Bishop Thomas Tobin
Posted on 10/28/2014 1:56:47 PM PDT by NYer
The Gospel of life must be proclaimed, and human life defended in all places and all times. The arena for moral responsibility includes not only the halls of government, but the voting booth as well. (American Bishops, “Living the Gospel of Life”)
Prior to the recent primary election I received a heartfelt letter from a member of the Diocese who had just discovered that the candidate for whom she had intended to vote was “pro-choice and for same-sex marriage.” She wrote: “Dear Bishop Tobin, for whom do I vote? Do I vote at all?”
I responded to my letter-writer that it wasn’t appropriate for me to suggest candidates for whom she should or shouldn’t vote, but that it was important for her to become well-informed about the candidates and their positions, pray about it, and then vote according to her well formed conscience. I told her that I often faced the same dilemma. I also sent her a copy of the American Bishops’ document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” that places in a broader context some of these important political decisions.
Bishop Thomas Tobin
It’s a real problem that many faithful Catholics face these days – how to vote when all of the candidates are pro-abortion. (Candidates euphemistically call it “pro-choice” but it’s really a stance that enables and promotes abortion, isn’t it?)
The dilemma is more excruciating when the candidates profess to be lifelong Catholics. As I said in my recent statement about Catholic politicians and abortion, “It is always disappointing when a Catholic candidate for political office abandons the teaching of the Church on the dignity of human life for the sake of self-serving political gain. Such actions demonstrate an inexcusable lack of moral courage . . . Abortion is a sin, and those who provide it, promote it, and support it will be held accountable by Almighty God for the unjust death of unborn children.”
What a pathetic spectacle Catholic candidates present when, having to choose between Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Church, they choose Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in our nation. Do these candidates have no respect for the religious heritage of their parents and grandparents? Have they no appreciation for the sacraments, the solid education, the communal support, and the moments of comfort and guidance the Church has provided for their family over many generations? And I wonder – when in the future these candidates are in need of prayers and blessings, the Last Rites of the Church, and then finally funeral services – will they turn to Planned Parenthood or the Catholic Church to stand by their side?
The Bishops’ document to which I’ve already referred gives some guidance in these questions. It explains, first of all, the importance of the virtue of prudence. “The Church fosters well-formed consciences not only by teaching moral truth, but also by encouraging its members to develop the virtue of prudence. Prudence enables us to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it.” (#19)
The Bishops then get a little more specific about voting. “Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. That is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience.” (#34) And this: “When all the candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma.” (#36)
And that brings us back to the question posed by my letter writer: “Bishop Tobin, for whom do I vote?”
If we distill the guidance of the Church, it seems to me that when no candidate presents an acceptable position, especially about critical moral issues like abortion, the voter has three options.
The first is to choose the candidate who, in traditional terms, is the lesser of two evils. Let’s just say, for example, that one candidate promotes an extreme position on abortion, welcomes the endorsement of and eagerly embraces the evil agenda of Planned Parenthood, supports partial-birth abortion, and disdains the sincere convictions of pro-lifers; and another candidate would restrict abortion in some circumstances, opposes taxpayer funding of abortions, and is willing to work with and respect pro-lifers – a voter might properly choose the second candidate even though the position is flawed.
Secondly, as a kind of protest, a voter could decide to write-in the name of someone who represents pro-life values. In this scenario, one might vote for St. John Paul, Pope Francis, Mother Teresa, or our own local pro-life hero, Baby Angela! Even though this person surely wouldn’t be elected to office, a vote in that direction would send a clear signal that at least some voters won’t settle for anything less than a pro-life candidate. Contrary to what critics will charge, it’s not a wasted vote; it’s a sincere expression of conscience that upholds moral truth. And that’s never a waste!
Finally, a voter might well decide to skip this year’s election and not vote at all, or at least not vote for a particular office. Although Catholics have a general moral obligation to participate in the life of our nation, there are many ways to do that, and there’s certainly no obligation to vote in each and every election, particularly when the options are repugnant to the well-informed conscientious Christian voter.
I know, it’s a tough time to be a moral, pro-life voter. The field is narrow and the options are few. But, vote according to your conscience, pray for our state and nation, and sleep well. Remember,
God’s still in charge!
Ping!
It’s a no brainier when you realize that the Democrat party is the party pf envy, jealousy, covetousness and theft. All sin all the time.
Or vote third party - that is often an option (e.g., Constitution Party).
I will not vote for any pro-choice politician ever.I believe anyone who does not see the sanctity of human life is disordered. There are always third parties with candidates who are pro-life.
Voting for any politician who does not actively fight against abortion is supporting abortion.
Bishop Tobin said he was a Democrat until AFTER the 2012 convention, at which the delegates booed God.
That the Democrat platform was pro-abortion for the previous forty years didn’t bother him as much as a little booing of God?
