![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/08\/LeonardoFetus.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nThis fall, I voted Democrat, not merely with a clean conscience, but under the conviction that if I do not do so, I sin against Almighty God in failing to fight the gravest domestic threat to my country since the Civil War. (former Catholic apologist \u2014 he himself disavows the title \u2014 and now mostly left-wing political polemicist Mark Shea, 11-5-18)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\nI will vote Biden with a clean conscience before Almighty God. (Mark Shea, 8-25-20<\/a>)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nWhat did Cardinal Ratzinger (later, Pope Benedict XVI) mean<\/em> by \u201cproportionate reasons\u201d for possible voting for a pro-abortion politician? Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin tackled exactly that question in a Catholic Answers article<\/a>, dated 11-1-04 (also available in audio format at the link). He writes:<\/div>\n\nWe might ask: What kind of reasons could there be to vote for a pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia politician?<\/p>\n
Here is a clear case: Suppose that in a given election either Candidate A or Candidate B is morally certain to win, but it is not clear which will win. Candidate A\u2019s\u00a0only policy<\/em>\u00a0is that he supports abortion, while Candidate B has two policies: He supports\u00a0both<\/em>\u00a0abortion\u00a0and<\/em>\u00a0euthanasia. In this case, more harm will be done to society by the election of Candidate B, and so based on principles touched on by John Paul II in\u00a0Evangelium Vitae<\/em>\u00a073, one may cast one\u2019s vote in such a way as to limit the harm done to society.<\/p>\n
In such a situation, casting one\u2019s vote for Candidate A does not amount to an endorsement of his policies. It represents an attempt to reign in the greater harm that otherwise will result. . . .<\/p>\n
Many suggested Cardinal Ratzinger was giving his blessing to voting for pro-aborts if there were enough other good things about them. But having a number of good points is not enough. As the Cardinal indicated, there must be counterbalancing reasons proportional to abortion.<\/p>\n
Such reasons are not easy to come up with, particularly for candidates seeking offices that have the ability to impact abortion law significantly. These include the presidents who nominate Supreme Court justices and the senators who confirm them. One wants to weed out pro-abort candidates on the lowest level possible so that they can\u2019t use their political track record to get elected to higher office. But the more impact the office has on abortion policy, the more weighty a reason must be to allow a vote for them.<\/p>\n
What kind of reason would be needed to vote for a pro-abort candidate for president? Something unimaginably huge. . . .<\/p>\n
At 1.5 million kids killed per year [note: these were the numbers in 2004, they are less now], that means that a pro-abort president would be responsible for extending the abortion holocaust to include\u00a0six million additional murders<\/em>.<\/p>\n
When one takes into account the fact that about half of the recent presidents have had second terms, that would mean a pro-abort president would be responsible for extending the abortion holocaust to include approximately\u00a0nine million Americans<\/em>.<\/p>\n
No other issue involves numbers that high. Nothing short of a full-scale nuclear or biological war between well-armed nation states would kill that many people, and we aren\u2019t in imminent danger of having one of those. . . .<\/p>\n
Jobs? The economy? Taxes? Education? The environment? Immigration? Forget it. We do not have nine million people dying in a typical president\u2019s term of office due to bad job programs, bad economic policies, bad taxes, bad education, bad environmental law, bad immigration rules\u2014or even all of these combined. All of them together cannot provide a reason proportionate to the need to end abortion.<\/p>\n
Make no mistake: Abortion is the\u00a0preeminent<\/em>\u00a0moral issue of our time. It is the black hole that out-masses every other issue. Presenting any other issues as if they were proportionate to it is nothing but smoke and mirrors.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
If Akin is right (as I believe he is),\u00a0I don\u2019t think Cardinal Ratzinger\u00a0 was referring to a scenario of a pro-abort and a pro-lifer running against each other: where the pro-lifer (inexplicably) votes for the pro-abort candidate.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nColin Donovan, STL, writing about \u201cproportionality and voting\u201d<\/a> in 2016, makes basically the same argument that Akin made (one can vote to oppose an even worse candidate).\u00a0See also Fr. Roger J. Landry<\/a>.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nPope St. John Paul II wrote in his magnificent encyclical, Evangelium Vitae<\/em><\/a> (1995):<\/div>\n\n\n\n73. 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 \u201cwe must obey God rather than men\u201d (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. \u201cThey did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live\u201d (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: \u201cthe midwives feared God\u201d (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 \u201cthe endurance and faith of the saints\u201d (Rev 13:10).<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIn 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 \u201ctake part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it\u201d<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nEminent bishops have expressed their informed opinions on this issue:<\/div>\n\n\n\nI do not see how a Catholic could, in conscience, vote for an individual expressing him or herself as favoring abortion. (John Cardinal O\u2019Connor)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\nA proportionate reason for voting for a pro-abortion candidate has to be a reason we could, with an honest heart, expect the unborn victims of abortion to accept when we meet them and need to explain our decision, as we someday will. (Archbishop Charles Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nGrace D. MacKinnon, in her article, \u201cVoting Pro-Life\u201d<\/a> (Catholic Exchange<\/em>, October 2002), observed:<\/div>\n\n\n\nIt is scandalous to think that any Catholic, or Christian for that matter, could vote for a pro-choice candidate when there is another in the same race who is pro-life. And yet, they do. Why is that happening? . . .