Can one vote in good conscience for a person who not only suupports the right of others to abort their babies but also would also appoint like minded individulas to the surpreme court and still not consider such a vote a sin, especially when another condidate who is pro life is available?
From then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
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.source]
To further explicate on what Suscipe said, it comes down to intention. Let’s say you had a pro-choice candidate whom you agreed with on every other issue (assuming all the agreed with stances were moral) and the pro-life candidate was utterly catastrophic in all other matters. Voting for the pro-choice candidate for the reasons you agreed with, not because you supported the pro-choice stance, would be acceptable, though we must weigh the good affects you expect to come against the bad.
It would also be acceptable to vote for a pro-choice candidate for their pro-choice stance if it’s more limited than current laws. Example: A candidate is pro-choice, but believes it’s wrong to abort a viable in-utero baby in a society where aborting at that point is legal. Voting for them because of that pro-choice stance, not because you agree with pro-choice, but because you believe it would limit abortion, would also be acceptable.
What would not be acceptable is voting for a pro-choice candidate because they’re pro-choice or voting for a pro-choice candidate because their other ideas would be benefitting you. (Assuming the benefit isn’t just due to overall morality that benefits all people.)
The others are correct. One can not vote for someone BECAUSE they are pro-choice.
To put the horror of abortion in perspective, this is my Sept 11th analogy:
there were 699,00 abortions in 2012 (last year that I’m aware that we have good data…but someone can correct me on the most recent year)
approximately 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attack.
That’s the equivalent of TWO HUNDRED and THIRTY THREE 9/11 attacks ever year, OR 4.5 per WEEK.
Or this: that’s the equivalent of our having over 3,500 9/11 attacks since 9/11.
Wasn’t one… one too many?
That’s why we need a President who will defend the unborn and place justices on the Supreme Court who are of like mind.
It seems to me you cannot equate a candidate’s stand on
taxes and abortion. Murder is worse than money policy:
I will never understand how a practicing Catholic can vote for a
pro choice candidate and then darken the door of his local
parish church for Sunday Mass
I want to ponder this for a while…NO. The real question that I always ask is why do so many people have a problem with that?
Why would you want to? What is the reason? It seems like so many people want to vote for a pro abortion candidate because, they say, that candidate is for X…But, is the pro-life candidate actually against X?
It seems like if all Catholics unified with prolife candidates, they could positively affect other positions with the pro lifer.
Democrats are pro-choice but favor environmental protection, social services, college aid, and foreign aid, all things that pro-life Republicans are against. So yes, the pro-life candidate often is against X. So a voter looking it, especially if they don’t think pro-life policies would be enacted any time soon, would be voting against many things they may support to vote the pro-life candidate. (Whether or not you agree with the policies listed is another matter, but they are examples.)
In my sixties, and been in the socio/political arena most my life. You have just made my point. I’m not going to get into a political debate. The thread was about the intrinsic evil of killing children in the womb.
People justify it by saying that people who are concerned about killing children in the womb, want to destroy the environment, not help anyone else, ignore our children and their education and not help other less fortunate parts of the world. Not true.
That’s called a straw man. There is a point where a person misrepresents the views of another and that’s sin in itself. But, the thread was about intrinsic evil of abortion.
EVERYONE is concerned about the issues you brought up.I suggested that unifying behind pro-life and promoting your insights on the rest would be more help.
Perhaps a lot depends on what " supports the right of others to abort their babies" actually means on the ground.
Does it mean decriminalisation of existing legislation and if so in whole or in part?
Does it mean refusal to change current permissive legislation?
Does it mean tactical opposition to new legislation that punishes the mother but would support changing that legislation to punishishing the specialist (eg Kaine)?
Different answers might be forthcoming for each of these scenarios.
I guess my position is “thou shall not kill!!! or support by my vote any politician who enables such evil”. No amount of other good can justify over 50,000 late term abortions each year in this country.
Well…if candidate A is pro life but wants to kill everyone who is not white and start wars etc…but then candidate b is pro choice but anti racism and basically he or she supports the things compatible to the faith, who would you vote?
Extreme example obviously LOL but just a scenario where voting for a pro choice candidate is not a sin?? And voting for a 3rd party in this case can essentially mean a vote to candidate A…you know.
Generally, it is a painful thing to consider. Thank god I don’t have to be in that position!
However, that theoretical situation hasn’t ever happened and never will. So, we shouldn’t have to be concerned about that.
Someone who would want to save all babies in the womb wouldn’t be trying to wage killing afterwards.
Best to you:thumbsup: