This is a response to Alexham’s post criticizing me for arguing that Catholics can indeed vote for pro-abortion politicians. My main problem is that he does not provide any sound theological basis for saying that Catholics cannot vote for pro-abortion Democrats, beyond a personal judgment that absolutely nothing else qualifies as a “proportionate reason”. This is without foundation, and unsupported by the weight of Catholic moral philosophy.
Let me start with the “non-negotiables”. To accept the validity of this position, you would need to accept that because a particular Democrat supports (for example), gay marriage, then you cannot vote for that person, and instead, should either refrain from voting or pick a Republican who (for example) favors escalating the Iraq occupation and bombing Iran. Let’s add into the mix that the Democrat has no chance in hell of passing any pro-gay marriage legislation at the national level, and that the Republican is indeed in a position to implement these policies. Can one seriously argue, from a gospel of life perspective, that a Catholic should still always vote for the Republican? This is obscene!
Let’s dig deeper into the concept of non-negotiables, by which we mean intrinsically evil acts that cannot licitly be defended. I’m tired of making this point, but why is torture not on the list? And if it is the case that the non-negotiability of a certain act extends to voting in itself, then you will end up in a proportionalist trap. Vote for the pro-torture candidate because this evil is less than the evil of abortion? Sorry, can’t do it when faced with two intrinsically evil acts, as this is an example of proportionalism firmly condemned by John Paul in Veritatis Splendour. The point that “some issues really are of far greater importance than others” breaks down when you run into intrinsically evil acts.
Let me state the central point I am trying to make: if you do not intend the outcome, you can licitly vote for a pro-abortion candidate if the reasons are “proportionate”. And what is “proportionate” depends a lot of prudential judgment. I categorically reject that all honest Catholics who vote for the Democrats are “acting with little regard as to whether it [evil] will happen.” Of course, if the pro-abortion candidate was in a position to dramatically expand the incidence of abortion, then it might be indeed difficult to find these proportionate reasons. But this is not the case. In fact, the greatest decline in abortion rates took place under the last Democratic, “pro-choice” president. It is extremely tenuous to posit a link between each single pro-abortion politician and each specific incidence of abortion. In fact, I believe it is easier to argue that the proximity of the average Republican voter to the act of torture is greater than the proximity of an average Democratic voter’s proximity to the act of abortion.
It can be reasonably argued that the best chances of reducing abortion would be to reduce poverty and increase access to health care, given the links between poverty and abortion rates. At the same time, voting for the supposed pro-life candidate may lead to no action on abortion, but a continuation of torture, the ratcheting up of an unjust war, and the escalation of terrorism throughout the world. If that is not a valid proportionate reason, I don’t know what is! Of course, it is a prudential judgment, much as positing that the only way to eliminate abortion is through Supreme Court nominations is a prudential judgment. It would be best to stick with the USCCB guidelines, which discuss principles, rather than getting into the business of telling people which party Catholics should vote for. I would never tell another Catholic they cannot vote Republican, much as I abhor the modern incarnation of that party. And I expect the same courtesy from others.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In