I'm not a Catholic, but I wholeheartedly agree with Archibishop John J. Myers' voter's guide with regards to pro-choice candidates.
Cardinal Ratzinger stated 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 a candidate's permissive stand on abortion." But the question of the moment is whether a Catholic may vote for a pro-abortion candidate for other reasons. The cardinal's next sentence answered that question: A Catholic may vote for a pro-abortion Catholic politician only "in the presence of proportionate reasons."I also made the connection between ritual child sacrifice and abortion. After all, why did ancient civilizations sacrifice their children to their gods if not to provide impetus to their prayers for wealth, long life, and happiness? Precisely the same as modern embryonic research and abortion.What are "proportionate reasons"? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong. Then we must consider the scope of the evil of abortion today in our country. America suffers 1.3 million abortions each year--a tragedy of epic proportions. Moreover, many supporters of abortion propose making the situation even worse by creating a publicly funded industry in which tens of thousands of human lives are produced each year for the purpose of being "sacrificed" in biomedical research.
Thus for a Catholic citizen to vote for a candidate who supports abortion and embryo-destructive research, one of the following circumstances would have to obtain: either (a) both candidates would have to be in favor of embryo killing on roughly an equal scale or (b) the candidate with the superior position on abortion and embryo-destructive research would have to be a supporter of objective evils of a gravity and magnitude beyond that of 1.3 million yearly abortions plus the killing that would take place if public funds were made available for embryo-destructive research.
Frankly, it is hard to imagine circumstance (b) in a society such as ours. No candidate advocating the removal of legal protection against killing for any vulnerable group of innocent people other than unborn children would have a chance of winning a major office in our country. Even those who support the death penalty for first-degree murderers are not advocating policies that result in more than a million killings annually.
I'm a Roman Catholic, a devout one. But Ratzinger's position is dangerous nonsense. I've said it before and I'll say it again until I'm blue in the face.
To condemn abortion as a sin -- which it is -- is not the same as saying that the state must act against it with the force of the law. For the Church to say that the state must act against it with the force of law is to demand that the state subordinate itself to the Church -- which is not only wrong, but was explicitly eschewed by Christ Himself.
The Church recognizes many vices as sins: homosexual sodomy, gambling, intoxication, prostitution, and swearing, to name but a few. Yet there are excellent reasons for not acting against them through the law -- the attempt to do so would make the situation worse, just as it did with Prohibition.
Would legal restrictions on abortion make the situation worse? I don't know. I don't think so, but I'm not omniscient, nor am I the only voter in the world. To rule a Catholic voter's political judgment -- that is, his opinion about what legal arrangements would best conduce to the harmony and stability of the body politic, rather than his opinion about what one ought to do -- to be subject to the Church's decrees, regardless of what he himself does or advocates, is the worst transgression of the Church's proper authority I can imagine.
If Rome keeps on in this fashion, it will suffer a terrible loss of prestige. The Church will pay for its arrogance, both in this world and the next.
FP: So would you expect the church to be neutral on a bill proposed to, say, reintroduce slavery?
Francis: the Church is against =murder=... a crime that cries out to heaven. The most basic purpose for the state is to protect people; the right to life is the most basic right - without protection of that right, all other promises of the state are empty.
Let's just say that abortion is far worse than gambling, prostitution, etc. The Church has always seen a heirarchy of sins - cheating on your taxes has never been held as serious as shooting down everybody in a convenience store. Catholics have a moral reason for having the second be considered a crime - and more important crime than worrying about tax cheats.
I agree that law alone will not stop the scourge of abortion. People were having abortion even when it was illegal. However, right now, there are absolutely no limits on abortion in the United States. None. Children can procure abortions without their parents being notified. Women can have abortions without their husbands being told. Full term babies can be aborted for "health reasons", which everybody knows can be contorted into "mental health" meaning - if the mother wants it, it would be detrimental to her health to go through childbirth.
As one notes, there are few candidates who are "pure" on pro-life issues (for example, why should children who are the products of rape be aborted? Their right to life is as strong as any other baby...and yet most politicians will have a rape exception for abortion) -- that's where the "proportionate causes" come in. Sometimes there's no difference between candidates on life issues - you rarely get a serious pro-life candidate for mayor of NYC ... and besides, the mayor of NYC doesn't get much say in abortion law. A pro-abortion candidate for water commissioner? That's not exactly relevant. But it is relevant for legislators who are in charge of laws - who want to spend tax money on free or subsidized abortions (whether here or abroad). I think we can agree that at the very minimum, a Catholic shouldn't support a candidate who's for spending govt money on abortion?
I don't think tbere are many pro-choice people out there that would say they were pro-murder. The discrepancy lies in when people think life begins.