I have read that Tobin said he voted for Obama in 2008. But I am not certain that is true.
What a pathetic spectacle Catholic candidates present when, having to choose between Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Church, they choose Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in our nation. Do these candidates have no respect for the religious heritage of their parents and grandparents? Have they no appreciation for the sacraments, the solid education, the communal support, and the moments of comfort and guidance the Church has provided for their family over many generations? And I wonder – when in the future these candidates are in need of prayers and blessings, the Last Rites of the Church, and then finally funeral services – will they turn to Planned Parenthood or the Catholic Church to stand by their side?
Giving Communion to pro-abortion politicians is a MORTAL SIN.
It is NOT a political act. It is merely refusing to participate in giving grave scandal, and the sin of sacrilege.
It is INFINITELY more important for bishops to stop committing the mortal sin of giving Communion to notorious sinners than it is for them to write articles about voting. If the bishops would simply stop committing the mortal sins of scandal and sacrilege, more Catholics would be able to discern that voting for pro-abortionists is sinful.
” there’s certainly no obligation to vote in each and every election, particularly when the options are repugnant to the well-informed conscientious Christian voter.”
What sort of garbage are they putting out?
I didn’t get a memo from any Bishop telling me which elections we are or are not participating in.
The Body of Christ participates in all of these elections. If there is something “repugnant”, it happened during the primary season process ... while the complainer was likely oblivious. So who is the Repubnant one?
“vote according to her conscience. “
ERROR.
A well informed conscience is necessary to develop one’s political beliefs. But once you are in the voting booth, it is an intellectual task, not a task of the conscience. Your conscience has nothing to do with it.
I’ve heard that argument in the 5th grade. “My conscience won’t allow me to complete the quiz, Miss Teacher.” Response: “Fill out the quiz to the best of your ability, hand it in, or see me in detention.”
What a bunch of delinquents.
There is no such thing as a lesser of two evils. If you defeat the candidate that is worse for the Church and the prolife movement, that is a good, not an evil.
“I know, it’s a tough time to be a moral, pro-life voter. “
Only because there is a special curse for church goers who refuse to go down to their polling place and fill out their ballot. And then use the Gospel as an excuse.
Fill your ballot out. There is no moral obligation to publicly endorse candidates. At least in CT, our ballots are anonymous. It is not an indication of support to cast a ballot for one of the candidates to win. That is an oxymoron.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/vote/votingwithclearconscience.htm#choosing
Distinguish “choosing evil” from “limiting evil.”
What happens if two opposing candidates both support abortion?
Father Pavone:
“First of all, refrain from putting any labels or endorsements on anyone. Don’t call them anything. Or, if you prefer, call them both pro-abortion. Then just ask a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?
For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban late-term abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea? Nobody is saying that’s the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other.
One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.
In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not “choosing the lesser of two evils.” We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good.
You oppose the evil of abortion, in every circumstance, no matter what. You know that no law can legitimize even a single abortion, ever. If the candidate thinks some abortion is OK, you don’t agree.
But by your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it’s not the best strategy. But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer — in the case described above — is yes.
Cardinal John O’Connor, in a special booklet on abortion, once wrote about this problem, “Suppose all candidates support ‘abortion rights’? … One could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position. If all candidates support “abortion rights” equally, one might vote for the candidate who seems best in regard to other issues” (1990, “Abortion: Questions and Answers”).
In this context, the question also arises as to whether one is required to vote for a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position. The answer is, no, you are not required to vote for this candidate. The reason is that your vote is not a canonization of a candidate. It is a transfer of power. You have to look concretely at where the power is really going to be transferred, and use your vote not to make a statement but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.
Of course, our conscience may be telling us, “Don’t say it’s impossible to elect the candidate who doesn’t have a strong base of support.” Of course, it is possible to elect almost anyone if the necessary work is done within the necessary time. God doesn’t ask us to base our choices on “the possibility of miracles,” but rather on solid human reason. The point is that if there’s a relatively unknown but excellent candidate, the time to begin building up support for that person’s candidacy is several years before the election, not several months. What you have to ask as Election Day draws near is whether your vote is needed to keep the worse candidate (of the two, less acceptable but more realistic choices) out of office.”
Then what is your motive in posting it?
The ballot is a civil election. Legally, this is what is being asked on your ballot:
which outcome do you prefer?
Victory by Candidate A or Candidate B?
secret ballot. Anonymous ballot.
1. a. Candidate A is good
b. Candidate B is even better
2. a. Candidate A is bad
b. Candidate B is even worse
none of the above is not allowed, since None of the above cannot be the victor.
If the RINO is 2.b., vote for 2.a.
Logic dictates one would choose 1.b. and 2.a.
