The
Church unequivocally teaches that direct abortion is morally wrong, a “grave
offense.”[9]
The church offers two explanations for her teaching. On the one hand she offers
a theological explanation, and on the other hand, she offers a philosophical
explanation. The Church’s theological explanation comes from divine revelation
received through Sacred Scripture and Tradition,[10]
while the Church’s philosophical explanation relies on natural law reasoning.[11]
As Pope John Paul II (JP II) has observed, “The texts of Sacred Scripture never address the question of deliberate abortion and so do not directly and specifically condemn it. But they show such great respect for the human being in the mother’s womb that they require as a logical consequence that God’s commandment ‘You shall not kill’ be extended to the unborn child as well.”[12]
Further, the Old Testament
scriptures show a great respect for all human persons. Specifically, Genesis
1:26-27 says that God made man (and woman) in his “image and likeness.”[13]
This divine truth applies to all people in every age. While there is debate
among scientists and ethicists whether the fetus in his mother’s womb is a
person or not, there is no such ambiguity within the Church. She teaches that
the fetus, from the moment of conception, is a person made in the “image and
likeness” of God. Thus, the fetus is “sacred” and has an inviolable dignity,
value, and worth, regardless of race, gender, class, age or any other human
characteristics. Human dignity is not something we earn by our good behavior,
or through our skill or efforts; it is something we have as children of God.[14]
The New Testament provides theological foundation for the Church’s teaching against abortion. Consider Matthew 25:1-46, where we read that we should care for the poor, vulnerable and marginalized. From this the Church, in her social justice teachings, has developed “the preferential option of the poor.” Like the poor, but more so, the unborn are vulnerable, helpless and marginalized, in need of defense, special care and protection. Thus, the Church calls each one of us to defend the right to life for the unborn.[15]
The Church’s teaching
against direct abortion did not arise yesterday or last week. In fact the
church’s teaching is rooted deeply in the Tradition of the Church. Tradition
here is understood as those teachings that relate back to the early church. The
earliest specific written references to abortion are those in the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas. The Didache
dates back to the early second century. It says, “Thou shalt not murder a child
by abortion.”[16] The Epistle of Barnabas is a more
theological tract on Christian life and thought that repeats the same “Thou
shalt not” statement.[17]
Interestingly, the statement just prior to the prohibition against abortion
says, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor more than thy own life.”[18]
These two sources show that the “thou shalt not abort” becomes a
sub-commandment of the commandment not to murder.[19]
Further, since the fetus is seen, not as a part of its mother, but as a
neighbor, abortion is rejected as contrary to the second great commandment of
Jesus to “Love thy neighbor.”[20]
The apologists of the second
and third centuries had two unavoidable tasks, self-definition and self-defense
of the faith.[21] Athenagoras
(late 2nd century) said that abortion is murder and that the fetus
is a living being, albeit dependent on the mother.[22]
Tertullian, around 210-213 A.D., taught that life begins at conception when
soul and body are created. He was the first Christian to make the explicit
connection between biblical passages and abortion.[23]
Lastly, the Church Fathers
of the fourth and fifth centuries, namely Basil of Caesarea, Jerome, Ambrose,
Augustine and John Chrysostom were uniform in their condemnation of abortion.[24]
For Basil, Ambrose and Chrysostom there was no distinction between a formed or
unformed fetus. However, for Jerome and Augustine, they believed that there
should be less of a penalty for abortion of an “unformed” fetus. Based on
Aristotle’s biology it was believed that the unformed fetus was not “animated,”
that is did not have his/her soul. But make no mistake about it, all Church
Fathers taught that abortion was illicit and morally wrong.[25]
Natural law reasoning has
been part of the Church’s tradition since early times. Thomas Aquinas defined
natural law (NL) as the “participation of a rational creature in the eternal
law.”[26]
JP II has stated that NL is that law written in every human heart, knowable by
reason itself and proclaimed by the church.[27]
The benefits of NL are (1) that it is universal, applicable to all people in
every age and (2) that it aids in determining which human actions are morally
right or wrong through the application of human reason alone, without the use
of divine revelation.[28]
Utilizing NL the Church reasons that abortion is wrong because it destroys a
human life, one created at the moment of conception when the sperm and egg
meet. Both the sperm and the egg, individually, will naturally die within hours
or days. But if they meet, without artificial interruption they can live
