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.
No comments:
Post a Comment