No Compromises: Kansas State Bishops Declare Voting for Abortion Candidate is "Evil"

By Peter J. Smith KANSAS CITY, August 12, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A vote cast for a politician who supports abortion and same-sex “marriage” is nothing less than casting a vote for “evil” says a state conference of Catholic bishops. In a voter’s guide released for the…

Full article…

[size=3]"Other acts, regardless of the motive or circumstances, always “involve doing evil” and must be opposed: “These choices include elective abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, the destruction of embryonic human beings in stem cell research, human cloning, and same-sex ‘marriage.’”
**“In light of the above we would commit moral evil if we were to vote for a candidate who takes a permissive stand on those actions that are intrinsically evil when there is a morally-acceptable alternative.” **

This statement is very clear. Those who are supporting John McCain “would commit moral evil” by continuing their support for McCain. McCain supports the experimentation and slaughter of our brothers and sisters at the embryonic stage and children who have no choice as to how they are conceived. Dr. Alan Keyes is an official FEC-filed candidate who is 100% pro-life, pro-traditional family, no exceptions. The Bishops were simply reiterating Catholic Magisterial Teachings. Party or chance of winning is not to be considered. The candidate’s moral views on Catholic non-negotiables are most important. Therefore, no Catholic can vote for McCain or Obama without committing a moral evil.

[/size]

The article in fact says that voting for a pro-choice candidate is “evil” if there is a morally acceptable alternative. That’s a huge qualification to make.

My own judgment is that the present Republican candidate is a morally acceptable alternative, but at least one of his opponents in the primary would not have been (not least because that candidate’s prolife position was a recently acquired one and may very well have been a cynical bid for conservative support). But of course everyone has to make this decision in the light of their own consciences.

Edwin

Wichita, KS – The Catholic bishops in Kansas have released a new voter’s guide that makes it clear supporting a candidate who favors legal abortions is “evil.” In the joint document, they say Catholic voters would “commit moral evil” by backing candidates who support abortion, euthanasia or embryonic research.

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City and Bishops Ronald Gilmore of Dodge City, Paul Coakley of Salina, and Michael Jackels of Wichita joined together to endorse the document.

They lay out a very clear argument against abortion and how voting for pro-abortion candidates promotes the violation of Church teaching.

Full story at:
LifeNews.com/state3445.html

How can voting for a candidate who does not support war, who supports health care for all, who supports a comprehensive plan for allowing immigrants into country, who supports truth, who supports a plan for bringing the economy back into order be any less evil than supporting a candidate who backs the outlawing of abortion, cloning, and euthanasia. Granted, the latter deal with life itself, but the former deal with the trappings of modern day society, an issue of life as well. If we cannot promote a healthy life for ourselves, how can we promote healthy lives for those who are to come after us? I am a pro-life Catholic man, but let us not be so narrow minded. My conscience will not allow me to vote for John McCain. A supporter of a liar in all respects.

My moral conscience and my current understanding of Catholic moral theology will not allow me to vote for one of the current candidates. Yours should not either. Read Catholic social teaching and get educated.

Agreed.

I agree and feel strongly one of the two is not eligible for a vote from a practicing Catholic.

I’ve had the same question whether or not I should vote after being presented with two evils. Either way and any way that I vote, I am acting against my conscience. Do I have a moral obligation to vote?

Is it just me, or are the mid-western priests and bishop a great deal more courageous than their east and west coast collegues?

I wish it were at least regional, but our bishop, like many, is happy to just take a proper stance and stand silent. He actually banned the area (very agressive and orthodox) Right to Life representatives from handing out material in churches because he didn’t want them to be confused with the Diocese’s internal Right to Life committee. There was a very public exchange in the papers. So, no, I don’t think it’s regional.

Not to be preachy but in my view, all choices as to government are a choice between evils. One man governing another is an evil in itself. So the decision cannot be avoided and my responsibility is to chose to create the greatest opportunity for good. That being said, I cannot licitly vote to permit state sanctioned murder.

I don’t at this point see the problem with one of the two candidates, although I am aware of his shortcomings. I do not want the perfect to become the enemy of the good. I can foresee some potential problems - bad vp pick, change in the party platform - and in that event I don’t consider that I am required to vote.

Actually I should have clarified. My Catholic moral conscience won’t allow me to vote for anyone this year. I will probably stay at home.

What I have particular disdain for is party loyalty over Church loyalty. You have too many Catholics that agree with their party line all the time and the church and the Pope most of the time. When John Paul II condemed the Iraqi invasion there were far to many who said, “We are not obligated to be in accord with the Pope on this one.” If a Catholic has a particular political leaning that is fine, but he or she ought to work within his or her party to change unjust agendas.
I just feel that given the issues at hand abstaining is what is just for me. Whether it be a murdered unborn baby, a casualty of an unjust war, or an executed prisoner-----my hands will be clean of blood.

:thumbsup:

Ther are other ballot incitives that require a vote in most cases. Offer a write-in for President or just don’t vote on that particular element of the ballot.

:thumbsup:

I just feel that given the issues at hand abstaining is what is just for me. Whether it be a murdered unborn baby, a casualty of an unjust war, or an executed prisoner-----my hands will be clean of blood.

A no-vote is not inaction if limited to the President, but to not participate in all elements of teh election does remove our voice. If 120 million eligible voters vote, but the two evils together only get 90 million votes to split then the 30 million who did not cast a vote for them are known and counted. Stand up and be counted with your silence with respect to that office.

My position exactly.

I will vote my conscience, with the understanding that I am not voting in support of either candidate’s specific position which permits/promotes evil.

Then I see it clearly in the one case, and don’t see it in the other as things presently stand, so my Catholic moral conscience is a little different than yours.

The Kansas Bishops’ statement, guided by the Holy Spirit and the True Magisterial Teachings of the Catholic Church, is not only faithful but refreshing! “…A correct conscience recognizes that there are some choices that always involve doing evil and which can never be done even as a means to a good end. These choices include elective abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, the destruction of embryonic human beings in stem cell research, human cloning, and same-sex “marriage.” Such acts are judged to be intrinsically evil, that is, evil in and of themselves, regardless of our motives or the circumstances…” “…In light of the above, it is a correct judgment of conscience that we would commit moral evil if we were to vote for a candidate who takes a permissive stand on those actions that are intrinsically evil when there is a morally-acceptable alternative…” This statement is unequivocal in its guidance, based on the True Teachings of the Catholic Church.
The LifeSiteNews article information is misleading by omitting some very important “morally-acceptable alternative” candidate information. Any candidate who supports intrinsic evil cannot be voted for “when there is a morally-acceptable alternative.” If all abortions are committed based on how the child is conceived, then anyone who is not 100% pro-life is 100% pro-abortion. The Kansas Bishops’ statement makes it very clear–neither party nor chances of winning can be allowed as a consideration. The candidate’s views on the Catholic non-negotiables must be a priority in our vote–no exceptions. There is a morally-acceptable alternative to traditional political parties. Since we’re not allowed to name names in this forum, it’s up to each one of us to do due diligence when we vote by finding those “morally-acceptable alternatives.” With the gift of the Internet, we have no excuse not to properly inform our consciences.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.