I keep encountering Catholics, truly an alarming number of them, who voted for President Biden last year, and have consistently voted for politicians at all levels who are unapologetically pro-abortion.
When asked why they voted for President Biden, I received a variety of responses: "Because I despise Trump," or "Some things are worse than abortion," or "Republicans just support the wealthy and Wall Street," or "The death penalty is just as bad," or "Trump's a racist," and one of my favorites, "Joe Biden's a Catholic." None really addressed the moral theology of behind their voting decision, and I suppose that's to be expected. Most Americans vote based on habit -- "I always vote Democrat (or Republican)" -- on one or two issues that have the greatest or most direct effect on them personally, or even on their personal like or dislike of a candidate.
I won’t dance around the issue, because it’s obvious: the vast majority of pro-abortion politicians are Democrats. That's not to say all Republicans are pro-life, because some certainly are not; but the "right" to an abortion is a solid plank in the Democrat Party's national platform. Indeed, for a Democrat politician to publicly oppose abortion -- an extremely rare event these days -- is to run the risk of censure by the party and the loss of any financial support from the party's coffers.
Considering the Church's consistent teaching on abortion, I suppose, then, Catholic voters must answer the question: May I vote for a pro-abortion politician if I disagree with his opponent's stance on other issues? Let's see what the Church teaches on this as well.
Back in 1995, the Holy Father -- now Saint John Paul II -- wrote the following in his wonderful encyclical, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae, 73):
Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.
From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. “They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live” (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: “the midwives feared God” (ibid.).
It is precisely from obedience to God -- to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty -- that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for “the endurance and faith of the saints” (Rev 13:10).
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 favor of such a law, or vote for it”
John Paul II went on to write:
"I repeat once more that a law which violates an innocent person's natural right to life is unjust and, as such, is not valid as a law. For this reason I urgently appeal once more to all political leaders not to pass laws which, by disregarding the dignity of the person, undermine the very fabric of society."
St. John Paul teaches us that laws permitting abortion or euthanasia are "intrinsically unjust" or, as the Church consistently teaches, "intrinsically evil." But what does this mean? Briefly, if an act is "intrinsically evil," evil is inherent to that act. In other words, the act is always evil. It is always sinful. It is never good and, therefore, never acceptable. There can be no situation, no place, and no time when it is not evil. There's no compromise here, no shading of good or evil based on the consequences of the act. Intrinsically evil acts may never be done.
Sounds very absolute, doesn't it? And that's because it is. A lot of folks don't like to hear truths stated so absolutely. They'd much prefer to hear a softer, more malleable opinion; or even better, a bunch of opinions from which they can choose one that best corresponds to their own pliant thought. The world, of course, is more than ready to supply such opinions; but the Church is not.
In June 2004 the future Pope Benedict XVI, who was then the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote a letter to all bishops on "The Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion." It's a brief letter, well worth reading, but of particular interest is the final paragraph, words misinterpreted by many:
“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.”
Many people who vote for pro-abortion candidates use Pope Benedict's final sentence to justify their actions. The question then becomes: what exactly does it mean to be "permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons?"
I can only assume Pope Benedict used the word, "proportionate" to mean what I've always taken it to mean: that any comparison must correspond in intensity, or amount, or size. Since abortion in our nation results in the deaths of approximately 1.5 million innocent unborn children every year, or about 6 million deaths during a presidential four-year term, "proportionate reasons" would necessarily involve something equally tragic. In truth, though, I can think of no issue germane to the 2020 presidential election that is "proportionate" to such a horrendous slaughter of innocents -- certainly no other intrinsically evil policy of such magnitude.
Interestingly, in an interview on EWTN not long before the 2020 election, Cardinal Gerhard Muller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was asked if a Catholic could vote for a candidate who supports the Democrat Party's strong opposition to Church teaching on family and religious freedom. "Can a Catholic support somebody like that, much less vote for them?"
In response, Cardinal Muller stated, "We are citizens in a pluralistic state with religious freedom. I don't support a candidate in Germany because he is Catholic but because he has the right understanding of life and the basics for human rights. And it's better to vote for a good Protestant than for a bad Catholic. We must judge according to what they are doing and not only according to their words. That is biblical criteria. Look to the fruits."
Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment