The question is arising everywhere all over the Catholic blogosphere: Is it morally acceptable for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports that which is intrinsically evil?
David L. Alexander from Man With Black Hat wrote an email to us recently suggesting that these questions needed an airing. Many questions have arisen out there including issues like torture, birth control, and abortion. If I had been blessed with a few more IQ points, I would like to think I would’ve written what Red Cardigan wrote on this topic:
What kind of reasons could be morally grave enough to allow a Catholic to vote for a candidate who expresses at least some level of support for some intrinsic evil?
I think the candidate would have to be seen as being capable of and committed to the elimination of some other intrinsic evil, or of preventing further harm from taking place. So if a candidate were credibly thought to be more likely to appoint SCOTUS nominees who might eventually limit or even overturn Roe v. Wade, that would be a “morally grave reason” that would not make the candidate’s support of, say, ESCR or the federal funding of abortifacient contraception, a situation that would mandate not voting for that person.
Of course, now we get to the point where we’re talking about prudential concerns. Will McCain, for instance, appoint SCOTUS judges who are strict constructionist and likely to support the right to life?
Read the rest here. It’s well worth it.
September 15, 2008 at 10:10 pm
On a personal level, and totally distancing my opinion here from that of church authority/SCOTUS, I would say I don’t have an issue with voting for McCain even though he has expressed consent to evils the church speaks against, namely torture. The reason behind my train of thought is that McCain is a Protestant, and a secular leader. Meaning, he is in no way beholden to church doctrine or teaching, nor did he claim to be. Biden on the other hand claims to be Catholic, yet rejects Catholic teaching outright. Big difference here.
Also, I will say that initially I did have a somewhat substantial hesitation to vote for McCain at the earlier part of his campaign due to his support of/from Hagee, a known anti-Catholic biggot. But when McCain publically disavowed Hagee and rejected his support, stating specifically that it was due to his biggoted views (which undoubtedly cost McCain a chunk of the voting bloc he was going after by courting Hagee to begin with), I nodded my head and said, “That’ll do, Protestant.” Even Bill Donohue (sp?) applauded this move.
September 15, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Can someone give me a reference where he supports torture? I thought I saw him take Romney to task over waterboarding and say that torture was wrong (basically, ‘the interrogation techniques in the military manual are working,’ etc.). I could’ve sworn he, as a torture survivor, was diametrically opposed to it.
September 15, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Nzie, please don’t take this as an endorsement of the publication, but this was the only mainstream one I could find (other that the Boston Globe…which is even worse).
McCain Draws Criticism on Torture Bill
September 15, 2008 at 11:52 pm
http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-vote-for-mccain-isnt-vote-for.html
September 16, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Thanks, Deusdonat. I think NYT must be updating its site, because the link didn’t work, but I was able to learn enough from it to google my way to more info. (There was nothing wrong with how you copied it or anything, because I did a google search on ‘ny times, 02 17, torture’ and came up with the same thing.)
Basically, McCain voted against a bill that included restricting interrogation techniques to the Army Field Manual, the implementation of which he has stated strong support for, and which also would ban waterboarding. I did a quick search to find the bill, and without reading the exact text, as far as I can tell, that is only one small component of the bill. There are many other parts of it, any one or several of which McCain may have found sufficiently objectionable to justify voting against the bill as a whole. The fact that the bill included a ban on torture does not mean that he voted against it because he supports torture, and to assume as such is illogical.
Since McCain was subjected to torture and I saw him take offense to its use so strongly in that debate, I think it’s most likely he objected to other parts of the bill.
thanks for the link/info, Deusdonat.
~Nzie
September 16, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion
General Principles
by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).
2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. […] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. […] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).
3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
4. Apart from an individual’s judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
[N.B. 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 favour 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.]
September 17, 2008 at 12:18 am
The general rule is you can vote for him if his opponent is worse. A vote is (as Fr. Pavone says) a transfer of power, not a canonization.
In the case of ESCR, Obama’s position is worse than McCain’s because he supports the creation of embryos and cloning for ESCR in addition to funding. McCain did vote to fund, but never to create embryos for research. (That was still wrong but not as bad as Obama.)
On life issues, McCain-Palin comes out way ahead of Obama-Biden.
I agree with Nzie on torture — McCain has been solidly against it all along.
But in any case, the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, nos. 27-29 is very clear that life issues rank above other issues including “the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war,
the use of torture, war crimes, …” This is because “choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision”, IOW they are negotiable to some degree as far as implementation.
October 7, 2008 at 8:49 pm
http://www.mycatholicvoice.com/group/Voice+Your+Vote
There is no doubt that the upcoming Presidential election is proving to be one of tremendous consequence on a variety of issues; issues that are core to our Catholic faith, issues that will have significant impact on us, future generations and the future of our country.
With that in mind, we would like to invite you to join in the Voice Your Vote discussion to share your views, thoughts and ideas.
Its about whats most important to you.
Speak up and let your voice be heard!