together, the result being a human person, not a fish, frog or mouse.[29]
Based on Sacred Scripture,
Tradition and Natural Law, the Magisterium has taught consistently, clearly and
“vigorously” that direct abortion is wrong.[30]
First, the most recent of the 21 ecumenical councils in church history was the
Second Vatican Council held between 1962-1965. In the constitution, The Church in the Modern World, the
council fathers stated that, “abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.”[31]
Second, recent papal documents teaching against abortion include HumanaeVitae[32]
and Evangelium Vitae.[33]
JP II has said, quoting Paul VI, “that this tradition is unchanged and
unchangeable.”[34] Third, the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has published several
documents reaffirming the Church’s teaching against direct abortion, most
notably the Declaration on Abortion
in 1974[35]
and most recently, a Memorandum On
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion in June 2004.[36]
And fourth, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has
published, “Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics.”[37]
Regarding
political responsibility, the Church teaches that all Catholics have a
three-fold responsibility:[38]
(1) to participate in the political process to the fullest extent allowed by
the government;[39] (2) to
promote the common good;[40]
and (3) to support the Church’s teachings in the public square.[41]
Catholic Voters
How and under what circumstances, if any, may Catholic voters vote for pro-abortion candidates? At first glance the question seems absurd and ludicrous and invites the answer, “Never!” That is, a practicing Catholic should never vote for a pro-abortion candidate. That is certainly true. The Church teaches that a Catholic voter should never vote for a pro-abortion candidate because he/she is pro-abortion.[42] But sometimes the choices between candidates is not that clear cut. Take the 2004 presidential election. There we had two candidates, President Bush who was “pro-life with exceptions,” which really means pro-abortion in some cases, and Senator Kerry who was 100% pro-abortion. The national polls tell us that 52% of Catholics voted for President Bush, while 48% of Catholics voted for Senator Kerry.[43] Did those 48% of Catholics who voted for John Kerry commit a sin by voting for John Kerry? Individual sin is a subjective determination based on intention (knowledge), action (object) and circumstances and is left to God alone to judge. However, Catholic moral theology allows an objective analysis of behavior to determine if, under the circumstances, that behavior is moral or immoral. Thus, a better question might be, was it moral, under the circumstances, for Catholics to vote for Senator Kerry, a pro-abortion candidate, over President Bush, a “pro-life with exceptions” candidate?
Utilizing Catholic moral
theology the starting point to determine if a vote for Kerry was moral or
immoral lies in understanding the difference between formal cooperation and
material cooperation.[44]
Formal cooperation consists in deliberately participating in an illicit act or
willingly and approvingly providing assistance for an illicit act to take
place.[45]
All formal cooperation is gravely immoral. For Catholic voters, “One is
formally complicit in the injustice of abortion when one votes for a candidate
even partially on the basis of his or her pro-abortion positions.”[46]
Material cooperation
consists in providing indirect or remote assistance for an illicit act to take
place, but with total disapproval of the illicit act itself.[47]
Most material cooperation is gravely immoral; however there may be some limited
circumstances under which certain forms of material cooperation are
permissible. But what circumstances? Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his June 2004 Memorandum On Worthiness to Receive Holy
Communion that, “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s permissive
stand in favor of abortion . . . but
votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material
cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”[48]
(Emphasis added). The absence of an
explanation for “proportionate reasons” caused confusion in the minds of many
Catholics, who reasoned that they could vote for Kerry, the pro-abortion
candidate, so long as they were voting for him for reasons other than his
pro-abortion position.
To try to clear the confusion there was great discussion among bishops and theologians within the Catholic community over the meaning of “proportionate reasons.” In their role as shepherds and teachers of the faith, and in no way trying to tell voters how to vote, over 100 U.S. bishops issued statements on the political responsibility of Catholics.[49] Some of the bishops’ statements included an explanation of “proportionate reasons.” For those bishops and theologians who weighed in on the meaning of “proportionate reasons,” there seems to be agreement that it means making a comparison. There was however some striking differences on what should be compared to determine “proportionate reasons.”
