Posted on 08/28/2004 12:48:34 PM PDT by wagglebee
OPINION -- Last June Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote a memorandum on “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” to assist the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops.
Cardinal Ratzinger noted that (1) for a Catholic to vote for a candidate because the candidate favors abortion is so sinful as to render that Catholic unfit to receive Communion, but (2) voting for a pro-abortion candidate despite that candidate’s support of abortion is not sinful, if “proportionate reasons” justify voting for that candidate.
Unfortunately, Catholic News Service misreported that Cardinal Ratzinger “said it is not necessarily sinful for Catholics to vote for politicians who support abortion, as long as they are voting for that candidate for other reasons."
“Other reasons” do not suffice unless they are “proportionate reasons.”
Bishop Emeritus Rene Henry Gracida of Corpus Christi, Texas, issued a valuable statement explaining “proportionate reasons”:
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 strictly defined.
Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or aids, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.
There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.
Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: Candidate A, who is completely for abortion-on-demand, Candidate B, who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion, and Candidate C, a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable. The Catholic voter cannot vote for Candidate A because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation which would remove restrictions on abortion-on-demand. The Catholic can vote for Candidate C but that will probably only help ensure the election of Candidate A. Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for Candidate B, since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of Candidate A and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if Candidate B is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.
Voters should choose between President Bush and Senator Kerry.
Senator Kerry is the pro-abortion candidate.
Ask Planned Parenthood and NARAL. They have endorsed him.
President Bush is the pro-life candidate.
Ask Planned Parenthood and NARAL. They are doing all they can to beat him, because he is pro-life.
Senator Kerry, Planned Parenthood and NARAL ardently hope pro-lifers will vote for a “pure” pro-lifer instead of Bush, because Bush would permit abortions in very limited circumstances.
Their argument is that Bush would reduce annual abortions from more than a million to a few, while Kerry would keep the abortion mills humming, but no self-respecting pro-lifer would settle for less than absolutely all and, therefore, must not vote for Bush.
The late Bishop James T. McHugh flatly rejected it:
In many cases Catholics will have to make hard choices, not for the clearly acceptable candidate but for the lesser evil. When faced with two candidates, one of whom is unalterably pro-abortion and the other who does not support a pro-life agenda without exception, the voter can (a) vote for the pro-abortion candidate; (b) vote for neither; or (c) vote for the candidate who does not support a full pro-life agenda. Clearly, the choice should be (c), the lesser evil.
[A]s Catholics, we must bring new political sophistication to the electoral process and be concerned not only with sending messages but also with scandal and with cooperation in continuing the evil of permitting abortion.
President Bush has been fighting against abortion everywhere.
On March 12, 2004, Kerry for President issued a press release complaining that "[a]t a UNESCAP meeting in Bangkok, Thailand, in 2002, the U.S. delegation fought to change language in a landmark international reproductive health care agreement and advanced a position that life begins at conception.
Catholic News Service now acknowledges there is no issue on which the distinction between Bush and Kerry is clearer than abortion.
It credits President Bush with signing the partial-birth abortion ban and defending it in court; signing the Born Alive Infants Protection Act; reinstating the ban on the use of United States foreign aid to promote abortion in other countries; refusing to fund the United Nations Population Fund; and nominating pro-life federal judges.
Kerry, on the other hand, it notes, voted against the partial-birth abortion ban six times; co-sponsored the proposed Freedom of Choice Act in an attempt to stop states from applying restrictions on abortion; opposed parental involvement in the abortion decisions of their own minor children; pledged to end the ban on the use of United States foreign aid to support abortion in other countries; and declared that he would only nominate abortion supporters to the United States Supreme Court so that women will continue to have a legal "right to choose" to abort their unborn babies.
The difference is much too great to ignore. So all pro-lifers should vote for Bush-Cheney in 2004!
Senator Kerry is the pro-abortion candidate.
Ask Planned Parenthood and NARAL. They have endorsed him.
President Bush is the pro-life candidate.
Ask Planned Parenthood and NARAL. They are doing all they can to beat him, because he is pro-life.
It doesn't get much simpler than this!
A good number of so-called Catholics are unapologetically pro-choice. Sad but true.
A few pro lifers are very rigid about the subject and will support a more fierce anti-abortion candidate rather than support Bush. Sad but true.
The fact that their vote might help Kerry win is immaterial to them so long as they can 'sleep soundly,' despite the fact that their vote helps a more fierce pro-abortion candidate win. Profoundly immature and self cenetered (it really ISN'T about them, no matter how often they frame it that way).
If that isn't mental illness, I don't know what is.
You're absolutely right. The biggest problem Republicans have ever had is the tendency some have to vote for a more conservative candidate than the GOP nominee.
The key factor is NOT getting the majority of "Catholic" votes as there is no Catholic vote. Places like New York, Mass, Rhode Island may be largely Catholic in name, but we all know that alot of these people go to Church twice a year and are more rabidly pro-abortion than the general population. The key is to snag enough of the Church-going Catholics in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan. If Bush gains a slightly larger percentage of these people than he did in 2000, he can beat Kerry in those states.
From your lips to God's ears!
Carolyn
Indeed. It should be obvious that the best way to advance a conservative agenda is to vote for the most conservative candidate that has a genuinely reasonable chance of winning---even if they are both to the left of your tastes. Sure, even in victory, this will at times result in losing some ground. But it is not the battle that matters but the war.
You are right. I'm a strong Conservative but we must always be practical. While I admire Goldwater Republicans taking over the party in 1964, we got our heads handed to us in the general election (for a number of reasons, of course).
Nixon won in 68 and 72, and while I like him a lot, he wasn't ever a notably strong conservative (and benefitted from strong liberals running for the Dems). Reagan's 1980 appeal was as a DC Outsider and populist champion, as well as a stalwart cold warrior. He benefitted from a very weak Dem incumbent, also. In 84 it was academic - the perception that America was getting better was dominant and the dems fielded a drip as their candidate.
Bush 1 won in 88, but he was not a strong conservative either, and benefitted from a weak dem candidate. He lost in 92 after several mis steps including a bad economy and reneging on tax cuts. Oh well.
The 94 takeover of Congress was great but it was more a backlash against Clinton's liberal looniness of the first 2 years of his term (as well as his tax increases), where the perception was that he was unabashedly liberal. We have largely maintained control but as was clear in 1996's presidential election, there was no strong conservative mandate to dethrone Clinton, who by now was acting like a moderate democrat (whatever that is) and benefitted from some GOP policies like welfare reform, but as far as congress goes, it has a conservative leaning mandate, but not an extreme conservative mandate.
1994 Election GOP Senate 52-48, GOP House 230-204-1
1996 Election GOP Senate 55-45, GOP House 226-207-2
1998 Election GOP Senate 55-45, GOP House 223-211-1
2000 Election Tied Senate 50-50, GOP House 221-212-2
2002 Election GOP Senate 48-51-1, GOP House 229-204-1
The most significant legacy of the 94 victory was that 258 Dem House Members trotted into Congress after the 1992 election, while only 204 returned in the 1994 election. That 'mass layoff' is something that still stings in their party's psyche - they have never really gotten over their 1994 defeat. This ranks among the greatest victories in GOP history (Ranking #3 in my 20th Century GOP Great Moments in GOP History - 1. The Reagan Avalance in 1984, and 2. The 1964 RNC).
This happened largely on the perception that Clinton was way too liberal and that Congress were his out-of-touch aiders and abetters.
The same can happen to the GOP in the future if the perception is that Bush is a conservative extremist and that Congress is his out-of-touch accomplice.
Anybody who thinks otherwise has the same mental deficiency that got the dems in that situation in 1994.
I expect that the 2004 election will return Bush to the white house, and with a little luck give us a GOP Senate of 54-45-1, and because of some redistricting give us a GOP House of 235-199-1 or so.
While this puts the GOP in Congress in its strongest position since the 2000 election, it is still not a strong conservative mandate, but rather a conservative leaning mandate. Treating it as such will build a strong base for the future.
One issue voters on either side who press on issues that don't resonate with most people will harm the party that would be closer to their values and help the party that is farther away from their values. If that's progress, call me 'Stinky.'
So stong conservatives need to have the maturity to realize that there is no national mandate for a very strong conservative, just as there is no national mandate for a very strong liberal. I think to a large extent, the nation has conservative leaning instincts, and that's a good thing. But they won't back a real extremist in that direction.
Our policies should be in line with those conservative leaning instincts and effect long-term change in the direction we want. Anything more would squander our opportunity, anything less is a waste.
And then there was the woman who joined our prolife vigil outside the Garden last night wearing a "Bush Lies Who Dies" sticker on her chest while holding her little candle.
I am an Italian American Catholic and a product of a Catholic grammar school and Jesuit High School in NYC.
The problem is that the Catholic Church has been largely over run by so-called 'liberation theologists,' and in parts where they haven't over run the church, their influence in policy has been strongly felt.
Liberation theology, of course, is very leftward leaning. There is nothing notably 'liberating' about it. Yet, this has crept into at least the American Church. It's emphasis is on feeling sorry for poor folks, hating war, etc, and extending that sentiment to the public policy and political sphere. This has been going on
The emphasis, then, is more on extended policy matters and less on personal moral matters. If you ask me, and nobody did, addressing personal moral matters feeds into better public policy, but the liberation theologians have put the cart before the horse.
In any event, that's been going on for 30+ years and has helped forster a 'buffet style' Catholic Church in America - take what you want, leave what you don't, feel good about it all while not taking it too seriously. That has helped millions of so-called Catholics grab onto the 'social justice' sentiment that the dems exploit, while leaving more pesky stuff like abortion at the buffet table all by its lonesome.
Buying into this is mental illness, as I see it. But it is a dominant force in the modern American Catholic Church.
Thanks for the great analysis. I think the biggest mistake the GOP has made in the past 40 years was squandering the House/Senate sweep of 1994. We totally botched the next two years. Newt Gingrich was a great party leader, but he came across as "bullyish" to the public. Bob Dole was a great senator, but by 96 he was too "old" to be a viable presidential candidate, especially against someone with Clinton's "charisma' (which I never did understand, but I know he somehow appealed to many people).
Liberation Theology is a heresy, plain and simple. As a friend of mine once said (brilliantly, I thought), "Even the New York Times believes in the corporal works of mercy. It's the spiritual works of mercy that are important."
The corporal works of mercy:
To feed the hungry;
To give drink to the thirsty;
To clothe the naked;
To harbour the harbourless;
To visit the sick;
To ransom the captive;
To bury the dead.
The spiritual works of mercy:
To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.
Newt deserves part of the credit for the 94 takeover, but he didn't have the maturity to alter his personal style. His style is well suited as a minority party leader, but when put in the majority, he didn't adapt quickly enough and his style was ill suited for the House majority leadership.
That set the tone for the first 2 years, which was sucessful but not as successful as it should have been if he adapted and toned his 'act' down a bit.
You are very correct in your observations. Dole is a good guy but just not right for that era (he would have been great in '84, for example, if Carter had won in 1980).
The Clinton charisma is mostly a myth - he has a Dr Phil 'used car salesman' thing about him that in normal times would not pass most folk's BS Detectors. And the thing is, it didn't - Clinton never won a majority of the vote, only pluralities - most of the voters didn't vote for him (yet somehow the press never found this 'bitterly divisive' as they did when Bush 2 became president, hmmmm).
Clinton's appeal, as I see it, works very well with many women (though not all women), because his communication was keyed to emotional response. It didn't matter what Clinton actually said or did, it much more mattered that he convincingly acted like he cared.
Like many younger women, this leads them to trouble (it led the USA to trouble) yet many find themselves going to the grave making the same mistake over and over - trusting the wrong people. This mindset is very common.
Many men responded the same way also, and these are the types who fall prey to the used car salesmen of the world or get ripped off by termite exterminators, yet though they repeat the same mistake over and over, it never really dawns on them to change their mindset and be more astute.
Remember the lightweight audience guy in the '92 debate who prefaced his question by saying something like "I consider us as children and the president as a parental figure...". I nearly fell out of my chair - at the time I was bewildered that any adult male or female could really think that way.
Since that time, I recognize him as esentially a sissified male, so while sincere, he is just mostly whacked out.
The sissified male comes in two flavors - first, the genuinely emasculated male who are very fearful, can't be counted on in a crisis, etc. Very common - the blame is squarely on the parents who raised these second rate boys.
Second, and my favorite, is the male that has bought into the mindset that he needs to be more sensitive, understanding, etc. in order to attract and keep a female companion. He has convinced himself that being for abortion, for womens rights (whatever that is), for gay rights (whatever that is), etc. is a big part of the key to a woman's heart.
Forget the fact that there is no significant evidence to support this. The good thing about this male is that he doesn't actually buy into the substantive stuff, he just wears it like a garment hoping that the Laurie Coleman's of the world will see their brutish companions are second rate to the more sensitive male.
In fact, the Laurie Coleman's and other quality women of the world are really in the back necking with and coupling with Freeper-type men, but these boys hate Freeper Men. ;-)
In both flavors of men, the cure if for them to 'grow a pair,' though most go to their graves not changing.
The women who fall for this keep making the same mistake over and over, akin to battered wife syndrome. Her cure is to get some clarity of mind and exercise some real judgment here and there. But many don't.
So anyway, you add up the chior (genuinely liberal and leftist people), enough of these women and men, minorities that fall for a good line, and you get your 43% of the vote. In 92 it was enough to carry the day. In 96 we fielded a poor candidate and the sentiment was that things were good, so that number swelled to 49% or so.
Keep the faith.
Very true - 'liberation theology' is a flimsy mask for something much more sinister. It wouldn't be so bad, except that it has permeated many modern American Catholic moral instruction.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Regards
Can I confess to you that I am secretly Carl Rove and I am killing time on FR waiting for Dominos to deliver to the White House this afternoon? ;-)
Damn, I thought I was talking to Rush Limbaugh or at least Sean Hannity. :)
I have always wondered what the church's stanch was on voting as explained in the example Candidates A, B, & C. That makes me feel alot better.
Well, truth be told, Karl Rove wouldn't spell his name 'Carl Rove' on FR....or would he????? ;-)
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.