Single-Issue vs. Singular Issues, continued

Father John Dietzen, retired pastor of Holy Trinity Parish in Bloomington, Illinois (and ordained over fifty years), has long written a syndicated "Catholic-answers" column with the Catholic News Service, titled "Question Corner".

One recent column has bearing precisely on what I've keenly felt, and posted here several times of late, vis-à-vis "single-issue" voting by Catholics (and others who are anti-abortion) – in particular, when that position against abortion is held by a political candidate whose other positions (and/or record) are gravely unacceptable.

I reproduce here Father Dietzen's column in full, as posted on October 10, 2008, at the website of The Observer, newspaper of the (Catholic) Diocese of Rockford, Illinois. This is the kind of backup and authority I've looked for to bulwark my stance (but not a rationalization!). I'm still no wiser than members of the clergy, and of professed religious orders, who maintain the single-issue approach. But I do stand with some authority.

Now, Father Dietzen: 

Disclaimer: Copyright 2007 [sic] Catholic Diocese of Rockford. All contents of the The Observer Web Site are: Copyright 2007 Catholic Diocese of Rockford and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved. 

Q. If two candidates from opposing parties both have pro-abortion positions, how is one to vote? Do we just stay at home? How about if one is pro-life about abortion and one is pro-choice? Are we morally bound to choose one over the other? (Pennsylvania)  

A. My mail is heavy these days with questions like yours from Catholic voters (and some from other denominations), wondering how to work their way through the moral obligation to vote responsibly.  

The question must be resolved on basic Catholic moral principles of cooperation with evil. In Catholic tradition there are two kinds of such cooperation: formal, and material. Pope John Paul defined formal cooperation in this context as "a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it" (Gospel of Life, No. 74).  

In other words, anyone who cooperates in any way in an evil action because he or she agrees with and intends the evil act, is a formal cooperator in the evil. Such participation or intention is never morally lawful.   

Material cooperation an action which may enable a sinful act but does not directly participate in it, and does not concur in the evil intention of the perpetrator. Material cooperation could cover anyone from a nurse who is present at a "mercy killing," for example, to a bookkeeper or someone who scrubs the floor where the killing happens.  

Obviously there are degrees of such cooperation, depending on how close or necessary that individual cooperative act is to the evil being done.  

Material cooperation, therefore, is not automatically sinful, but is lawful for a proportionate reason. What that proportionate reason might be depends on the seriousness of the evil, and would weigh such factors as how important one's action is to achieve a good or avoid an evil, and relative benefits of one option over another.  

In November, 2007, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops applied these principles to difficult choices Catholics have on how to vote:  

"(I)t is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. 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 other words, intending to support abortion or racism would be formal cooperation and a grave evil.  

Turning to material cooperation, the bishops continue: "There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons." (Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, 34-35)  

In July 2004, Washington [DC] Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, presenting a task force report to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, cited a letter from then-Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, applying that distinction to voters. A Catholic would be guilty of sinful formal cooperation in evil, said McCarrick, "only if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion."  

At the time, as Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, wrote, specifically referring to abortion, "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 if there are proportionate reasons."  

This past July, Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney was asked in an interview whether a Catholic could in good faith vote for a Democrat. His response, "There's nobody running for office at any level who is with the church on every single issue. We have to weigh the various goods and consider what's best for our people, and then each of us has to decide who is better going to represent the many concerns we have."  

Whether one agrees with them or not, these are weighty authorities whose guidance can be safely followed in such moral judgments. Their insights can help resolve many questions about conscience formation, which, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes, is "a lifelong task" (No. 1784).  

Furthermore, all this is simply good traditional ethics. Without going through all these moral technicalities, I believe most people of good will, Catholic or not, almost intuitively use this process for making important moral distinctions and decisions.