On what basis would a faithful Catholic vote for a "pro-choice" candidate?

Question

Seems to be some misinterpretation about the USCCB's recent "Faithful Citizenship" document -- including the idea that it would justify voting *for* a pro-abortion candidate.

Here is the document in its entirety (pdf file):
http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

Just in case some people are getting their information from the news media instead of the source.

Quoting from page 15: "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil."

Is there anything in this or elsewhere in the document that indicates voting for the "lesser of two evils" in the context of abortion is okay?

Answer 1

We worship a God that is in the "changing of hearts" business. I know many rabidly pro-choice individuals who are now staunchly pro-life. I think that many candidates are confused. I pray that God changes their mind.

I, myself, am a Libertarian. The official Libertarian position is "pro-choice". It's the one place where I differ with my own party.

But, based on: "if the voter's intent is to support that position" - I can honestly say, "no - that is not me" - so I would cast my vote for a Libertarian with a clear conscience.

If the candidate is pro-choice...but also is for smaller government, protecting our shrinking liberties, lower taxes, cutting government spending and waste, securing our borders and for stopping the ridiculous "war on drugs" - then I will take the bad with the good and vote for that person with no qualms at all.

Answer 2

If the anti-choice candidate supports unjust war, the death penalty, fails social tests on povery action, and so on whil ethe pro-choice candidate passes all these tests I have a hard time seeing how the supposed bright line of a position of intrinsic evil can only come straight down to abortion, particularly when no pro-choice candidate I have ever seen is pro-abortion.

I'm a pro-life Anglican, by the way.

I think it is interesting that the pre-papcy Ratzinger had US clerics deny communion to any pro-choice politician but had nothing whatever to say about politicians who supported teh Iraq war, which the Vatican claimed was unjust. I believe that's called Myopic. I hope he wasn't claiming to speak from the teaching office, else the universe might implode at this point.

Edit: Actually, I recalled that Ratzinger DID have something to say about politicians that supported the war he found to be unjust - that it wasn't as bad as being pro-choice because there could be a logical reason and good intention even if it was wrong. I fail to see how that doesn't apply to every position ever taken by any politician. Which is surprising because he's a sharp guy. See, I think he's just trumping up arguments for this, however shoddy. Hardly seems like the stuff of infallibility, more like the stuff of however I feel on a given day.

Answer 3

One point of information:

Pro Choice does not mean Pro Abortion.

I'm Pro Choice, but definitely not Pro Abortion. I'm against making a person who chooses abortion a criminal. I believe that it is a difficult decision, but shouldn't be illegal. I'm against abortion in most cases, but I think it's wrong to make my religious convictions the law of the land.

I would look for a candidate that wishes to find ways through social engineering to reduce the need for abortion. I would look for the candidate who recognizes that churches, parents and teachers need to take up the struggle to prevent young pregnancies and the situations that bring about a need and a desire for abortion.

I don't think that making abortion illegal, and causing young mothers to carry a baby that they don't want is a viable way to bring about healthy attitudes toward sexual expression in young people.

I'm against abortion as a means of contraception. I think it is the premature ending of a life. I don't think the remedy is making criminals of people who make that choice though. There are so many ways to abort without the use of a physician, and I know some of these myself, including herbal methods. If I have access to these means, other women do, and will come upon them if abortion is made illegal. The difference is that these means can be more dangerous than a medical procedure done under sterile conditions, with safeguards in place.

Is it the position of pro-life that making abortion illegal, and putting the life of the mother AND fetus at risk is better than the abortion of the fetus? That will be the result if abortion is made illegal.

Answer 4

None, excepting each candidate's platform is essentially the same with respect to Abortion/Racism, etc. The position sis intended to free a Catholic voting in response to all other positions, in the hope the candidate will not fulfill the Abortion/Racist platform position.

Answer 5

Only if BOTH candidates are pro-choice, then you choose the "lesser of two evils"
Go to Catholic Answers and get their voting guide. Its a little better than the one put out by the USCCB

Answer 6

Lesser of 2 evils if both are pro abort but I do not want blood on my hands by voting for a pro-abort in this case of formal cooperation

Answer 7

A very important part of the quote you posted is "if the voter's intent is to support that position."

A vote for a candidate who supports legalized abortion is not necessarily an approval of abortion. While aboretion is a very important social issue, it is not the ONLY social issue that Catholics are told to consider. Immigration, the death penalty, fair wage, poverty, treatment of prisoners and welfare are just a FEW of the dozens of social issues that the Catholic Church says a voter should consider when voting for a candidate.

Back in 2004, a Catholic group had a website that compared Bush's and Kerry's position on over 40 social issues along with the Catholic Church's stand on the same issues. Bush was in agreement with the Catholic Church on about 10% of the issues - abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research. While Kerry was in disagreement with the Catholic Chgurch on the issue of abortion, he was in agreement with the Catholic Church on about 80% of the issues.

With cases of unauthorized wiretapping, rendition of enemy soldiers to foreign countries to be tortured, denial of due process for "enemy combatants", and the total lack of progress on the issues of abortion and gay marriage, my conscience is clear.

Answer 8

I am not Catholic...................

However, I used to be rabidly pro-life in my voting.........

No candidate is going to stop abortion. Period. So, I no longer use it as a litmus test for voting. It's been an entire generation and neither party has any intention of changing the Supreme Court decision.

I look at other qualities and do the best I can..........

Answer 9

I constantly elect the pro-life candidate, if there isn't one I vote for myself. there isn't any such element because of the fact the lesser of two evils. The "candidate" you describe isn't a professional-life candidate. professional-life potential to correctly worth life in specific issues in all ranges of life from the 2nd of concept till organic loss of life, for all persons. i does not vote for a pedophile, lower back i'd vote for myself if the pedophile replaced into the sole so-talked approximately as professional-life selection. ****I even have chilly drugs concepts, i presumed the adorned conflict hero replaced into the pedophile. LOL***** Oh properly, i'd vote for me if i could not morally vote for all people else regardless of how adorned they're, in the event that they're prochoice they gained't get my vote. Peace, Kate

Answer 10

If the only reason you vote for or against a candidate is one issue, it's a sad, sad day. Try voting based on the candidate as a whole, no one will match your needs/wants in a candidate exactly except you. Look at the big picture.