The
Church speaks clearly. Our responsibility
is to allow the Church to form
our consciences in the right
way.
What
the Church says is that all
Catholics must promote the culture
of life, and that policies involving
intrinsic evil, such as abortion,
must always be rejected, and
that there are no other moral
issues that can outweigh the
evil of abortion. So it is not
a question of a pro-life candidate
failing, in our thinking, regarding
policies on the economy, on
the war on terror, on social
services. And it certainly should
not be a question of a pro-abortion
candidate who, in our thinking,
offers desirable change or has
greater charisma or even better
economic or social programs.
NO MORAL ISSUE OUTWEIGHS THE
EVIL OF ABORTION.
Are
we for abortion? Are we for
life? If we answer no to the
first and yes to the second,
then it should be clear to us
who to vote for in this US election.
Are we Catholic and renewed
in the Spirit? If yes, then
we can never justify voting
for the pro-abortion candidates,
especially as their opponents
are very pro-life.
It
is indeed a crucial opportunity
to change the course of history
in America. If we are to win
America for Christ, then let
us vote with fully formed consciences
according to the teachings of
our Mother Church.
God
bless you all.
frank
Kansas
City Bishops Say No "Proportionate"
Reason to Vote for Pro-Abortion
over Pro-life Candidate
"To vote for a candidate
who supports these intrinsic
evils because he or she supports
these evils is to participate
in a grave moral evil. It can
never be justified."
By
Kathleen Gilbert
KANSAS
CITY, MO, September 16, 2008
(LifeSiteNews.com) - As the
election season approaches,
the bishops of Kansas City have
issued a joint pastoral letter
on the
responsibility of all Catholics
to promote the culture of life
and limit evil as much as possible
when casting their vote this
November.
Archbishop
of Kansas City in Kansas John
Naumann and Bishop of Kansas
City-St. Joseph Robert Finn
emphasize that the Catholic
Church in America does not endorse
specific political parties or
candidates; however the Church
"has always cherished its
right to speak to the moral
issues confronting our nation."
The
bishops write that the
Catholic Church has a responsibility
"to form properly the consciences
of her members,"
especially as they take active
part in a democratic system
of government.
The
letter mentions various social
issues that, while having "important
moral dimensions" that
Catholics should investigate,
can be addressed in different
ways and ultimately allow Catholic
voters to disagree in good conscience.
But
the letter then warns that this
is by no means true of policies
that involve intrinsic
evil, which must always be rejected:
"There are, however, some
issues that always involve doing
evil, such as legalized abortion,
the promotion of same-sex unions
and 'marriages,'
repression of religious liberty,
as well as public policies permitting
euthanasia, racial discrimination
or destructive human embryonic
stem cell research. A
properly formed conscience must
give such issues priority even
over other matters with important
moral dimensions.
"To
vote for a candidate who supports
these intrinsic evils because
he or she supports these evils
is to participate in a grave
moral evil. It can never be
justified."
"To
vote for a candidate who supports
these intrinsic evils because
he or she supports these evils
is to participate in a grave
moral evil. It can never be
justified."
While
the letter says an ideal situation
would allow Catholics to vote
for candidates who oppose all
grave evil, it recognizes that
sometimes Catholics must cast
their vote to limit the greater
evil. "We may be confronted
with a voting choice between
two candidates who support abortion,
though one may favor some limitations
on it, or he or she may oppose
public funding for abortion.
In such cases, the appropriate
judgment would be to select
the candidate whose policies
regarding this grave evil will
do less harm. We have a responsibility
to limit evil if it is not possible
at the moment to eradicate it
completely.
"The
same principle would be compelling
to a conscientious voter who
was confronted with two candidates
who both supported same-sex
unions, but one opposed abortion
and destructive embryonic research
while the other was permissive
in these regards. The voter,
who himself or herself opposed
these policies, would have insufficient
moral justification voting for
the more permissive candidate.
However, he or she might justify
resorting to a write-in vote
or abstaining from voting at
all in this case, because of
a conscientious objection."
The
letter recalls that when United
States bishops had asked Joseph
Cardinal Ratzinger for counsel
on the responsibilities of Catholic
politicians and voters, the
future Pope Benedict XVI replied:
"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 considered
remote material cooperation,
which can be permitted in the
presence of proportionate reasons."
The
letter then poses the question,
"Could
a Catholic in good conscience
vote for a candidate who supports
legalized abortion when there
is a choice of another candidate
who does not support abortion
or any other intrinsically evil
policy?" But the bishops
say they cannot conceive of
a reason that could possibly
outweigh the evil of abortion:
"What could possibly be
a proportionate reason for the
more than 45 million children
killed by abortion in the past
35 years?"
The
letter ends by exhorting Catholics,
who now make up a greater percentage
of the American voting population
than ever before, to take this
crucial opportunity to change
the course of history in America
and exercise strong moral leadership.
"There
has never been a moment in our
nation's history when more Catholics
served in elective office, presided
in our courts or held other
positions of power and authority.
It would be wrong for us to
use our numbers and influence
to try to compel others to accept
our religious and theological
beliefs.
"However,
it
would be equally wrong for us
to fail to be engaged in the
greatest human rights struggle
of our time, namely the need
to protect the right to life
of the weakest and most vulnerable."
"For
to me life is Christ, and death
is gain." (Phil 1:21)