“They don’t vote as a block anymore.” These words were recently spoken by Monsignor Joseph Rebman about Catholic voters. Once a powerful demographic, Catholics today are bitterly divided over whether it is acceptable to vote for pro-choice politicians. Many Catholics are proudly progressive, but others insist that abortion is non-negotiable. What are the spiritual implications of a Catholic vote?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Pope Benedict Says Yes - It's All about the
- From Chris Korzen
By Chris Korzen - Executive Director, Catholics United
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Question....
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.
- jmjtina
October 20, 2008 12:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
what is pro-life?
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.
- reckoner
October 20, 2008 8:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Re: what is pro-life?
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.
- ENG Tech
September 10, 2009 1:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It is morally illicit to vote for Barack Obama
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.
- Denise Hunnell
October 20, 2008 5:30AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
you're missing the other half
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?
- reckoner
October 20, 2008 9:00AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The less equal half
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.
- DominicSavio
October 25, 2008 10:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Applying Mr. Korzen's Argument
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.
- BME
October 20, 2008 2:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.