Bp. Paprocki on voting and on parties which officially endorse intrinsic evil

Here is a follow up to my post about His Excellency Most Reverend Thomas Patrocki of Springfield in Illinois (the state in which then-State Senator Obama promoted infanticide) and his comments about thinking over your vote this coming November.  You might remember that Bp. Paprocki released a text saying:

There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils.

He did a video, too.  Here is the salient section.

[wp_youtube]lfdDNWyGh74[/wp_youtube]

 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Bp. Paprocki on voting and on parties which officially endorse intrinsic evil

  1. markomalley says:

    Interesting that this extract was posted by Norman Lear’s “People for the American Way” (the ones who run the “Right Wing Watch” website (which, oh by the way, receives the bulk of their funding from the Tides Foundation…)

    I just wonder, if Mr. Obama is ((((shudder)))) re-elected, it will take for the pogrom to begin.

  2. ckdexterhaven says:

    What if I knew somebody, who had a friend….who knows a couple of Catholics who voted for Obama in 08, and are likely to do so again. Is my friend obligated to email or speak to this person, and inform them of the intrinsic evil(s) in the Democratic platform? My friend also wants to know how to say/email this in charity.
    Sincerely, “friend” of ckdexterhaven

  3. markomalley says:

    “friend” of ckdexterhaven:

    If you want to email the video, I wouldn’t email simply the extract that People for the American Way provided above, I would do the whole video, which you can find here: http://ct.dio.org/bishops-column/59-think-and-pray-about-your-vote-in-upcoming-election/video.html

    As far as the moral obligation to do so, I would probably rate it as a spiritual work of mercy…to “instruct the ignorant”

  4. frjim4321 says:

    He he goes too far in the final part of the statement when he says that anyone who votes for a candidate whose party’s platform endorsed a so-called intrinsic evil is complicit in that evil since the authoritative pronouncements I have seen have stated such complicity is only true for those who vote for a candidate specifically because the voter supports that intrinsic evil. He goes beyond normative Catholic teaching when he implies that a person who votes for a candidates whose party’s platform includes a so-called intrinsic evil is complicit in that evil even when that person believes that on the whole that candidate would be better for society and the common good. I don’t think +Paprocki’s statement falls entirely within normative Catholic moral teaching.

  5. frjim4321 says:

    Guess I am a bit tounge-tied this morning.

    What I am saying is that what I’ve heard from others such as +Burke is that the so-called “complicity with extrinsic evil” applies only when a voter chooses a candidate BECAUSE he/she endorses a particular extrinsic evil.

    The video statement goes beyond that principal and thus to me seems to be flawed.

  6. Tradster says:

    Frjim4321: Careful! You’re liable to throw your back out from all that twisted logic. You liberals are the ones who created and embraced all that “seamless garment” crap. Now deal with it and stop claiming to be able to ignore those parts that can land souls in Hell.

  7. Clinton says:

    Frjim4321, do you have links for these ‘authoritative pronouncements’ you have seen?

    My own pronouncements are hardly authoritative, but it would seem to me that if a
    political party made the rounding up and shooting of a particular group part of its official
    platform, then that party would be endorsing what you refer to as a ‘so-called intrinsic evil’.
    Now, even if I wanted to vote for one of that party’s candidates just because he makes the trains
    run on time, I’m still complicit in assisting the his party’s entire official platform, shootings and
    all.

    Now, imagine a world war is fought to eradicate that hypothetical party and afterward I’m
    asked how on earth I could have made myself complicit in its evil by giving it my vote.
    Doesn’t “but they made the trains run on time!” strike you as a pitiful defense?

  8. JKnott says:

    Jesus said, “get thee behind me Satan’ to Peter for a lot less than supporting evil.
    Please stop trying to reason with Frjim4321. He is a trial for our charity.
    Just pray for him.
    I do, every day, by name.

  9. dominic1955 says:

    How any Catholic could vote for Obama with a clear conscience is beyond me.

    “Gee, I dunno about the whole Jew killing thing and seeking to violently subjugate our neighbors but I do like the Autobahn and the rallies! I’m voting NSDAP in ’33!”

    That’s about how much sense it makes for a Catholic to vote Democrat these days.

    That said, we need to really start holding the Republicans’ feet to the fire about abortion and other moral issues. How many times have they gotten a majority in Congress or the presidency and how much have they ever done about this stuff? In my opinion, not near enough.

