Posted on 10/30/2004 4:18:46 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Kerry and the Catholic Vote - By Gregory Borse
I have been having a conversation with a friend of mine—a democrat who is also Catholic and leaning toward voting for John Kerry, but who is troubled by his stance on abortion but not more so than by President Bush’s prosecution of Operation Iraqi Freedom as a central front in the War on Terror.
My friend thinks that Kerry’s voting record on abortion does not necessarily mean that it would be wrong to vote for him anyway—given that the Church teaches that voting for one candidate to prevent a worse candidate from being elected is permissible—for serious reasons—even if that candidate holds views that are counter to Church teaching. She is right about this, I think. Her point is that while Kerry does not want to impose his beliefs upon those who do not share them—through the exercise of his vote on abortion, for instance—his position on domestic policy and on other issues is attractive to her. In addition, it is clear from these conversations that despite the fact that President Bush agrees with her on abortion—and consistently votes to support a position that she herself upholds—his mistakes concerning the War on Terror mean for her that his election might lead to a worse situation for our citizens in terms of that war and our general standing in the world.
First, we must dispel among Catholics the notion that the Church teaches that a vote for a candidate who holds views counter to Church teaching on grave matters like abortion and war is tantamount to incurring ex-communication. The Church does not teach this. The Church teaches that if one holds a position that is objectively contrary to Church teaching and objectively sinful ex-communication can be the result. And this is because ex-communication falls under the realm of penalties that may be incurred, which itself is different from determining subjective morality. For private citizens voting their consciences in the booth on November 2nd, the Church does not hold out the threat of ex-communication. In fact, the Church does not tell us how to vote. Rather, she advises Catholics how to vote and to remain in good standing with the professed beliefs of the Church. Many churches do this—they put out “voter information” cards, for instance, with a list of teachings alongside the public record (insofar as these are available) of the candidates so that voters who are also church-goers can make informed decisions regarding issues that bear upon their faiths.
For elected officials who are also Catholic, the situation is a bit different. Since their votes are a matter of public record by law, if they actively support a practice like abortion—as John Kerry has done and has pledged he will continue to do—through the exercise of their civic responsibilities, then their opposition to Church teaching either in belief or in practice is a matter of public knowledge. This public aspect of their action is what precipitates scandal, and it is this scandal that puts them in jeopardy of ex-communication. This is not to say that John Kerry is or will be ex-communicated. But publicly receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist when one has also publicly acted in a way that is counter to the Churches teaching regarding the intrinsic evil of abortion forces the Church—in administering that sacrament—to participate publicly in an hypocrisy. By giving Communion to such a politician, the Church tacitly endorses that politician’s position, since the act of receiving Communion is a public announcement of the communicant’s full membership in the Church, which itself implies adherence, in faith and in deed, to Church teachings in matters of moral import.
But Catholics who vote in good conscience vote for a candidate whose views are counter, in some ways, to Church teaching, do not automatically put themselves in danger of ex-communication because 1). Their votes are private and known only to them, and 2). The Church holds that one cannot be made to violate one’s conscience in the voting booth. That is, if I vote for a candidate despite his stance on abortion, for grave reasons, I may “materially” participate in the sin of abortion, but since that was not the intent of my vote, my action is permissible. To make this distinction more clear, imagine that one eats in a restaurant that employs illegal aliens at substantially substandard wages: the employer participates in a sin formally, but my eating in that restaurant participates in that sin only materially—again, it is not my intent by eating in the restaurant that I support a practice that is morally wrong.
In terms of the abortion question and Catholics who vote for a candidate who personally opposes abortion but votes to support it, such a situation assumes that the other candidate advocates something that is so much worse than the candidate they vote for that they must, in good conscience, vote for the “lesser of two evils.” It is up to voters of conscience to decide which evil is greater--the War on Terror or abortion.
I am not here excusing voting for John Kerry despite his public support of abortion—even to the extent that he has pledged not to nominate any individual to the Supreme Court who would “change” Roe-vs.-Wade” in “any way.” I think Catholics should give due consideration to voting for a candidate that has consistently voted to support abortion rights--even to the extent of voting against a bill that would eliminate partial birth abortion in the United States. I think everyone should consider that President Bush has been consistent in his stance to protect life in whatever legal way we can. And I think it appropriate to consider as well that John Kerry has consistently voted against laws that would protect the unborn--even to the extent of voting against parental notification laws that would obtain in cases where minors seek abortions. But all voters ought to vote not only with full knowledge of a candidate's public record, but in full knowledge of their Churches teaching on matters of great moral import.