The differences on what should be compared can be put into three categories. First, there are those bishops and theologians who compare each candidates’ stance on abortion, only, and make that comparison determinative.[50] Second, there are those bishops and theologians who compare each candidates’ platform on the “life” issues only, giving greater weight to those life issues that are “fundamental,” (where there can be no disagreement among Catholics), such as abortion and euthanasia, and less weight to those life issues that allow “prudential judgment,” (where there can be disagreement among of Catholics), such as capital punishment or just war.[51] And third, there are those bishops and theologians who compare each candidates’ entire platform, including all “life” issues along with all other “social justice” issues, such as immigration, taxes, capital punishment, health care, education, etc.[52]
In my humble opinion, I think those bishops and theologians in the first category are in harmony with Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement. While their approach to determine “proportionate reasons” may be somewhat myopic, I think Bishop Sheridan put it best when he said, “There is, however, one right that is ‘inalienable’, and that is the RIGHT TO LIFE. This is the FIRST right. This is the right that grounds all other human rights. This is the issue that trumps all other issues.”[53]
Likewise, I think those bishops and theologians in the second category are in harmony with Cardinal Ratzinger’s Memorandum, particularly paragraph 3 which states, in pertinent part, “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion . . . There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
Finally, I respectfully disagree with the bishops and theologians in the third category, those advocating comparison of each candidates’ entire platform. This is contrary to paragraph 3 of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Memorandum. I believe that to equate fundamental “life” issues with prudential “life” issues and all other “social justice” issues misses the mark.
CATHOLIC POLITICIANS
Politics
is not for the faint of heart and requires courage. This is never truer than
for Catholic legislators in 21st century American politics, where
there are constant affronts to the sacredness of life and the dignity of the
human person, especially in the areas of abortion, euthanasia, and bio-medical
and reproductive technology. In a culture where the “right to choose abortion”
is a constitutionally protected right that can only be dismantled by a
constitutional amendment or a U. S. Supreme Court case that overturns Roe v. Wade, neither of which appear
likely any time soon, how should a Catholic legislator vote on a piece of
legislation, albeit “imperfect,” that will lessen the evil effects of abortion
but will not eliminate all abortions? Should he/she abstain? Vote against the
imperfect bill? Or vote for the imperfect bill?
To abstain would be to shirk
one’s duty and is contrary to Church teaching. That leaves the option “to vote
for” or “to vote against” an imperfect bill, which may appear to be a
Shakespearian tragedy. If the Catholic legislator votes for the imperfect bill,
some, but not all, lives will be saved; however, if the Catholic legislator
votes against the imperfect bill then no lives will be saved. The best teaching
from the Church on this topic is Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Evangelium Vitae. In Paragraph 73 the
pope lays out a clear presentation of the specific circumstances that must
exist that “could licitly” allow a Catholic legislator to vote for a law
that lessens the evil effects of abortion without eliminating all abortions.
The pope says, “[Voting for such a law] does not in fact represent an illicit
cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to
limit its evil aspects.”[54]
The CDF[55]
and the USCCB[56] have both
affirmed the teaching that a Catholic legislator may vote for an imperfect
piece of legislation that lessens the evil effects of abortion without
eliminating all abortions.
Based on the aforementioned
Church documents it seems clear that the Church teaches that a Catholic
politician “could licitly” (i.e. may) vote for legislation that lessens
the evil effects of abortion, while not eliminating all abortions, but he/she
is not obligated by conscience to vote for such legislation. In not obligating
a legislator’s conscience, the Church resolves the apparent Shakespearian
tragedy by recognizing that either a “vote for” or a “vote against” imperfect
legislation is morally acceptable. In essence, the Church is leaving the
decision to the prudential judgment and conscience of each elected official.
Recognizing
that Church teaching does not compel a vote for “imperfect” legislation, some
pro-life Catholics advocate that a Catholic politician should always vote
against “imperfect” legislation. In other words they propose that pro-life
legislators should accept “no exceptions.” Their rationale is three-fold: (1) A
vote for “imperfect” legislation weakens the position that all unborn life is
sacred;[57]
(2) a vote for “imperfect” legislation conveys to the public that abortion is
negotiable, which in the end verifies the non-personhood of the unborn;[58]
and (3) a vote for “imperfect” legislation allows “an attack mystically upon
Jesus Christ, Who meant it when He said, ‘Whatsoever you do to the least of My
brethren, that you do unto Me.”[59]
Another
argument used by Catholic legislators to vote against legislation that would
reduce the harm done by legalized abortion is the, “I’m personally opposed to
abortion, but I can’t force my morality on someone else” argument.[60]
In my opinion, this argument is flimsy, disingenuous and politically expedient,
and it reminds me of Pontius Pilate, who was “personally opposed, but. . .”[61]
If that does not convince you of the absurdity of this position think about
these arguments: “I’m personally opposed to slavery, but . . .” Or, “I’m
personally opposed to prostitution, but . . .” Or, better yet, “I’m personally
opposed to using cocaine, but . . .” These arguments are so ridiculous they do
not seriously pass the laugh test. Nevertheless these arguments work for a
“culture of death” that is bent on keeping a “woman’s right to choose abortion”
legal under all circumstances. Unfortunately, many Catholic legislators fall
prey to this illicit material cooperation.
