Posted on 08/10/2004 8:29:06 AM PDT by madprof98
John Kerry's stance on abortion - he opposes it personally but would do nothing to roll back the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized it - has brought him under attack from some American bishops. That raises a question for many Catholics about what to do in November.
The answer is that Catholics can vote for Kerry. They don't have to, but it would not be a sin to do so, according to a distinguished theologian:
"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."
That was not written by some radical liberal Catholic theologian. It comes from the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (once the Holy Office of the Inquisition), Joseph Ratzinger.
It is as close to an official statement on the subject as one is likely to get. It says that Catholics are not obliged to vote on one issue, no matter how important the issue might be. They may vote for Kerry "for other reasons" so long as they are not supporting him merely for his pro-choice stance.
That ought to settle the matter. Catholics who have been confused by the insistence of a few bishops, some priests and some pro-life laity that they must vote against Kerry now know that they are free to make their choice balancing all issues - just as they always have been.
The theory of "indirect material cooperation" is traditional Catholic moral teaching. Apparently, the few bishops who threaten to exclude Catholics from Communion if they vote for Kerry don't know much traditional moral theology, which shows what the qualifications are for the bishopric these days.
U.S. bishops actually quoted the paragraph from Ratzinger in their recent statement on the subject.
Moreover, in response to the question "whether the denial of Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand," the bishops did not endorse the policy of the small group of their members who wanted such denial.
Catholic leaders have found themselves in a dilemma since Roe vs. Wade. They believe, as they must, that a constitutional right to abortion is bad law. But they know that most American women - including most Catholics - believe it is a right they should have, even if they do not intend to exercise it.
Therefore, bishops are cast in the role of those who would take away the rights of women by the exercise of political clout. This is not a good position to be in when you affirm, as they do, the need to "persuade" and to "dialogue." But how do those who disagree with the church dialogue with leaders who believe they are absolutely right and that others are absolutely wrong?
I can think of only one way that bishops might earn a hearing for their teaching. While insisting on their convictions, they should refrain from questioning the integrity and good faith of those who disagree.
Then they should become beacons of light on all issues concerning human life, the rights of women and the rights of the poor and the oppressed.
Originally published on August 10, 2004
In Europe, say the Cardinal's native Germany, there is no such thing as a prolife candidate.
There are candidates who support only first trimester abortions and there are candidates who support third trimester abortions.
Who do you vote for? By the idea of "proportionate reason" you vote for the former since fewer abortions will likely occur if they are legally restricted to the first trimester.
I look at my Grandkids (19-17-13-10) and we love them so
damn much- they are all spoiled rotten....My wife bakes
cookies every time any of them are coming over...they go
right to the cookie jar....we just had our 50th Wedding Anniversary and all our own (4) and all husbands,etc. also there exept oldest granddaughter..in Atlanta (we live in
California),..she is taking extra ballet instructions there
be back this week....I cringe when thinking of politicans like the two Senators from Mass....oh, well..if the voters
don't support Bush...it is their loss....love to all..Jake
Proportionate. Does that mean that if you are opposed to abortion, BUT you are pro homosexual marriage, then proportionately you could vote for the pro abortion candidate?
But wait, homosexual marriage should be another violation, so now we have two issues in which the church should be standing firm against. Proportionately I would think they would look to encourage their members to vote for the candidate whose moral values most closely match up with their spiritual ones. jmo
What are the proportionate reasons with Kerry?
I can see how this applies to my congressional race. I will vote for pro-abort Republican Melissa Brown over pro-abort Democrat Allyson Schwartz because Brown willhelp solidify the pro-life Republican party in power in the House.
I can't see what is proportionate about voting for Kerry.
1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Fetal Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual "Marriage"
It also gives advise on how NOT to vote and how TO vote. In the item how NOT to vote, item 3 is
3. Do not vote for candidates simply because they declare themselves to be Catholic. Unfortunately, many self-described Catholic candidates reject basic Catholic moral teaching. They are "Catholic" only when seeking votes from Catholics.
It also mentions why these items are included but other items such as Death Penalty are not. For example:
Since the Church "does not exclude . . . recourse to the death penalty" in some situations, it is not intrinsically evil. It is something that can be morally permitted in some situations. Though in the prudential judgment of Pope John Paul II, such instances are rare (Evangelium Vitae 56), it is not a non-negotiable issue but one requiring prudential judgment as to the situations in which it is warranted.
No Catholic spiritual leader has said this.
This is a lie that Rev. Greeley is telling to further his personal agenda. Bear in mind, this is a retired priest who has no parish ministry.
Greeley is a loser. This catholic is voting Bush!
Your #40 is very well stated. Thanks.
Father Greeley should stick to writing his border line pornographic novels.
The fact that the UK and Australia do not allow third trimester abortions means that the issue is coming our way.
America has some of the most permissive abortion laws...
Catholic ping?
Even if I agreed with Kerry on every other issue (which I don't), I would still never vote him.
Yeah, and chickens can vote for Colonel Sanders, but it's a stupid thing to do.
A hypocrite like Greeley is not in a position to say anything about Catholicism. He used to share a mistress with my ex-husband. He is corrupt.
John F. Kerry’s Catholic Problem. Catholics will vote against him.
"John F. Kerry... will be kept out of office by Catholics who will not vote for President Bush as much as vote against John Kerry. I am numbered among them. We will be the political story of the 2004 election
Unfortunately, its celergy like this that make
catholicsagainstkerry.com necessary.
The question of voting for abortions aside, Kerry is a grave danger to Catholic values. He is on record as supporting the federal government to force Catholic hospitals to commit abortions on innocent babies.
Come to the site. Read more about why we are fighting Kerry every day. Learn why we need your help.
Live up to your Confirmation vows.
Actually, this "theologian" obviously doesn't understand that God's Word is God's Word. If someone claims to be a Christian (Catholic or other) it is unconscionable to vote for someone who will not oppose abortion because it's murder of an innocent or to oppose same-sex "marriage" because God looks upon homosexuals (not "gay" people as the word "gay" has been perverted and has nothing to do with sex) as an abomination.
To be able to vote for someone like Kerry because of "proportionate reasons" puts Kerry's socialist, tax agenda on the same plane as moral issues which won't wash.
Agree. Andrew Greeley is no Catholic.
Good one! lol
How do Ratzinger and Greeley think the Catholic Church should handle Catholics who work very hard (and very publicly) to get radical pro-aborts, like Kerry, elected?
Is this like saying, "I am not a big fan of Hitler's "Final Solution" program, but I voted for him based on his cute little mustache..."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.