The Catholic Democrats for Nebraska site has this in it’s “Platform” document.
We believe that abortion and euthanasia are never morally acceptable. When endorsing candidates for elective office, we fully embrace the doctrine of proportionalism as stated by Pope Benedict XVI:
“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia.”
“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 in the presence of proportionate reasons.“
Clearly many of the reasons for supporting a pro-choice candidate are very “proportionate”. To vote for a candidate who claims to be pro-life, but takes no actions that measurably reduce abortion, is to vote for a figment of the imagination. To vote pro-life, we have to support candidates whose actions and priorities will ACTUALLY reduce abortion. That includes, in very real fact, many pro-choice Democrats. This further quote from Catholic Democrats for Nebraska illustrates how that can be.
Catholic Democrats of Nebraska will support candidates whose policies promote childbirth and adoption over abortion, including:
- Passing adoption and child tax credits
- Lowering poverty and increasing minimum wage for poor workers
- Increasing health care coverage for women and children
- Increasing assistance to needy families
- Pass legislation that makes adoption easier
These are things that Republican leaders in DC and in many states have consistently rejected or undermined. Thus it is clear that you can vote pro-life by voting for a candidate who is technically pro-choice. Or you can vote pro-life by voting against some candidates who are “pro-life” only in their speeches and advertising.
As the current Pope, Benedict XVI said, “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 in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
I can agree with so much of what you say. But I wonder why you would put yourself in the position to be either slaughtered, or possibly corrupted by the big American political machine.
It is true that Jesus was an activist – of sorts – but He was active for the Kingdom of His Father, and not against the corruption of Rome. He rebuked the religoius leaders of His day, but not for political reasons. Can you speak to the parallel I have just drawn?
Rev. Cathian C. Maness, DD