ENDNOTES
[1] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
[2] Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).
[3] Prior to these cases the
regulation of abortion was a states’ rights issue. However, on January 22, 1973
the constitution came to mean, “[A]bortion was an American freedom.” On that
day the words of the constitution had not changed from the time of its original
ratification in 1789, when abortion was considered a crime at common law. Also,
at the time when the 14th Amendment was enacted every state had a
criminal law to regulate abortion. John T. Noonan, Jr., A Private Choice, Abortion in America in the Seventies (New York:
The Free Press, 1979), 6 – 9.
[4] See U. S. Supreme Court
cases: Planned Parenthood of Central
Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S.
833 (1992).
[5] See U.S. Supreme Court
cases: Bellotti v. Baird (II), 443
U.S. 622 (1979) and Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). The law requires
either parental consent or “judicial bypass,” which means a minor may get an
abortion without her parents consent, but with court approval.
[6] Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000). Partial birth abortion is medically called dilation and extraction. It is a gruesome and brutal technique used in the final months of pregnancy and sometimes at or near complete gestation or term. “The operation takes place in five stages: first, guided by ultrasound, the person carrying out the abortion, possibly after reversing the position of the fetus in the uterus, takes hold of the feet with forceps. He then draws the legs of the fetus from the womb causing the birth and extracting the baby’s whole body apart from the head. Next, he makes an incision at the base of the infant’s skull through which he inserts the point of a pair of scissors to puncture the cranium. A tube is then inserted through which the brain and the content of the cranium are sucked out. At this point, to conclude the abortion, the head, now reduced in size, is extracted and the dead infant delivered.” L’OSSERVATORE ROMANO, WEEKLY EDITION IN ENGLISH, (Vatican City, 4 June, 2003), 6-7. The U. S. Supreme Court will most certainly get another chance to pass its opinion on that matter since the U. S. Congress passed and President Bush signed the Federal Law prohibiting the dilation and extraction procedure, and a federal district judge has declared the law unconstitutional. Associated Press. “Bush signs ban on late-term abortion.” Available [Online]: CNN.com – November 6, 2002 < http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/abortion.ap/> [Accessed 11/15/04] and Anna Stolley, Ellen Uchimiya, and The Associated Press. “Judge Blocks Parital-Birth Abortion Ban.” Available [Online]: Fox News Channel – June 2, 2004
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121435,00.html
> [Accessed 11/15/04].
[7] By “good conscience” I am
referring to a “moral conscience” that makes a “right judgment.” Catechism of
the Catholic Church, 1776-1802. [Subsequent references will use the
abbreviation CCC]. CCC, 1796 says that, “Conscience is a judgment of reason by
which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act.” And
CCC, 1799 provides, “Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a
right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the
contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.”
[8] The evil effects of
abortion can be limited in a variety of ways, such as: fetal
homicide bills that do not specifically exclude abortion from coverage; prohibitions on wrongful life/wrongful birth lawsuits;
conscience clauses for doctors, health care workers, facilities, and police
officers that allow individuals or institutions to refuse to participate in
abortion or abortion-related activity; prohibitions
on the use of public funds/ facilities/employees for abortion, including bans
on abortion coverage in public employees' health insurance plans; disinvestment
from public pension funds, and other bans against using taxpayer funding of
abortion or abortion-related services; measures supporting crisis pregnancy
centers that do not perform abortions and neither counsel nor refer for
abortions; and bans on the transplantation of fetal tissue obtained from
induced abortions. American Life League. “Legislative Policy.” Available
[Online]: <http://www.all.org/policy.htm> Select: Legislative Policy
[Accessed 11/15/04].
[9] CCC, 2270-2275, 2322 and
2323.
[10] The Magisterium enjoys ultimate authority and competence regarding divine revelation in determining matters of faith and morals. Dei Verbum, #10. The assent required of Catholics depends on the nature of the Church’s teaching. Infallible teachings, such as ex cathedra statements and teachings against abortion and euthanasia, require an act of faith on the part of the faithful. Practically speaking this means that one should accept the teaching as certain and one may not dissent from these teachings. Jose’ I. Lavastida, S.T.D., Human Sexuality and the States of Life, MT 201 – Fall, 2004, Handout on Modes of Church Teaching.