The Church wishes her children to be able to vote in good conscience and to remain “within the fold.” The Church teaches that abortion itself is an act of intrinsic evil—which means that there are no identifiable circumstances under which abortion is defensible.
Last year, not counting abortion, something like four times as many people were murdered in the United States than have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Last month, three more people were killed in Detroit than were killed in Iraq. Counting abortion, the number of deaths in the U.S. is astronomically higher than in hostilities associated with the War on Terror. None of these deaths is excusable—even if they are explainable. Every life counts and, would that we were more like the image and likeness in which we were made, we would too be mindful that “not a sparrow should fall unmarked.”
The key difference between these tragedies, it seems to me, is that those engaged in the War on Terror—whether members of the civilian populations in Afghanistan or Iraq, members of the Coalition, or members of Al Quada or any affiliated group—have been in a position to exercise their own free wills (sometimes for the first time) in terms of how they are to participate in this War. They have volunteered, they have fought with or against the Coalition, or they have simply tried to stay out of the way. But, children who have been victims of abortion had nothing to say either about their coming into existence or about their leaving it. It is perhaps one of the reasons that the Church identifies abortion as “intrinsically” evil, but war as an evil that is also sometimes necessary (see Just War Theory in the Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church—specifically CCC 2309 “legitimate defense by military force”). There is no entry in the Catechism for “legitimate” performance of abortion.
Catholics ought to vote according to their consciences and they ought to vote for that candidate that they think best reflects their personal, and faithful, point of view on the issues that are most important to them. If they determine that to vote for a candidate who disagrees with some or another teaching of the Church, they ought to do so with a clear conscience.
But they cannot do this unless and until they actually know what the Church teaches. The great gift of the Catechism, the flowering of the work of the Second Vatican Council, is available to them.
The Catechism is also available to John Kerry. I, for one, wish he would read it.
Mr. Borse holds a Ph.D. in English from Louisiana State University. He is an assistant Professor of English at a two year college in north central Indiana. He is married with four children--two girls and two boys. Interests include media, culture, politics, literature, philosophy, and disc-golf. His articles also appear periodically at ChronWatch.com and TheRant.us.
gregorbo@peoplepc.com
This fellow has a Ph.D. in English.
1. He should stick to teaching English. His logic and moral theology are sorely wanting.
2. He really ought to take a refresher course in writing.
"...the flowering of the work of the Second Vatican Council"
It is one of the sad results of this heretical council that demons like Kerry, Kennedy and Pelosi can maintain their beliefs and still call themselves Catholic!
But here's the problem. Kerry objectively supports unrestricted abortion -- this kaka about him being "personally opposed but unwilling to impose" is simply a convenient lie viewed against his aggressively pro-abort Senate record.
Abortion killed 1.4 million innocent Americans last year alone.
Unless a Catholic voter can realistically claim that George Bush is certainly going to do something (or not do something) that will result in 1.4 million innocent people dying unjustly per year until heck freezes over, there is no way a vote for John Kerry is morally defensible.
Cardinal Ratzinger said, correctly, that one may vote for a pro-abortion candidate without incurring guilt "for proportionate reasons". "I don't like the other guy" is not remotely proportionate to 1.4 million murders per year. Neither is any other charge a reasonable person can lodge against GWB.
Kerry isn't getting the Catholic Vote!
President Bush and John Kerry: On the Issues Important to Catholics
"Seismic" Catholic Shift to Bush [Insight ]
Analyst cites abortion stance as some Catholic voters shift to Bush
Poll: Catholics Trending Towards Bush
Kerry Losing Ground Among White Catholics
Voting Our Conscience, Not Our Religion [Catholic Prof Says "Vote Kerry"]
Vatican: Kerry guilty of heresy; incurrs automatic excommunication
Should a Catholic Vote for Bush or Kerry?
Why is Bush getting the bishop's blessing?
Ambassador Ray Flynn in Cleveland 10/16/2004- "Vote 2004: The Catholic Factor"
John Kerry Flip-Flops on When to Use His Catholic Belief on Politics
Abortion is Turning Democrats Off to Kerry
Planned Parenthood Unveils TV Ads Backing John Kerry on Abortion
The army of God marching for Bush
The Catholics for Bush website is now live!
(Clinton Apointee Raymond)Flynn: Catholics must vote for culture of life
Priest: It's a sin to vote pro-choice
I don't know where you are getting your information about the Pope. Please check the Catechism of the Catholic Church above.
And please, next time, before you bash the Catholic Church or the Pope, educate yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.