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
Oops. I see that, although his name is not in the text, his photo is right at the top.
Read "FR" Greeley argue FOR the liberal side.
Is there any way to abort Greeley? Like, say, a vat of saline solution?
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.