Again, welcome to FR.
I read FR for a number of years then signed up 20 odd months ago.
It is great. IMO it is THE BEST place for an honest exchange of ideas where many visitors can come and read and hopefully learn along with us. Jim Robinson is a true Patriot and American hero.
As to your post: You did not kill the thread. I believe you took it to a much higher plane.
You said “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.”
I can only say…GREAT and that I will be very happy to discuss the mission of pro-life work, Catechism etc. with you!!
I myself am a cradle Catholic and am delighted to see such an in depth question on EVANGELIUM VITAE (The Gospel of Life)
In many ways it is one of the most important documents the Holy Father has given to the Church, and the world. I would also recommend study of a companion document, Living the Gospel of Life
You added: “Another question - exactly in what format is the Evangelium Vitae presented by the Church? I've found it on the web, but I haven't found it yet in my copy of the Catechism.”
EVANGELIUM VITAE is a document known as an encyclical. This is one of the most authoritative type documents a Pope can deliver. John Paul addressed it: “To the Bishops Priests and Deacons Men and Women religious lay Faithful and all People of Good Will” He closes with: Given in Rome, at Saint Peter's, on 25 March, the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, in the year 1995….”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church came out in English in 1994. It does not contain Evangelium Vitae. The sections pertaining to LIFE use other sources and references.
Now onto your question about Evangelium Vitae #73 with regards to the California election. First I must say WOW, I’ve never heard a Catholic ask such a question. You obviously do some serious reading. #73 is one section out of 105 sections. I think you ask a great question and you just about answer it at the same time.
But let’s look at 73 in it’s entirety: In red & bold
73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. "They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live" (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: "the midwives feared God" (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for "the endurance and faith of the saints" (Rev 13:10).
In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".98
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. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other 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 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.
The last 4 words “limit its evil aspects” is an important key. We should do whatever we can to stop evil using just means. When we cannot completely stop an evil such as abortion we should still attempt to “limit its evil aspects” of course with just means. So with that having been established, YES I can agree with your interpretation:
“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...”
If you are still with me, I’d like to suggest a great pro-life website which also happens to be Catholic: Priests for Life
This great group is really Living the Gospel of Life. They have many online resources that deal with the subject of voting and the entire field of pro-life work.
Lastly, you said: “I am agnostic but with a great deal of respect for the Church, and if I ever do re-embrace religion it will certainly be with the Catholic Church (heck, I hold almost all of the same policy stands anyway - IMHO they all hold up under secular scrutiny just as potently as they do from a religious perspective).”
Based on my only impression of you I will say that you appear to be approaching the right path. I’d also like to suggest a little book to you and to all that might read this: THE LAMB'S SUPPER. Go here, then under Books select Mass/Eucharist
And one more website: EWTN