In practical affairs, prudence and logic demand it. To be Illogical is to engage in a falsehood.
is the election in doubt? IF the election result is not in doubt, Different quiz. If it doesn’t matter, different quiz.
Blank voting is killing the pro-life movement. You are teaching your constituency to stop voting! FOLLY. No fool shall enter the kingdom of God. Prudence is not an optional virtue. Except for Pietists.
“.Democrat party is the party pf envy, jealousy, covetousness and theft. All sin all the time....”
You forgot to add pervs, commies , child molesters, muzzzies and so on.....
Bishop,
what if the pro-life guy is divorced and remarried ... and the NARAL guy is an Irish Catholic family man? ANswer: I refused to vote.
What if the pro-life guy is a worldly businessman and a Methodist! Same, refused to vote.
That is how we got the ObamaCare bill, because in NY19 and NY23 (Doug Hoffman), the hyperReligious refused to participate. And gave Nancy the final 2 votes she needed.
Fideism is disabling.
Apparently this Catholic voter was torn between which Catholic Democrat to vote for in the Democratic primary...To bad he didn't steer the person to the Republican party...
It is true that we often have a wider choice of candidates in a primary than in a general election. We ought to vote in a primary for a well-qualified PRO-LIFE candidate in the primary but there is no moral excuse for voting for a candidate who is generally a pro-abort in the primary or the election. I am tempted to vote for Bruce Rauner for Illinois governor but only because Pat Quinn is such a public policy disgrace on so many levels including abortion, taxes, spending, personal and systemic political corruption and his support of "gay" everything including "gay""marriage" because "his Faith demands it to which Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield responded: "And what Faith is that? Certainly not the one I represent!" And yet, Bruce Rauner is a Lutheran and not a Catholic (presumably the very liberal ELCA), would be a lot better on taxes and spending and a lot more competent manager and, though a supporter of legal abortion and "gay""marriage," Rauner seems for now not inclined to support further degeneration. We have several third party pro-lifers on the final ballot. My "Republican" Congressman and State Senator are not worth voting for and the Congressman is unopposed at an early age, regrettably. I find myself asking conservative Democrat friends including a deacon who was a long-time pro-life and pro-family and anti-tax state rep before he gave up his seat to become a deacon, if it is not possible to arrange a pro-lifer's Democrat nomination against the GOP Establishment stooge and sock puppet but no luck so far. The GOP primary with a good candidate against the Stooge Adam Kinzinger came out with the good candidate drowned in Establishment $$$$$ and losing about 2-1.
The Body of Christ is not really involved in these contests just a bunch of sinners presented with bad choices and the bad choices.
I have very seldom consciously voted for a pro-abort in my life. Only Joe Lieberman comes to mind. I believed that he was SUCH an Orthodox Jew that he was good for a pro-life vote to be named later. Weicker was good for absolutely nothing. Rauner may be the second but I won't know until my pen is on the ballot in the voting booth. Realistically, my vote won't make the difference, If the election comes down to a one vote margin, Rahm Emmanuel will just find an extra thousand ballots in some campaign workers' trunk and they will be unanimously for Quinn. Then my morals are intact. I'll know next Tuesday night.
One final note. Even when he was still generally a liberal Democrat, Hartford's Archbishop John Whealon (then your bishop and mine) made no bones about delivering the message that Reagan was the candidate for Catholics to vote for. He also wrote columns in the archdiocesan newspaper about how the Democrats had been right on all the little issues in American history: taxes and spending, defense and war, labor, etc., but that there really were only two BIG issues in American history: slavery and abortion---and the Democrats had blown both. The Archbishop then wrote that he was giving scandal by being a registered Democrat in the age of abortion. He re-registered as a Republican and gave public favor to Reagan because of the pro-life issue.
God bless!
I have not read your rely yet, but
a. there is a man named Suzio here in CT that lost his re-election by 250 votes out of 40,000.
over 1500 Romney voters in the district, voted blank in that race. I met many at the polls after they were walking back to their car.
“I knew the Democrat was Planned Parenthood and N.O.W., but I wasn’t sure about Mr. Suzio, so I left it blank. Next time, he gets my vote.” The undervote is ours.
we have disabled ourselves. Only Religious People can talk themselves into such a corner. Bad Religions is disabling. And they were encouraged to think like that by pro-life amateur theologians.
90% of the People in the Catholic pews in Tobin’s diocese do not vote in primaries. Perhaps it would occur to him that the poor choices in November are a result of that fact.
It didn’t seem to bother Sarah Palin either who came out and endorsed a RINO/Democrat “Unity” ticket for AK governor over the pro-life governor who succeeded her. The top of the ticket is wishy-washy on abortion and other social issues, and doesn’t like to talk about them and the democrat he picked for his running mate is a 100% pro-abortion, pro sodomite “marriage” democrat. FR Palin fans have trashed me for daring to say she has no principles.
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.