<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIt would be different if there were two pro-choice candidates. In that situation, we must vote for the one who comes closest to living the full Gospel of life, but when it is a matter of choosing between two, where one is pro-life and the other pro-choice, then we must always choose pro-life. There is no escape from this moral responsibility before God.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nKarl Keating made some excellent analyses on my Facebook page (11-6-18):<\/div>\n\n\n\nI voted by mail some time ago, so I can\u2019t say I voted \u201ctoday,\u201d but I can say that, in each of the races in which I cast a vote (some I left blank because of lack of information about the candidates), the candidate I voted for was a Republican.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\nNot because I like Republicans or am a Republican (I\u2019m not: I\u2019m registered as an independent), but because the Republican candidates either appeared to be opposed to abortion and similar evils or appeared to be less ideologically in favor of them (and thus potentially convertible on the issues).<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nIn Rebecca Bratten Weiss\u2019s estimation [in a screenshot that seems to have been deleted], this makes me a multiple \u201cenemy of life.\u201d Had I voted for the Democratic candidates in each of these races (all of them being strongly pro-abortion, so far as I could determine), apparently I would be a \u201cdefender of life,\u201d by her lights.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nI find this worse than bizarre. With her and the others, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s merely a reaction to Trump. If one of the other 2016 GOP primary candidates had won the general election, I think she and her compatriots would be saying the same sort of nonsense.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\nBut \u201cnonsense\u201d isn\u2019t really the right word. What her comment and the comments of others allied with her suggest is an intellectual and ethical hysteria that leads toward the abandonment of reason itself.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nLike most people, I don\u2019t vote \u201cfor a party.\u201d Everyone I know votes candidate by candidate. If I come across a Democrat or Libertarian or Green Party candidate that seems better on the life issues than does the Republican candidate, I vote for that other-party candidate.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nI vote \u201cstraight pro-life\u201d as well; always have, since 1982.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n<\/div>\nRelated Reading<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\nChristians Voting for Pro-Aborts?!?!<\/a>\u00a0[4-4-04]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nTen Reasons Why Pro-Lifers Vote for Pro-Aborts<\/a>\u00a0[10-29-08]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nReply to Democrats for Life<\/a>\u00a0[5-1-12]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAbortion as a Deal-Breaker and Ethical Voting<\/a>\u00a0[9-10-08 and 2-22-14]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nOn the Complaint that Pro-Lifers are \u201cSingle-Issue\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[9-24-15]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u201cPro-Lifers\u201d Vote for Childkillers? Huh?! (Reductio ad Absurdum<\/em>)<\/a>\u00a0[3-3-16]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nOn Trump & the \u201cSupreme\u201d Pro-Life Cause<\/a>\u00a0[8-16-16]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nDialogue: Conservatives & \u201cOld\u201d Pro-Lifers & the Poor<\/a>\u00a0[10-3-16]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\nGOP & Pro-Life Supreme Court Justices: Revisiting the Facts<\/a>\u00a0[10-11-16]<\/p>\n
Reply to \u201cLeft-Wing\u201d Pro-Lifers (Crisis Pregnancy Centers, the Supreme Court, and \u201cOld\u201d Pro-Life Efforts to Help Struggling Pregnant Women)\u00a0<\/a>[10-24-16]<\/p>\n
Dialogue with Deacon Steven Greydanus on Voting & Pro-Life<\/a>\u00a0[11-8-16]<\/p>\n
\u201cNew\u201d Pro-Life? Only Spiritual Revival Stops Abortion\u00a0<\/a>[1-23-07 and 1-16-09; revised with additions on 12-2-16]<\/p>\n
\u201cTrump Ain\u2019t Really Pro-Life\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[1-24-17]<\/p>\n
\u201cLessen Evil\u201d Votes for Hillary?<\/a>\u00a0[note: Mark Shea did\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0vote for Hillary, but he urged people in swing states to do so]\u00a0(vs. Mark Shea) [4-7-17]<\/p>\n
Debate: Do Liberal Social Policies Lessen Abortion & Poverty?<\/a>\u00a0[4-12-17]<\/p>\n
Debate: How Pro-Life is the Republican Party (Especially the Leadership)?<\/a>\u00a0[5-8-17]<\/p>\n
Simcha Fisher\u2019s \u201cNew\u201d Pro-Life Critique of \u201cOld\u201d Pro-Lifers\u00a0<\/a>(+ vigorous\u00a0Facebook discussion<\/a>) [8-2-17]<\/p>\n
Are \u201cOld\u201d Pro-Lifers Racists & \u201cAnti-Woman\u201d?<\/a>\u00a0(vs. John Cavanaugh-O\u2019Keefe) [8-30-17]<\/p>\n
\u201cNew\u201d vs. \u201cOld\u201d Pro-Life Strategies<\/a>\u00a0(vs. John Cavanaugh-O\u2019Keefe) [8-31-17]<\/p>\n
What \u201cSingle-Issue\u201d Pro-Life Activism Means & Doesn\u2019t Mean<\/a>\u00a0[9-16-17]<\/p>\n
On Being a So-Called \u201cSingle-Issue\u201d Pro-Lifer\u00a0<\/a>[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 1-25-18]<\/p>\n
Do Democratic Presidents Cause Fewer Abortions to Occur?<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 2-28-18]<\/p>\n
Debate: SCOTUS & GOP in Relation to Abortion Rates<\/a>\u00a0[11-15-18]<\/p>\n
Dialogue on Conservative vs. Liberal Pro-Life Voting<\/a>\u00a0[2-9-19]<\/p>\n
Explaining the Pro-Life, Christian Vote for Trump Yet Again<\/a>\u00a0[4-30-19]<\/p>\n
Abortion Declines Under Trump (Surprise, New Pro-Lifers!)<\/a>\u00a0[1-10-20]<\/p>\n
Liberal & Conservative Pro-Life Outlooks: A Dialogue<\/a>\u00a0[1-18-20]<\/p>\n