not the point. President Bush's culpability in this matter is not the point. The point is Catholic culpability in voting for a man who does not know or understand the just war principles, and who is not following them. Again, I don't think his ignorance is invincible because surely someone has pointed out the just war principles to him. But I'm not really talking about his culpability. I'm talking about my culpability and your culpability if we vote for him again, and he continues to fight unjust wars against other nations. Is their blood on our hands?

It's also been pointed out to me that if you vote for a pro-abortion candidate, the blood of the innocent unborn children would be on your hands. I take that very seriously, and would never vote pro-abortion. But you see, that's my dilemma. I feel that if I vote Democrat, the blood of the unborn will be on my hands. On the other hand, I feel that if I vote Republican, the blood of Iraqis, prisoners, and the poor will be on my hands. This is not just something I'm saying to get out of voting, I honestly feel this way, and no one has been able to convince me to feel otherwise. So what am I to do?

I know you all think that I won't vote for Bush because I dislike him. And it's true, I do dislike him. But the real reason I won't vote for him has little to do with my personal feelings, it has to do with my honest belief that President Bush is unjustly killing many people and that if I vote for him, their blood will be on my hands. If it were only my dislike, I would get over it, as I have gotten over my dislike for other things the Church has required me to do. But I don't feel that the Church requires me to vote Republican or to vote at all if all of the candidates have innocent blood on their hands.

[JP2Iloveyou]

JP2...

I realize you're a seminarian, but I think you're misinterpreting the just war criteria.  I think by "the nation," the just war criteria are referring to the aggressor nation.  In other words, the aggressor nation -- in this case, the United States -- must have been attacked by Iraq in order for it to be a just war.  One other option is that the community of nations must have been attacked, but I don't think the Kurds represent the entire community of nations.  Many would argue, despite your definition, that since they do not have their own country they're not even members of the community of nations except for the fact that they're citizens of Iraq.

If by nation the Kurds would be included, then certainly the Kurds would have been justified in attacking Iraq under Saddam Hussein.  As I have said elsewhere, I think that a civil war within Iraq fought by the Iraqi people against Saddam Hussein would have been entirely justified.  I even think that a war fought against Saddam Hussein by Iran may have been justified, given what he's done to them in the past.  However, he has done nothing to us, and nothing to the community of nations since prior to the Gulf War.  Therefore, I still contend that this war was not justified.

OK, we're making progress. You have admitted that the Kurds are a nation and that they would be justified in attacking Hussein. However, these people are very poor and impoverished by the policies of the Ba'ath Party. They couldn't help themselves. Don't you think that we, therefore, as the most wealthy, most powerful country on earth have a moral obligation to come to their defense? I don't know if you have a sister or a girlfriend, but let's say you do. Now, if someone was raping your sister or girlfriend on a repeated basis and you knew he would do it again, would you not be justified in taking action against him, even if it meant using force? You can't seriously say you would let your sister or girlfriend, or any woman for that matter, be violated because, "well, he didn't do it to ME, specifically." Let's go back to my Hitler example. He didn't attck US. Sure, he had attacked Europe, but they could have taken care of themself. At what point would we have been justified in your opinion of attacking Iraq? Did he have to attack two ethnic groups? Maybe two ethnic groups and a specific country? Three countries? Sometimes, you need to difuse a problem before it becomes to large to handle. Imagine what would have happened had we intervened after Hitler had invaded his first country (the Rhineland I think.) Millions of people would have been saved.

here is a good link to questions on how a Catholic can and cannot vote. I enclosed the entire article for convenience sake, but the link is the exact same thing, courtesy of EWTN.com.

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe..../conference.htm

Moral Duties Concerning Voting

We encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace their citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an opportunity meaningfully to participate in building the culture of life. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power. We must exercise that power in ways that defend human life, especially those of God's children who are unborn, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. We get the public officials we deserve. Their virtue–or lack thereof–is a judgment not only on them, but on us. Because of this we urge our fellow citizens to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest.

[Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics 34, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 1998]

Our Duty to Vote

With the development of popular government comes the duty of citizens to participate in their own government for the sake of the common good. Not to do so is to abandon the political process to those who do not have the common good in mind. Given the nature of democracies this inevitably leads to unjust laws and an unjust society. These may come about anyway, but they should not come about through the negligence of Christians, who would then share in the guilt.

This duty is chiefly exercised by voting, through which citizens elect their representatives and even determine by referendum the laws which will govern them. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country [Rom 13:7]:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. [Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners.... They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws.... So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it. [Ad Diognetum 5: 5, 10]

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way." [1 Tim 2:2]

In their November 1998 pastoral letter Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics the Bishops of the United States speak of a false pluralism which undermines the moral convictions of Catholics and their obligation to be "leaven in society" through participation in the democratic process.

