why don’t people supporting Democrats recognize that the politicians who support abortion are distorting the truth. abortion to the baby is not a choice, it is not healthy, it is murder. why are they hiding the truth of what abortion is from their supporters; Gruber’s America?
Of course, it does matter that abortion is intrinsically evil. It matters as a reminder that there are no conditions under which procuring or performing an abortion could ever be justifiable. It also means that a politician who insists that abortion is a positive good or a “human right” is making a claim that utterly inverts morality and justice – a claim that no appeal to “prudential judgment” can rectify. But, as Bishop McElroy points out, voting “involves choosing a candidate for public office, not a stance, nor a specific teaching of the Church.” We don’t always support every position or decision of the men and women we choose to represent us. It is here that prudence is decisive.
And it is precisely here that prudence ought to reveal abortion as the greatest threat to the common good, and the top priority in making judgments about voting.
at least the US bishops did
I need some help here. This is a quote from the Bishop from his statement.
Someone help me out.
Some Catholic commentators on voting have in recent years portrayed prudential judgment as having a deficient dignity and grasp of the truth. They say that there is a categorical claim to support candidates who legislatively oppose intrinsic evils, but only a secondary claim for candidates whose proposals rest on prudential judgment for their moral discernment.
To say this is to miss the central element of Catholic teaching about conscience and prudence. As the Catechism notes, “With the help (of prudence), we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to be avoided.”
Prudential judgment is not a secondary or deficient mode of discernment in the Christian conscience. It is the primary mode. (Emphasis added.) This is certainly true in voting for candidates for public office. The constellation of substantial moral elements that are relevant to deciding which candidate is most likely to advance the common good during her time in office can only be morally comprehended through the virtue of prudence.
" Specifically, Bishop McElroy’s remarks – contrary to his intention – show why prudence is precisely the grounds on which abortion ought to be – must be – considered the gravest threat to the common good of our nation."
How is prioritizing a grave evil like the slaughter of innocent children not an issue of prudential judgment?
I have no idea what Bp is trying to say.