    While liberalism has always been empty headed, American conservatism these days is not even worthy of the name. Neo-cons are just disillusioned pinkos.

  10. frjim4321 says:

    Frjim4321, do you have links for these ‘authoritative pronouncements’ you have seen?

    I am sorry I do not but I not making it up . . . it’s what I’ve heard from talking heads on EWTN and the like.

  11. solemncharge says:

    Praise God for truth-speaking bishops. Bp. Paprocki is right (particularly in this election) that anyone voting for a candidate that supports intrinsic evil is jeopardizing their salvation. If you are not aware of the president’s positions, then you have no right voting in the first place. If on the other hand, you are tring to become a moral contortionist by claiming that a person who not only tolerates abortion, but actively promotes and funds it (through taxpayer money) via Planned Parenthood is pro-life or would lower the abortion rate then your argument is either irrational or intentionally deceptive.

  12. Sissy says:

    frjim4321 said: “He he goes too far in the final part of the statement when he says that anyone who votes for a candidate whose party’s platform endorsed a so-called intrinsic evil is complicit in that evil since the authoritative pronouncements I have seen have stated such complicity is only true for those who vote for a candidate specifically because the voter supports that intrinsic evil.”

    That’s the old “authoritative pronouncement” going back to the 2004 election. There are new, updated, fresher “authoritative pronouncements” that make clear one cannot vote for pro-abortion candidates, because life is the pre-eminent issue. I think I heard it on EWTN. No, seriously, just kidding about that. The Holy Father himself says so.

  13. amenamen says:

    What is proportionate to “nefanda crimina”?

    The Nota Bene by Cardinal Ratzinger in his letter of 2004 spoke of “proportionate reasons” which might allow a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate without committing mortal sin. The question remains: What measurement can be used to establish a “proportionate” reason?

    It is a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, except in the presence of reasons which are “proportionate” to the unspeakable crimes of of abortion and infanticide (Gaudium et spes, 51, and Evangelium Vitae, 58). This phrase, “unspeakable crime”, is an unusually strong expression. If there are other issues which are condemned in the same language, I would understand that those issues are “proportionate” to the evil of abortion and infanticide. So, in order for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, one would need to identify another moral issue which is truly “proportionate” to the unspeakable crimes of abortion and infanticide. Has anyone seen a document of the Magisterium which has identified any other moral issue in the same language?

    [N.B. 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 favour 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.]

  14. Sissy says:

    Father Jim, since you site him as an authority for your position, here is what His Eminence, Cardinal Burke says:

    ““You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion.”

    I think that’s abundantly clear. When can a Catholic vote for a pro-abortion candidate? Never.

  15. Sissy says:

    oh rats. Site = cite

  16. Clinton says:

    amenamen, that’s an excellent question– just what would constitute a proportionate reason
    that could outweigh a candidate’s support of an unspeakable crime such as abortion?
    In the case of the upcoming election we must also figure in the fact that one party has
    explicitly endorsed unspeakable crime, and has marginalized its members who do not
    agree.

    Calculating some sort of proportionate reason (if one exists) for a vote would also have to
    figure in that the candidate’s entire party is thereby receiving support for its pursuit of
    intrinsic evil.

    Are there any reports of Democrats who have resigned their party affiliation over the
    platform adopted at the last convention?

  17. K.I.C.S. says:

    @amenamen:

    Thank you for the clarification. The only possible “proportionate” reason I can think of that would trump abortion and/or infanticide, if such a reason were actually possible, would be that one candidate promises to set off the US’ entire nuclear stockpile at every corner of the world. Given that no political party in its right mind would nominate someone to run for office even on such an absurd platform, and that no greater offense against human life and dignity exists, I don’t believe that anyone can entertain reasonably a proportionate reason to vote for the pro-abortion/pro-infanticide candidate.

    When your party’s leader holds positions contrary to your moral beliefs but happens to share some aspects of your prudential judgment in solving those moral issues, you’re faced with a choice to hold fast to your moral beliefs or reject them to some degree. It’s almost impossible to rationalize following the leader and his/her contradictory positions by arguing the remote possibility that the other party’s willingness to cut funding for a critical government program might lead to an even greater evil. This is exactly what Stephen Schneck and his fellow Dems for Life are facing, and this is why people with a fully and properly-informed conscience are having trouble processing Schneck’s continued insistence to support Obama against his own beliefs.

