I hate to say this, but Cdl. Ratzinger seems to me to be saying that no-one can vote for a candidate BECAUSE of that candidate's stand on abortion, but that they can vote for the candidate IN SPITE OF the candidate's stand on abortion. The difference between abortion and the death penalty, his statement seems to me to suggest, is that a Catholic may favor a candidate BECAUSE of that candidate's support for the death penality. The difference does NOT appear to be, as the article suggests, that no other prudential issue may outweigh abortion.
(By "prudential issue," here, I mean such an issue where it is up to prudence of a Democratic society to determine which position is justified.)
I write this because I would love to be able to provide a solid, authoritative assertion that their support for Kerry is absolutely sinful. Obviously it is, since what issue can outwiegh the deaths of millions of innocents each year? BUt I would love to have a direct condemnation of their vote. I do not believe this statement provides me with that.
If someone could show me how it does, I would be very thankful.
Clarification: the article certain does not say "that they can vote for the candidate IN SPITE OF the candidate's stand on abortion." I meant to say that it fails to codemn that position.
"I write this because I would love to be able to provide a solid, authoritative assertion that their support for Kerry is absolutely sinful...If someone could show me how it does, I would be very thankful."
These are some comments I posted on a thread a couple of days ago - I don't know if they will help at all?:
"I think most people (including conservative prelates and commentators) have missed the point with respect to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's footnote on "proportionate reasons" for voting for a "pro-abortion" politician.
Most Catholic and secular commentators on "your side of the pond" seem to have taken this footnote as providing "wiggle room" enabling Catholics to vote for Kerry in good conscience.
On the contrary, I would suggest that the footnote, in which the remote material cooperation of voting for a pro-abortion politician is justified by "proportionate reasons", rather provides Catholics with a rationale for voting for BUSH with a good conscience.
I would also suggest that the reason why most people have missed this point is that the basic and defining premise of the debate so far: "Kerry = pro-abortion; Bush = pro-life", is a false one.
In the U.S. presidential race, Catholic voters have only two choices of candidates who have a realistic chance of winning the presidency and thus affecting the future of abortion legislation : Bush and Kerry.
BOTH OF THESE CANDIDATES ARE PRO-ABORTION.
Bush only believes that abortion is right in specific and limited circumstances, however, he is still "pro-abortion". Kerry OTOH believes abortion is a fundamental right for all women at any time under any circumstances with whatever vile method - although he still claims to be personally opposed. Unlike Bush he has expressed no intention of legislating to reduce, restrict or limit the number of abortions in your country; or indeed, the promotion and exportation of abortion as a means of population control to the rest of the world.
Therefore for proportionate reasons a Catholic could in good conscience vote for Bush, knowing that he has expressed the desire to greatly reduce the number of abortions in your country, (and around the world) if not eliminating it completely. The fact that he is not committed to eliminating it completely would therefore constitute a vote for him as remote material cooperation in maintaining a law on your statute books allowing the provision of abortion (albeit in more limited circumstances).
However, given the only realistic alternative to Bush would be a vote for Kerry who is ideologically and fanatically "pro-choice", then an informed Catholic is left with no alternative other than to vote for Bush.
In fact, if a Catholic is:
1) accurately informed about the candidates' positions on abortion,
2) understands that the Church teaches that abortion and the promotion/procurement thereof is gravely sinful,
3) understands that no other area of public policy can outweigh abortion/euthanasia in terms of proportionate reasons,
4) is fully and freely able to form their decision about voting, and is able to vote without external compulsion,
THEN A VOTE FOR KERRY WOULD BE A MORTAL SIN.
With the greatest respect to Archbishop Raymond Burke, and Phil Lawler who have recently written suggesting that there can be no proportionate reasons for voting "pro-abortion", I would suggest that the declared intent of a candidate to reduce or limit the number of abortions by statute, are precisely those proportionate reasons which Cardinal Ratzinger had in mind, when there is no realistic chance of electing a politician who would abolish the scourge of abortion completely.
On this basis, every Catholic voter in the U.S. should be voting for Bush in November."
As a post script I would add that some people thought I was taking a side-swipe at Bush for suggesting he was pro-abortion when the general perception is that he is pro-life. From the American perspective he is obviously much more pro-life than Kerry and perhaps the most pro-life president since Roe vs. Wade hit the statutes.
However, remember that the author of the note sees things from the Vatican perspective which is much more cautious about ascribing a description of pro-life to someone who is not fully so.
When a reporter at the Detroit Free Press, misinterpreted Cdl. Ratzinger's words, she printed this story.
Catholics allowed pro-choice vote .
A recently ordained priest, took her to task. In his homily, delivered this past Sunday, Fr. Paul Ward clarifies Cardinal Ratzinger's statements. "To vote for abortion is to collaborate in one of the gravest of all evils known to man. Such a voter becomes an accomplice in every abortion civil society commits, by endorsing it and giving civil power to those who support it. And it is never good to do evil."
St. Paul’s, Grosse Pointe, Sunday, September 11-12, 2004
Since then, the Detroit Free Press has turned up the heat. In an article published yesterday, the same journalist comments:
"About two dozen Catholics -- including several retired priests, pastors of two Detroit and Redford parishes and a local theologian -- announced the formation of Catholics for the Common Good, to encourage local Catholics to remember the traditional range of Catholic issues as they vote, including homelessness, health care, urban violence and the war in Iraq."
According to Rev. Norman Thomas:
"It's OK to vote for George Bush if your conscience and experience with life issues leads you to," said Thomas. "It's also OK to vote for John Kerry if your conscience and experience in life issues leads you to believe he can do a better job, which I do."
Catholic voters in abortion firestorm
Christ preached a gospel of love - unless you are born, you cannot experience that love. To equate social issues with destroying an unborn child, is beyond the pale.