As the arguments over whether it is permissible to vote for a pro-abortion candidate rages on, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has been quoted by the U.S. Bishops in a way that seems to allow for Catholics to have more voting freedom.
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick has said that Ratzinger feels that,
"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 favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considerred remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
Many liberal mouthpieces, such as Andrew Greeley, have run with this statement claiming that this implies that Catholics are free to vote for whomever they choose, including John Kerry, if they find other reasons to do so.
In his July 16 article in the Chicago Sun-Times Greeley shows his true colors by making a cheap stab at the Bishops who have defended the Eucharist by stating that, "The few bishops who excluded Catholics from communion if they voted for Kerry didn't know much traditional moral theology."
Individuals like Greeley are entirely political and have no desire to educate the laity. In the same article Greeley then suggests that the bishops could better act as beacons of light if they would "more noisily oppose the Iraq war and suggest that Catholic politicians who support the death penalty are not following the teachings of the Church."
By simple consideration of the numbers anyone can see that abortion is taking more lives than capitol punishment and while we cannot forget about capitol punishment, abortion is clearly the dominant issue of our day.
However, it's worth analyzing whether Ratzingter's alleged point is truly applicable, or just ammunition for more useless palaver. The question is: What are "proportionate reasons?" How often do they exist? Are we really faced with such a situation now? Despite Kerry's liberal positions on life issues are his other beliefs enough to render Catholic support of his campaign "indirect material cooperation?"
Allow me to quicky opine . . . I virulently reply "No!" Simply research his incomprehensible voting record. I could continue but would rather leave it to everyone else to discuss.
What are "proportionate reasons?" Many American Catholics are now using this arguement to support a number of questionable politicians.
Could they be right?
Considering the importance of this election, yours is a very good topic. The "proportionate reasons" question is a tricky one. No doubt, this will provide Kerry supporters the back door they need to justify voting for the pro-abortion candidate. Anyone familiar with Church teaching should be well aware of the moral weight attached to the abortion issue. We've all heard the argument; "Bush supports the death penalty, the Church opposes the death penalty, so you're guilty of doing the same thing." The fact of the matter is that the Church recognizes that the state does, by natural law, have the right to enforce the death penalty. The recent debate centers on whether the death penalty should continue to be used in a modern society that places the sanctity of life paramount. Regardless, their is no comparing the 2 issues; innocent life vs. violent murderers. I would like to know how Greeley understands "traditional moral theology". Most likely, for him the Church's moral theology began in the 1960s. It's amusing that he threw in "traditional". The fact that he places the Iraq war on the same moral footing as abortion reveals, as Jason says, that his motives are purely political.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see, as the election draws closer, how the US bishops will make this teaching more clear. Unfortunately, I think Catholics who are planning to vote for Kerry will do so regardless of what the Bishops say. Somehow, in the minds of such Catholics, it is acceptable to disagree with the Church on moral issues. This problem has its roots, I think and as Jason implies, in the ignorance of the laity which resulted from an absence over many years of basic instruction in Church teaching. There has been little to no formation in the lives of many lay Catholics, it's what I call the dumbing down of the laity. Homilies have become feel-good, Oprah therapy sessions, rather than hard core moral instruction. We've all experienced this at various parishes across the country. People are so used to believing whatever they want, when someone (the Bishops) instructs them as an authority in moral issues, it comes across as old-world and out of touch. "How dare they! Church and State should be separate!" This problem is serious and may take years to remedy. It would be helpful to have a clearer explaination of what "proportionate reasons" could mean. Could it be that in the case that both candidates support abortion rights, one less than the other, it would be permissible to vote for the lesser of two evils? My proportionate reason would be to at least limit some abortion, if the prospect for complete elimination was not present. Further clarification is definitely needed.
It seems to me that there is a divide between "social justice Catholics" and "pro-life Catholics." I see it every day at work. It is ridiculous because, naturally you must protect life at conception to ever have a chance to prevent that child from suffering later on. Also, why defend life at conception if you are going to abandon that foetus when it is out of the womb.
ReplyDeleteLots of Catholics have an inchoate perspective of social teaching because they focus all of their energy on one issue. Not to say that we cannot have a preferred issue as individuals, but when it gets to the point that it is rendering other important issues irrulevant there are serious problems.
The Church does not work that way!
This is a long winded approach to make the point that many Catholics feel that despite his stance on abortion, Kerry is the better man because of his alleged concern for the poor, the hungry and the down trodden. "Bush has got him on abortion." they admit, "But overall Kerry has the bigger heart, afterall, look who he chose as a running mate."
This is illogical, but the line of arguement is clear. Who cares what politicians say . . . it is what they do that counts. (The reality is that neither party is really working for the poor) I feel that these are the nebulous 'proportional' arguements that people are ascribing to.
nota bene: The Democratic party is traditionally the people's party, however, I think that they have become Hollywood's party. Notice that there are more film stars supporting them financially and vocally than blue collar folks.