  18. JKnott says:

    “Are there any reports of Democrats who have resigned their party affiliation over the
    platform adopted at the last convention?”
    Good question Clinton.

    This pastor calls for exodus from the Democratic Party by all Christians. Great job.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrcmTjijRS8&feature=related

  19. transparent2one says:

    Father Jim is correct in what he says he’s heard on EWTN. I have heard a priest two or three times on EWTN radio say that you can vote for a person who supports abortion as long as you are not voting for them because they support abortion.

  20. frjim4321 says:

    transparent, thanks . . . I was not blowing smoke when I said what I said

  21. Clinton says:

    Transparent2one and frjim4321, perhaps you did indeed hear a priest say that on EWTN.
    I’ve heard a priest deny the Real Presence. His Excellency the Bishop of Springfield’s
    column is more compelling than a vague paraphrase of a recollection of an anonymous
    radio priest.

    Not having heard this EWTN priest’s comments, I’m just guessing that he was talking about
    individual candidates and not political parties, back before the Democrats made their embrace
    of sodomy and abortion so explicit, official and public. Candidates who choose to remain ‘D’s
    are giving their assent to this embrace of evils, and a vote for any of them is a vote promoting
    the intrinsic evils within that platform.

    If a party embraced the intrinsic evil of genocide, yet promised to make the trains run on time,
    I daresay I’d be making myself complicit in its evil, even if I was just so shallow I only voted for
    it because I liked my hell on earth well-run.

  22. Southern Catholic says:

    Except, Frjim supports Obama because supporting a pro-abortion candidate that wants to make abortion more accessible, some how decreases the abortion rate. So try to be honest and consistent with your comment Frjim.

  23. SKAY says:

    “Interesting that this extract was posted by Norman Lear’s “People for the American Way” (the ones who run the “Right Wing Watch” website (which, oh by the way, receives the bulk of their funding from the Tides Foundation…)”
    And of course pro Obama George Soros is behind the Tides Foundation.

  24. jflare says:

    I’m rather distinctly at a loss to explain how the tapdancing related to abortion can be accepted.

    As we consider our vote, if a candidate has voted in favor of abortion rights in the past, we have little choice but to consider such a person more likely to vote the same way in the future, unless the candidate says or does something else that demonstrates remorse for having voted thus. We also must consider that, if a candidate makes routine statements in favor of abortion “rights”, we must consider them to be “pro-abortion” because they’ve expressed sentiments indicating that the practice does not pose enough moral problem.
    Even if a candidate doesn’t like the practice, wishes women would seek fewer of them, or whatever, we cannot make believe that such a candidate will make any particular effort to oppose. This means that such a candidate would surely be morally culpable for supporting the practice.

    If we knowingly vote for a candidate who has made such intentions known, I can’t imagine how we would be able to insist that we haven’t committed at least a mild sin ourselves.

  25. Pingback: Bishop Paprocki Takes Catholicism Seriously « Mundabor's Blog

  26. frjim4321 says:

    Except, Frjim supports Obama because supporting a pro-abortion candidate that wants to make abortion more accessible, some how decreases the abortion rate. So try to be honest and consistent with your comment Frjim.

    That’s not exactly my position.

    If you believe that there will be fewer elective abortions between January, 2013 and January 2017 under a Romney administration than under an Obama administration I can see why you would want to vote for Romney.

    I never said that by being pro-choice and Obama administration would prompt fewer abortions. I suggest that the increased marginalization of the middle class and more households below the poverty line during a Romney administration the actual rate of elective abortions would tend to increase.

    Thus in my view any moral imperative related to how a person votes with respect to life issues should be based on what is likely to happen, rather that what people say or promise.

    I don’t think +Paprocki is adequately distinguishing between political discourse (including party platforms that have little relationship to what parties actually do) and reality.

  27. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    If you believe that there will be fewer elective abortions between January, 2013 and January 2017 under a Romney administration than under an Obama administration I can see why you would want to vote for Romney.

    I never said that by being pro-choice and Obama administration would prompt fewer abortions. I suggest that the increased marginalization of the middle class and more households below the poverty line during a Romney administration the actual rate of elective abortions would tend to increase.

    At best, that’s a reach.

    There is no evidence that Obamaco has decreased the marginalization of the middle class, nor is there any evidence (only political party propaganda) that Romney would increase it. Such marginalization is a consequence of technology (which includes, because it facilitates, int’l trade).

  28. LisaP. says:

    Went to find info on how many abortions there were in the U.S. last year or 2010 or 2009 compared to 2007. Funny, you can’t find it.

    You can find info on, for example, how many families vaccinated in California in 2010. But 2008 seems to be the last year for CDC info on abortions in the U.S.

    Looks like some states are actually refusing to send abortion states to the CDC anyway.

    The absence of hard data on abortion rates makes it possible to justify conjecture of the sort above.

    However, it seems reasonable to conjecture alternatively that while Romney may further marginalize the middle class, Obama *has* marginalized and the middle class and impoverished the nation, so he seems quite likely to continue to do so. Therefore if marginalization of the middle class and impoverishment of the nation is the standard by which we judge how real abortion rates are likely to reduce, Obama again becomes the candidate that Catholics of conscience cannot vote for.

  29. markomalley says:

    LisaP:

    Not only can you not find surveillance data from CDC on the number of abortions performed since the beginning of the Obama Regime, just try to find useful statistics on abortion throughout the third world since Obama cancelled the Mexico City Policy in the first days of his Presidency. Personally, I would find those numbers far more telling.

  30. lydia says:

    I heard the only way a Catholic can justifiably vote for a pro-abort candidate is if both candidates are promoting it. Thus you may vote the lesser of two evils based on the rest of the platform. Now if we look at the dem platform it also promotes gay marriage, and euthanasia. Three intrinsic evils in one platform. There is nothing in Romney’s plan that marginalizes the middle class. Obama’s experiment in creating a socialist utopia is a big fail and has been devasting for the middle class as well as the poor working class. What has he given the middle class Fr. Jim234? A lot of miserable change and hopelessness for their futures and that of their children. Todays Gospel is pretty straight forward and I’m sure there is a special place reserved for clergy that leads their flock astray.

  31. Cathy says:

    God bless our associate pastor, his sermon was on Bishop Paprocki’s statement! Our vote is directly tied to moral choice, and that moral choice does have an impact on the individual voter’s soul and as insignificant as it may seem, may also be a mortal sin. Free phones, foodstamps and increased subsidies for housing, etc. are not a proportionate reason to vote for a president who advocates murder and racism. As for the middle-class for whom frjim4321 is so concerned about, our “tax breaks” on income are being devoured by the raising costs of gas, electricity and food. Our “public servants”, those in our community whose duty and profession is to serve the community, are increasingly demanding greater pay and pensions, thus raising taxes on us, as well. Our volunteer services such as fire and rescue, where they still exist, are being taken over by city governments proclaiming that professional volunteers are just not as good as the professionally paid. In the strangest way, overpaid CEO’s are being replaced by overpaid public servants, and instead of being servants they have manipulated the system in a manner in which they have become overlords against the people they have professed to serve. Can I tell you about the able-bodied souls who have the energy to dance on tables who, as opposed to looking for a job, have resorted to hiring lawyers to get them on SSA disability because work is too painful? I am tired of being told that immigration policy is bad and that the invasion of our country is good. I am tired of being told that government programs to fight poverty have done anything good, unless you consider increased poverty good. I am tired of being told that it is the governments responsibility to educate our children. I am tired of being told that justice is served by using crime as a means to support another government program which infringes upon the duties and responsibilities of parents and families. I am tired of churches that sponsor refugee families, who, once they are here, are left to fend for themselves often bringing the conflict that originated in their country with them. I am tired of our country becoming a dump! We are either a nation under God, whose law is perfect, or we become something entirely deformed, perverted and nihilistic. Abortion, euthanasia, so-called same-sex marriage/adoption/education rights. Where are we headed? If we don’t stop it, who will?

  32. whitej30 says:

    From a response to a friend on this issue:

    I think you’re forgetting Jesus’ multiple, clear directives to serve the poorest of the poor, and his non-mincing of words when delivering very dire warnings to the wealthy (see: todays second reading). *Every* other social issue besides life and marriage issues, the Republican party errs on the side of the privileged and wealthy over the poor, the sick, the stranger, the prisoner, etc. They do so against the chorus of bishops, cardinals, and popes who give in very clear terms (with very clear reasoning) their prudential judgments, and in some cases speak specifically about the injustice of the actions of the Republican Party (see: Bush’s Iraqi offensive).

