Pope Benedict Says Yes - It's All about the
Can a Catholic vote for a pro-choice candidate for public office? Yes. But don’t take my word for it. Pope Benedict XVI said so himself four years ago in response to growing controversy over the responsibilities of Catholic voters. What’s really at stake in this and other elections is not so much whether such a vote is acceptable, but what circumstances warrant it.
In 2004, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops asked Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – a high-ranking Vatican official who would become Pope Benedict the following year – to comment on the controversy. He issued the following advice :
"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour 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."
In other words, voting for a pro-choice candidate is not the same as driving someone to an abortion clinic, provided the voter’s intent is not to promote or perpetuate the practice of abortion. It’s all about why the Catholic voter votes the way he or she does.
Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement does not elaborate on what constitutes “proportionate reasons” – what circumstances permit a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate – and not surprisingly, it’s around this particular question that the current debate has come to center. Some argue that it’s a numbers game. According to this line of thinking, the only acceptable proportionate reasons would be those that constitute direct assaults on human life, and that affect more people than are currently affected by abortion. Supporters of such reasoning might argue, for example, that only if an antiabortion candidate happened to favor something like genocide would it be appropriate to vote for that candidate’s pro-choice opponent.
But this reasoning overlooks a number of other factors we can and should consider in making any voting decision – like whether we believe the candidate has a serious chance of instituting policies that will ultimately advance Catholic values on human life, or whether the policies favored by the candidate who supports legal abortion will in the end do more to reduce and prevent actual abortions. Indeed, as the U. S. Catholic Bishops write in their official voter education document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship , voting decisions “should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.”
The Catholic Church teaches that the practice of abortion is never morally acceptable; this much is abundantly clear. That same church, however, holds that translating moral teachings into action in a democratic society is the duty of individual lay Catholics (opposed to the Church institution itself), and one that requires practical reasoning with an eye toward real results. While the bishops do issue their own public policy recommendations, they are careful to note that such statements do not carry the same authority as church moral teachings. Nor, the bishops clearly state, does the Church purport to support or oppose any candidates for public office. For Catholics, the difference between morality and politics is a bit like the distinction between theory and practice. The Church’s job is to teach right from wrong, but actually applying that teaching in real-world situations is up to us. And the right course of action is not always apparent.
At the end of the day, the bishops remind us, individual Catholic voters must use their own “prudential judgment” – or, moral common sense – when deciding which levers to pull. If after examining the facts, a Catholic truly believes that a “pro-choice” candidate will do more to promote the cause of human life than one who seeks legal prohibitions on abortion, her or she can vote for the pro-choice candidate with a clear conscience.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Let's apply Mr. Korzen's "do more to promote the cause of human life" standard to a President Obama and see how that works out.
President Obama will receive the Freedom of Choice Act from a Congress dominated by Democrats soon after taking office and will happily sign it. Federal funding would be used for abortions here and overseas and parents would be deprived of notification of, or consent to, their underage daughters having abortions. The number of abortions will obviously increase. Any argument to the contrary is delusional.
Some Catholics for Obama try to excuse their vote by claiming Obama will do more to help the poor, which is clearly a goal of Catholic Social Justice. However, reasonable people can disagree about which candidates' policies will do more to help the poor.
What cannot be disputed is that it does not promote the cause of poor people to encourage them to destroy their unborn children through federal funding of abortion or deprive them of the right to know that their underage daughter wants to have an abortion. Such a result cannot be in accord with the Church's goal of promoting human life.
In the abstract, it is morally permissible to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Just as in the abstract, capital punishment is morally permissible when there exists no other option to protect society. In reality, the abstract conditions that would make either voting for a pro-abortion candidate or utilizing capital punishment rarely exist. Unlike capital punishment, abortion is always wrong and is a non-negotiable principle.
Pope Benedict XVI is using the established moral reasoning prinicple of cooperation with evil to make his statement. Let us rigorously apply this principle to evaluate the current election:
I want to evaluate the action of voting for a pro-abortion candidate, specifically Obama, using the principles of cooperation with evil.
Let me first state my premises: Abortion is an intrinsic evil. It is never justified. It cannot be tolerated. Barack Obama supports abortion as is evidenced by his past senate votes and 100% NARAL rating, his endorsement by Planned Parenthood, and his promise to sign the radical Freedom Of Choice Act as one of his first official acts as president. An astute and very precise legal analysis of the dire ramifications of the Freedom of Choice Act can be found here. ( http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2008/10/a-focus-on-foca.html ) It can also be assumed that Obama will support US funding of abortions as part of foreign aid packages as well as the performance of abortions on military installations. In addition, it can be assumed that he will appoint Supreme Court justices who are sympathetic to Roe v Wade (in spite of the fact that many legal minds have denounced the legal thinking of this ruling). Therefore, the election of Barack Obama will cause the increased vulnerability to abortion of the unborn on a world-wide basis. This is an intrinsic evil.
The question is whether or not it is morally licit to vote for Barack Obama. The first step is to decide if a vote for Barack Obama is formal or material cooperation with the intrinsic evil of abortion. If one is voting for Obama specifically because he supports abortion it is formal cooperation. Formal cooperation with an intrinsic evil is always morally illicit. That was easy.
What if you oppose abortion? Does electing Barack Obama contribute an essential component to the increased vulnerability to abortion of the unborn on a world-wide basis even though that is not your intent? I suggest it does, because not electing him would make this dramatic increased vulnerability impossible. This would make your cooperation immediate material cooperation. Immediate material cooperation with an intrinsic evil is also morally illicit.
Let’s just say for the sake of argument, that electing Barack Obama is not an essential requirement for the increased vulnerability to abortion of the unborn. Though this will be the result of Barack Obama’s election, the voter does not intend this result. Therefore, such cooperation by electing Barack Obama would be considered mediate material cooperation. Such cooperation can only be tolerated if all four of the following conditions exist:
1. the cooperators act (voting for Obama) is itself morally good or indifferent
2. the cooperator does not intend the evil (making the unborn more vulnerable to abortion) of the principle agent (Obama)
3. the good effect is not achieved by means of the evil
4. the good effect is proportionate to the bad effect
It is condition 4 that makes the cooperation (voting for Obama) morally illicit. There is no proportionate reason to tolerate the increased vulnerability to abortion. You can see a very long list here ( http://www.wf-f.org/Bishops_Catholics_Politics2008-Present.html of all the bishops )who have spoken to this.
Therefore, using well-established principles of moral reasoning, I can confidently say it is morally illicit to vote for Barack Obama.
speaking specifically of Obama can only make sense when compared to the other option. Why is it that pro-life seems to only value the life of the unborn and not the born? Can a catholic vote for someone who authorized torture if they "value life"? What about someone who supports unnecessary wars?
You are correct in pointing out that the pro-life ethic must take into account the full spectrum. However, you can not equate issues of the quality of life (poverty, hunger, torture) with issues of life itself (abortion, euthanasia). Yes, we do fight against torture because it is bad. But all issues are not equal. Some issues are life and death issues. We value the life - both of the born and unborn. However, when given a person who is being tortured, a person who is homeless, and a person who is going to be killed - my priorities, my biggest fight, is going to be for the person about to be killed. This does not mean the others are going to be ignored, but is a basic understanding that not everything is equal.
Voting for a candidate is not a full endorsement of their entire platform. It is a vote for the best candidate. This does not mean they are perfect, and I don't know if such a candidate has ever existed. We must vote for the candidate who "values life" the most, and when comparing someone who endorses murder (aka abortion) on demand, the choice is fairly easy.
You state that "At the end of the day, the bishops remind us, individual Catholic voters must use their own “prudential judgment” – or, moral common sense – when deciding which levers to pull. If after examining the facts, a Catholic truly believes that a “pro-choice” candidate will do more to promote the cause of human life than one who seeks legal prohibitions on abortion, her or she can vote for the pro-choice candidate with a clear conscience."
My question to Catholics out there is this: Are we examining the facts? If one candidate's record is more pro-life than the other (OnTheIssues.org is very helpful) how can a Catholic truly believe that a pro-choice candidate will do more to promote the cause of human life if his record is the opposite of pro-life in every sense of the word? Catholic or not, to ignore the facts, or worse, to have life issues at the bottom of your priority list, how can anyone vote with a clear conscience when defenseless babies being killed take bottom priority over the economy? If we can't trust the president to protect the most defenseless and innocent, what can we trust him with?
Bottom Line: Can Catholics Vote Pro Choice? The answer is no.
does the mantra of "life" apply to those already born? If so then is a person that authorizes torture pro-life (i.e. was Bush)? Is a person that acquiesced on torture pro-life? Is a person that starts unnecessary wars pro-life?
In the end I'd find a person that is opposed to torture and unnecessary wars more inline with the mantra of life than someone who protects 4 cells as if it were a full fledged human being.
Pro-life should mean not only preserving the life, but also working to improve the condition the life exists in.
On both ends ( abortion and euthanasia ) life needs to be protected.
In the middle we need to work to improve the conditions that everyone lives in. We need to provide at least basic health care . All people should have roofs over there head. There should be a minimum standard that all people should be provided. However, people need to give back as they can (not a welfare world).
Torture is part of the middle ground. One thing that needs to be cleared up is at point do you cross the line between interrogation and torture? Is interrogation allowed? Is the line different for times of war and peace? Does Iraq or Afghanistan qualify as a war? Some Police forces have been accused of using torture, how do handle them?
Abortion takes over a million lives every year (just in the USA); how many have died from torture?
In the "war" do you just look at the number of American soldiers that have died, or the total number of persons that have died? Do we weigh the lives saved against the lives lost? The number of bodies found in the mass graves in Iraq has exceeded the estimates of how many people Saddam Hussein was thought to have executed.
You use the term "full fledged human being". Please define this term. At what point does a person no longer rate "full fledged"? If I get into a car accident and can no longer take care of myself, would I no longer be "full fledged"?
You did not mention the death penalty . This should only be allowed if needed to protect society . If a person can be kept isolated from society, then the value of their life needs to be respected. If the person can not be isolated from society, then the value of the many lives in society needs to have greater weight than the one person’s life.
Abortion kills a known number of persons, while torture and war death tolls do not come close in quantity.