25. Today, Catholics risk cooperating in a false pluralism. Secular society will allow believers to have whatever moral convictions they please - as long as they keep them on the private preserves of their consciences, in their homes and in their churches, and out of the public arena. Democracy is not a substitute for morality. Its value stands - or falls - with the values which it embodies and promotes. Only tireless promotion of the truth about the human person can infuse democracy with the right values. This is what Jesus meant when he asked us to be a leaven in society. American Catholics have long sought to assimilate into U.S. cultural life. But in assimilating, we have too often been digested. We have been changed by our culture too much, and we have changed it not enough. If we are leaven, we must bring to our culture the whole Gospel, which is a Gospel of life and joy. That is our vocation as believers. And there is no better place to start than promoting the beauty and sanctity of human life. Those who would claim to promote the cause of life through violence or the threat of violence contradict this Gospel at its core.

Who We May Not Vote For

The question arises naturally, therefore, if among a slate of candidates there are those for whom we may not vote, without sinning gravely. Catholic moral theology recognizes, in the writings of approved authors who faithfully represent the theological tradition of the Church, sound guides for forming a Catholic conscience. Two such authors are Fathers Heribert Jone, OFM Cap. and Henry Davis, SJ. Speaking of the duty to vote and when it could be sinful not to, Fr. Jone writes:

205. Voting is a civic duty which would seem to bind at least under venial sin whenever a good candidate has an unworthy opponent. It might even be a mortal sin if one's refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate. [Moral Theology (Dublin: Mercier Press, 1929, 1955)]

Similarly, Fr. Davis writes,

It is the duty of all citizens who have the right to vote, to exercise that right when the common good of the State or the good of religion and morals require their votes, and when their voting is useful. It is sinful to vote for the enemies of religion or liberty... [Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 2, Chapter V, 4th Commandment, p. 90 (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1935, 1959)]

Who, then, are the enemies of religion or liberty for whom it would be sinful to vote? Reasonably, it would be those who attack the most basic rights in a society, since all rights depend on those which are logically or actually prior. Among the enumerated inalienable rights recognized by the Declaration of Independence is the right to life. The right to life is both logically and actual prior to all other rights since liberty is meaningless to those who have been unjustly killed. The protection of innocent human life is thus the first obligation of society. This is why protection against foreign enemies is the first duty of the federal government and protection against domestic enemies (criminals) is the first obligation of local government.

They are also enemies of religion and liberty who attack the most basic cell of society, marriage and family. A society that doesn't foster the life-long commitment of a man and a woman to each other and their children is self-destructing. Granting that we have already reaped the fruit of easy divorce laws, the most pernicious attacks against the family today are by those who favor homosexual unions and the granting of marital status to homosexual unions. It is also undermined by an unjust tax system which penalizes marriage in favor of fornication.

What then of other important issues, such as social policy? If a party or a candidate has a better vision from the perspective of Catholic teaching, is it not possible to overlook his views on life and marriage? First of all, most political policies represent a multitude of choices, budgetary, practical, and as well as principled. The two major parties approach these issues differently, but it would be wrong to infer that one or the other is THE Catholic position. However, when a policy touches a principle itself, as it does in the abortion and homosexual debates, then a clear moral choice exists, devoid of the policy debate of how we accomplish the common good in a particular case. The common good can never involve killing the unborn or the approval of homosexuality. These issues touch directly on the most basic goods of all (life and family) - and thus are of unique and paramount importance. It is not possible, therefore, to claim an equal weigh between a candidate's position on these principles and policy positions on how to achieve certain good ends. Sadly, many have inverted the priority of principle over means. The Holy Father, speaking of the inversion of priorities with respect to life, has stated,

All this is causing a profound change in the way in which life and relationships between people are considered. The fact that legislation in many countries, perhaps even departing from basic principles of their Constitutions, has determined not to punish these practices against life, and even to make them altogether legal, is both a disturbing symptom and a significant cause of grave moral decline. Choices once unanimously considered criminal and rejected by the common moral sense are gradually

becoming socially acceptable. ... The end result of this is tragic: not only is the fact of the destruction of so many human lives still to be born or in their final stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no less grave and disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life. [Gospel of Life 3]

To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (John 8:34). [Gospel of Life 20]

Those who are anti-life and anti-family manifest this darkening of conscience, a darkening which makes their other political decisions inherently untrustworthy. No Catholic can reasonable say "this candidate is anti-life and anti-family, but his social policies are in keeping with Catholic principles." Catholics should look carefully to discover what in his policy views manifests the same will to power over others manifested by his anti-life principles. More than one tyrant in history has used pani et circi (bread and circuses) to mollify the masses. The mere appearance of social justice is not the same as social justice, which can only occur when everything in society is properly ordered, beginning with the most basic realities - life and the family.