    So, I actually see much of the burden for the non-conversion of Catholics, etc., to vote for a party that supports a life and marriage platform resting on the shoulders of the party that supports the death penalty, cutting social programs for the poorest while simultaneously easing the road for the wealthy, deporting immigrants, instituting obvious racial profiling laws (Arizona), being hawkish on foreign policy, ect. It seems like a case of removing the 2X4 from Republican Catholics own eyes before trying to remove the 2X4 from anyone elses.

    While the Left may be supporting ideas directly contrary to Church teaching, the Right is (with their words at least) saying they support Church teaching on this issue, but break blatantly with all other prudential judgments (similar to the prudential judgment exhibited by the bishop you quoted) on the whole host of other issues.

    Since you are of the opinion that there can be two diametrically opposed positions that are both somehow legitimate in the eyes of the Church, we have to admit that on every issue that is not infallibly stated that we are essentially clawing in the dark, with no knowledge of the Church’s stance on such issues (see: the death penalty in the US as it is now). We cannot know, so we must make a very careful decision. It is like your example of driving at night in the rain, seeing something in the road that may or may not be a person. In such cases, we should err on the side that it is a person, as erring in that way risks less than erring on the side that it is not a person.

    The same principle, the principle of compassion, should be applied to the death penalty, deportation, social services for the poor, etc. I am talking about direct action; not potential indirect action. For example; killing a man on death row who may be innocent or may convert at a later date, etc., is a direct action. An indirect potential action would be the possibility of other persons committing more crimes should we allow him to live. Same with poverty: keeping a family alive and healthy through social services is a direct action. Taking those services away for a possible potential future gain through the wealthy possibly improving the economy and therefore possibly improving their lives at a later date is an indirect potential action.

    So, I think the souls of those in the Right are in the exact same danger, as they are leading the littlest ones astray by not being consistent with their ethics and principles; by tying up the heavy burden of challenging and changing deeply held beliefs in the service of Christ while refusing to challenge or change their own.

    (I hate to always caveat, but remember when I say “Republican Catholics are guilty of this or that, etc.” I am not being passive aggressive and attacking you directly, simply a movement I see within the Church)

  33. bookworm says:

    “just what would constitute a proportionate reason that could outweigh a candidate’s support of an unspeakable crime such as abortion?”

    The most common and obvious one I can think of is the “lesser of two evils” scenario, in which both candidates support the “unspeakable crime” of abortion under at least some circumstances. In that case it is acceptable to vote for the candidate with a reasonable chance of winning (voting for a “pure” pro-life third party candidate with no chance of winning is permissible, but NOT obligatory in this circumstance) who is least pro-abortion in order to avert the election/reelection of a more aggressively pro-abortion candidate. So, “the other candidate is even more pro-abortion and I don’t want him/her to win” constitutes a proportionate reason.

  34. Sissy says:

    frjim4321, if I understand you, you think Obama would be a better choice because you believe his policies will lessen the poverty rate, and therefore, abortions.

    There are two problems with that theory. One is that the poverty rate has exploded under Obama. The second relates to the phenomenon that is called “the feminization of poverty”. There is strong evidence that it is abortion that worsens poverty, and the not the other way around. If you are interested, I have some links to reputable studies that illustrate the point. So, I respectfully suggest that you are mistaken in your premise.

  35. mlmc says:

    I believe frjim4321 twists himself into too many logical pretzels in his attempt to support Obama. He claims that HIS prudential judgement in areas of economics trumpts the intrinsic evil of Obama’s support for infanticide, abortion, and embyronic stem cell research- all intrinsic evils according to the magisterium of the church. The fact is that NO ONE has the resquisite knowledge of economics and human behavior to correctly predict that Obama’s policies are so superior to Romney’s that the poverty rate will so drastically decline that we will see fewer abortions etc. I certainly doubt that frjim4321 is an expert in economics and public policy- and even if he were, the track record of such experts is poor (too quote FDR if you laid all economists end to end you would not reach a conclusion). So frjim43221 knowingly embraces an evil in the vain, unlikely, hope that something good may emerge from it. A bad guess for ones eternal soul I would say.

  36. Southern Catholic says:

    I suggest that the increased marginalization of the middle class and more households below the poverty line during a Romney administration the actual rate of elective abortions would tend to increase.

    Even if I assumed that your statement is true, that the poverty rate in the US has not decreased since Obama took office. (in fact it has increased almost every year since Obama took office). So under Obama, the poor are being marginalized, and therefore having more abortions using your logic.

  37. StJude says:

    frjim4321 says: ” a so-called intrinsic evil”.

    You might just be the only ‘priest’ on the planet who would use that language.

  38. Clinton says:

    Frjim4321’s belief that poor Americans have higher abortion rates than ones making, say,
    200X the poverty line is in fact mistaken. It seems counterintuitive, but it’s true– it’s middle
    class Americans who abort at the higher levels, and poorer women who tend not to have their
    babies killed.

    The Guttmacher Institute recently released a report with the statistics that support that
    interesting finding. There was a fascinating analysis of the report over at the American
    Catholic
    blog.

    Oh, and for those who would just assume that the Guttmacher Institute is some sort of
    right-wing front group out to make life tough for folks like Frjim4321, I’d point out that
    the GI actually receives funding from Planned Parenthood. So even an affiliate of Planned
    Parenthood has stats suggesting that poorer women abort at a lower rate than the middle class.

    The incidence of abortion in this country seems to have more to do with spiritual poverty
    than the economic sort. Good people can disagree about which party’s platform properly
    addresses economic poverty. The Democrats recent enshrining of intrinsic evils in their
    party’s platform, their embrace of abortion and sodomy, means they are only deepening
    the spiritual poverty around us.

  39. Clinton says:

    I apologize, my link above is bad– let’s try that again.

    Here.

  40. benedetta says:

    frjim4321, A reduction of abortions is certainly laudable but the aim of prolife is to reduce the number of abortions to zero. Prolife doesn’t view it as a tool to be manipulated but an intrinsic evil not to be resorted to, at all. For even one aborted life matters.

  41. Sissy says:

    Clinton, thank you for that. This is the point I have been trying to get across to Fr. Jim for a while now. There is no evidence that poverty causes abortions. The evidence is all in the opposite direction. Most first abortions occur among middle-class and better-educated women. As the numbers of abortions rise among individual women (2+), their economic status steadily declines. It looks very much as if multiple abortions led to poverty, rather than the reverse. And if you think about it, this makes sense. Abortions contribute to physical and mental health issues, and it disrupts relationships. Here’s an interesting review of some of the studies:

    http://www.fnsa.org/v1n3/strahan.html

  42. wmeyer says:

    Thus in my view any moral imperative related to how a person votes with respect to life issues should be based on what is likely to happen, rather that what people say or promise.

    Hmmm… so we should vote our imagination? Or rumors? Or the conjecture by the talking heads on TV? Anything, it would seem, but what the candidates say. I may be missing something, but that seems to reject the notion of any conversion in a person’s life.

    Also, I believe we have seen enough from Paul Ryan that his decision to partner with Romney is, in itself, a strong endorsement.

    On the other hand, I see no rationale under which a Catholic could vote for Obama, unless, of course, she is as profound a believer as, say, Nancy Pelosi.

  43. Sissy says:

    wmeyer, let’s take Fr. Jim at his word, for a moment. He says we should vote according to “what is likely to happen”. That which is most likely to happen is that which has happened in the past and is already happening. Obama’s policies have led to greater poverty, therefore, according to Fr. Jim, his policies are the most likely to lead to more abortions. If Father Jim follows his own logic, that would be the inescapable conclusion.

    However, I suspect he just says that because he thinks it sounds like a reasonable rationalization of his desire to vote for Obama. I get the impression that his desire to vote for Obama stems from some other motivation altogether.

  44. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Finally making time to watch the “salient section”, I see it is no longer available – but readily found the whole video at the Diocese website, which is certainly worth watching in its entirety (as complement to having the text available)!

  45. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Bookworm said, ‘So, “the other candidate is even more pro-abortion and I don’t want him/her to win” constitutes a proportionate reason.’

    Can it really be so that as long as more than one candidate is (so far as one can judge) dedicated to promoting (one or more of) “the unspeakable crimes of of abortion and infanticide (Gaudium et spes, 51, and Evangelium Vitae, 58)” (to quote amenamen), the voter is allowed to treat it as a merely prudential consideration as to which of such candidates is more dedicated, or more likely to succeed in his promotion, and vote for the less virulent or likely, rather than being called to reject any and all such?