I think many older Catholics have, since the days of FDR and the Progressive movement, supported Democratic candidates because they look out for the "little guy" via social justice programs. They relegate to the government the responsibilities of the individual. According to them, caring for the poor can be more efficiently streamlined to government welfare programs.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly enough, John Kerry recently stated that he believes life begins at conception. Of course, there is a "but" that follows this confession; he cannot force his personal belief on others who may believe differently. So either he's lying and really doesn't believe that life begins at conception and just says that to pacify cautious Catholics, or he's willing to see millions of innocents (which he says exist) be killed so that he'll receive the pro-abortion vote. I'm not sure which position is more despicable.
As for Hollywood, they have definitely become the mouthpiece for the modern Democratic Party. I think this will backfire on them in November. As enraptured as we may be with the glamour and beauty of Hollywood, I don't think we appreciate dysfunctional misfits attempting to relate to our everyday lives.
I have a 1998 statement from the USCCB that may help outline the specific attention we are to give to the abortion issue. Hopefully, the assertion that abortion is just one among many equally important social issues will be revealed to be an erroneous one. The document itself is called "Living the Gospel of Life".
ReplyDelete"Obviously, Roe is only one of several social watersheds which have shaped the America of the late 1990s. But it is a uniquely destructive one."
This statement clearly addresses the problem we face. It is true that voters are faced with a plethora of moral issues every election year, but the bishops are making it clear that abortion cannot be placed on equal footing.
Perhaps most poignant is a statement made by the Holy Father himself in his apostolic exhortation, "The Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and the World.
"The inviolability of the person, which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture-is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination..." He goes on;
"The human being is entitled to such rights in every posible phase of development, from conception until natural death, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor...[Moreover, if,]indeed, everyone has the mission and responsibility of acknowledging the personal dignity of every human...being and of defending the right to life, some lay faithful are given particular title to this task..."
The bishops again make the point that; "Being 'right' in such matters (issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care) can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life."
So even though some liberal Democrats may, on the surface, be "right" on other social issues, their support of abortion makes that irrelevant.
Finally, "No public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful and serious Catholic, can responsibly advocate for or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life."
Let's see where this takes us. I would still like some clarification on the "proportionate reasons" statement.
I apologize for falling out of the firing line, but I was away for the weekend.
ReplyDeleteTwo quick points . . .
Ratzinger has recently acknowledged that what I quoted above is really from his pen. So McCarrick (sp) is being true in that sense. However, the entire letter (a personal letter to the US bishops, mind you) has not, and may not be made public. But it seems he has no problem with how it has been used. So 'proportionate reasons' are worthy of being delved into.
Next, Megan was wondering about Church documents . . . what about Evangelium Vitae, No. 73:
"In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is . . .Never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it."
This is where all of my discussions on the subject begin. We cannot judge others, but one must wonder if a politician supporting the pro-choice movement, even cosmetically, is really making an effort to do this.
cheers,
jsc
I emailed our question regarding "proportionate reasons" to my friend, Father Paul Hartmann. He is a canon lawyer and so I thought his analysis would help clear things up. He also agrees that this phrase is a difficult one to decipher, but he does offer some clarification. Here's what he told me;
ReplyDeleteI agree that this can, and will, become a loophole large enough to drive a truck through.
The most obvious issue might be a complete lack of a viable, pro-life candidate. Does one then withdraw completely from the electoral process, or do you have a responsibility to vote, if only for the lesser
of two evils?
The qualifier here is "viable" candidate. Compare a "pro-life" fascist (ala David Dukes of a few years ago) versus a "pro-choice" centrist/moderate, call it what you want. If the latter is not directly
participating or facilitating the expansion of abortion, who do you vote
for?
The problem with McCarrick statement is twofold: Proportionality is not well developed in moral theology, and what is known to the general
population is misunderstood to mean relativistic reasons instead of proportional. It is the danger inherant in trying to offer technical disctinctions to a world that does not want to take the time to
understand them.
Allora.
ReplyDeleteFr. Hartmann is giving a similar analysis.
A situation in which a viable candidate cannot be found in my mind is a rarity even in American society. This could be discussed, but lets just say its a theoretical situation at best. How many moral questions are rendered absurd if we frollick in theoretical realms? Lucky for us moral theology is pragmatic.
His second point falls directly into the lap of my favorite subject to assail, education. It is pathetically ironic that the Greeleys and Kerrys of the world, who have spent most of their professional careers destroying traditional education and culture, now cling to esoteric elements of moral theology to defend themselves.
And back to Megan. How can one convince another of his error? I believe it it through prayer and a solid defense of why you choose to do what you do. Issues like the war and feeding the hungry can be discussed, and every individual I have discussed these things with has become slightly less liberal, though I doubt that they are ready to openly support Bush yet.
If someone is adamant about doing what is right they will tap into the wisdom of the Church. In my experience, (and i am tempted to make it a general rule, but I won't) liberal Catholics do not know their faith. I have always felt that if I do not defend the Church when I run into lazy Catholics then I am as guilty as their shoddy theology teachers. If I don't know the answer to something then, I look it up and bring the discussion up the next time.
And that is what we all should do.