Who We Must Vote For

As noted by Fathers Jone and Davis, a Catholic can have an obligation to vote so as to prevent an unworthy candidate, an enemy of religion, liberty and morals, from coming into office.

205. Voting is a civic duty which would seem to bind at least under venial sin whenever a good candidate has an unworthy opponent. It might even be a mortal sin if one's refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate. [Jone, Moral Theology (Dublin: Mercier Press, 1929, 1955)]

Davis states it differently, but with the same implications, one may even vote for an enemy of religion or liberty in order to exclude an even greater enemy of religion, liberty and morals. inDouche, one can be obliged to in certain circumstances.

It is sinful to vote for the enemies of religion or liberty, except to exclude a worse candidate, or unless compelled by fear of great personal harm, relatively greater than the public harm at stake. [Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 2, p. 90 ]

Thus, both authors are suggesting the strong obligation (even until the pain of mortal sin) to vote so as to exclude the electing of the candidate who would injure religion, liberty and morals the most. For such a purpose one may vote even for someone who is an enemy of religion and liberty, as long as he is less of any enemy than the candidate one is voting to preclude being elected.

The Holy Father enunciated this principle of the lesser evil with respect to legislation, which while not obtaining the goals which Catholic principles would demand, nonetheless, excludes even worse legislation, or corrects, in part, legislation already in force that is even more opposed to Catholic principles.

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. ... In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. [Gospel of Life 73]

This same principle has immediate bearing on choosing among candidates, some or even all of whom may be anti-life and anti-family. Voters should try to minimize the damage done to society by the outcome of an election, even if that outcome is not wholly satisfactory by Catholic principles.

Formal versus Material Cooperation in Evil

Voters are rightly concerned about the degree to which their vote represents cooperation in the evil which a candidate embraces. Obviously, voting for a candidate whose principles exactly coincide with Catholic teaching would eliminate that worry. However, that is a rare, if not non-existent, situation. Even those who embrace Catholic principles may not always apply them correctly. The fact is that most candidates will imperfectly embrace Catholic principles and voting for ANY candidate contains many unknowns about what that candidate believes and will do.

The moral distinction between formal and material cooperation allows Catholics to choose imperfect candidates as the means of limiting evil or preventing the election of a worse candidate. The justification of doing that is described above. Formal cooperation is that degree of cooperation in which my will embraces the evil object of another 's will. Thus, to vote for a candidate because he favors abortion is formal cooperation in his evil political acts. However, to vote for someone in order to limit a greater evil, that is, to restrict in so far as possible the evil that another candidate might do if elected, is to have a good purpose in voting. The voter's will has as its object this limitation of evil and not the evil which the imperfect politician might do in his less than perfect adherence to Catholic moral principles. Such cooperation is called material, and is permitted for a serious reason, such as preventing the election of a worse candidate. [cf. Gospel of Life 74]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Conscience Vote

Many Catholics are troubled by the idea of a lesser of two evils or material cooperation with evil. They conclude that they can only vote for a person whose position on the gravest issues, such as abortion, coincides exactly with Catholic teaching. To do otherwise is to betray their conscience and God.

Sometimes this view is based on ignorance of Catholic teaching, a sincere doubt that it is morally permissible to vote for someone who would allow abortion in some circumstances, even if otherwise generally pro-life. It is also perhaps the confusing expression "lesser of two evils," which suggests the choice of evil. As I have explained above, the motive is really the choice of a good, the limitation of evil by a worse candidate.

Sometimes this view is motivated by scrupulosity - bad judgment on moral matters as to what is sin or not sin. The resulting fear of moral complicity in the defective pro-life position of a politician makes voting for him morally impossible. This situation is different than ignorance, however, in that the person simply can't get past the fear of sinning, even when they know the truth.

However, I think it is most frequently motivated by a sincere desire to elect someone whose views they believe coincide best with Church teaching. This is certainly praiseworthy. Yet, human judgments in order to be prudent must take into account all the circumstances. Voting, like politics, involves a practical judgment about how to achieve the desired ends - in this case the end of abortion as soon as possible, the end of partial-birth abortion immediately if possible, and other pro-life political objectives. A conscience vote of this type could be justified if the voter reasonably felt that it could achieve the ends of voting. The question must be asked and answered, however, whether it will bring about the opposite of the goal of voting (the common good) through the election of the worst candidate. That, too, is part of the prudential judgment. In the end every voter must weigh all the factors and vote according to their well-informed conscience, their knowledge of the candidates and the foreseeable consequences of the election of each.

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL