Replies

ARRRRGH... I posted a huge reply to this thread... and then realized it went to the wrong thread, and I can't even -find- it now to copy and paste *sob* So much for my first Freeper post. *sigh*

Anyways... I want to throw my hat in this ring. By the way, for the record, I am a very very pro-life agnostic with a great deal of respect for the Catholic Church, and am quite familiar with the Catechism.

Maybe it's just as well - I'm no longer sure of my interpretation. Rather than state an opinion, I'm going to give some information and leave this in the form of a question. Maybe some of you could give me a hand here.

Anyone here familiar with Catholic Evangelium Vitae #73? Here's what it has to say:

"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. Such cases are not infrequent in [some] nations particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation - there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter.

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 aimes at limiting the harm done by such a law and lessening it's 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 a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects."

Now, my reading of this is that a lawmaker could, for example, vote for a partial birth abortion ban, even if it affirmed legalized abortion in other cases, because it is effectively moving things in the right direction, and as thus is not an unjust law, but rather it is lessening the impact of an unjust law already in effect. I strongly appreciate this line of argument, and it is good that there is some level of pragmatism acknowledged for the sake of legislators on this issue - otherwise, a conscientious Catholic might be completely paralyzed by political realities and unable to achieve a significant restriction of abortion that would save many lives.

Now, please don't think I am trying to "stretch" this into ameliorating some position I've taken - if I lived in CA I would've voted for McClintock, but with a clear conscience because I pretty much expected that Bustamante would lose either way. BUT, in the case where a vote for McClintock would have really been a spoiler that could have enabled Bustamante to achieve power... and given an evaluation of such a political reality... and assuming for the moment that Arnold would actually move in the right direction (through PBA ban and parental notification)... and for the -same- moral reasons that apply to lawmakers, might not a Catholic remain in good standing for the same reasons such a lawmaker would? I mean, if you REALLY believe that as a result of the political system in place, a conscientious vote for McClintock would have the practical -result- of helping a Davis or Bustamante in power who would move the law in the -wrong- direction... could a justification in such a case be made for supporting Arnold? In effect, in a democracy, and taking the view that a voter is in a sense himself a lawmaker by choosing his representative to make those laws... if the voter TRULY FEELS that the practical outcome of a vote for the more pro-life candidate will result in the election of a fanatically pro-choice candidate...

I think #73 allows room for an argument here. Look, I really don't want to distort it, but I do think that the nature of a democracy and political reality does call a "problem of conscience" into question that applies to the voter just as much as it would for a lawmaker.

What do you all think? I'm very interested in opinions on this. Perhaps it's already been addressed.

Qwinn