For
those teachings that are non-infallible, such as immigration, just war,
economic rights, etc., “submission of mind and will” is required. Basically,
this means that one should give all deference to the teaching, inform oneself
completely about the teaching, make a judgment of conscience regarding the
teaching, but one may dissent and remain in good standing. Lumen Gentium, #25.
[11] The Magisterium enjoys
competence to interpret the natural moral law. Humanae Vitae, #4; and Evangelium
Vitae, #62. For assent required see endnote number 10.
[12] Evangelium Vitae, #61.
[13] All biblical references are
from the New American Bible, St. Joseph Medium Size Edition, 1992.
[14] CCC, 2319 and 2323.
[15] CCC 2323.
[16] Michael J. Gorman, Abortion & the Early Church, Christian,
Jewish & Pagan Attitudes in the Greco-Roman World, (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), 49.
[17] Ibid., 49.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid., 50.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid., 53.
[22] Ibid., 54.
[23] Ibid., 54 and 56.
[24] Ibid., 66-73, and Daughters
of St. Paul, ed., Life – A Gift of God
(Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1985), 206-208.
[25] Daughters of St. Paul, 206.
[26] David Bohr, Catholic Moral Tradition, Revised
(Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc.,
1999), 151.
[27] Evangelium Vitae, #62.
[28] Dianne Irving, M.A., Ph.D.,
“Abortion: Correct Application of
Natural Law Theory,” Available [Online]: lifeissues.net – 2000 <http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_08natlaw.html>
[Accessed 11/15/04], 3.
[29] For a good presentation of
Natural law see Eugene Hoyas, “A brief, air-tight argument against abortion” New Oxford Review, 68(8), (September
2001): 18-20, 22.
[30] Evangelium Vitae, #62.
[31] Gaudium et Spes, #51.
[32] Humanae Vitae, #14.
Abortion as a means to regulate birth is illicit.
[33] Evangelium Vitae, #62. Abortion is a “grave moral disorder.”
[34] Ibid.
[35] Franciscus. Cardinal Seper,
Sacred Congregation For The Doctrine Of
The Faith, Declaration on Abortion. Rome, 1974, paragraphs 6-7.
[36] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger,
“Memorandum: Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion – General Principles,” Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith,
Rome, 2004, paragraph 2. Available
[Online]: < http://www.wf-f.org/Catholics_and_Politics.html#anchor48018164>
[Accessed 11/15/04].
[37] USCCB. “Living the Gospel
of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics.” United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops, 1998. Available [Online]:
<
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/gospel.htm>
[Accessed 11/15/04].
[38] CCC, 1905-1917 and 1924 –
1927.
[39] Gaudium et Spes, #31 and 75; Pacem
in Terris, # 73-74; Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, “Doctrinal Note on some
questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political Life,” Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith,
Rome, 2002. Available [Online]: < http://www.wf-f.org/CDF-Politicians.html>
[Accessed 11/15/04], paragraph 1; and USCCB. “Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic
Call to Political Responsibility.” United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops, September, 2003. Available [Online]:
<
http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html>
[Accessed 11/15/04], pages 5 and 20.
[40] The common good is the sum
total of al the conditions of social living that makes it possible for all
human beings (including the unborn) to achieve their full potential. Gaudium et Spes, #26 and Mater et Magistra, #65.
[41] Pacem in Terris, # 69; Octogesima
Adveniens: A Call to Action on the Eightieth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum, #48;
Ratzinger, Doctrinal Note, # 1; and
USCCB, Faithful Citizenship, p 4 and
USCCB. “Catholics in Political Life” United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops, June, 2004. Available [Online]:
<
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/catholicsinpoliticallife.htm>
[Accessed 11/15/04], page 2.
[42] CCC, 2272.
[43] Paul Kengor, “Kerry loses
his faith,” Available [Online]: The American Spectator - November 5, 2004
[Accessed 11/15/04] < http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7355>
[Accessed 11/15/04].
[44] Understanding the
difference between the two is best illustrated with a simple example: A gun
manufacturer (M) makes a gun that is sold by a gun dealer (D) to person (A) who
then knowingly gives the gun to person (C) so that person (C) can use the gun
to commit a crime. Under these circumstances M and D have materially
cooperated. M’s cooperation is very remote and harmless. D’s cooperation is
less remote and may or may not be illicit, depending on whether D knew what A
was going to do with the gun or not. A’s behavior on the other hand constitutes
formal cooperation and is therefore illicit.
[45] Edmund Casimir Szoka, Abp., “Formal and Material Cooperation in Moral Theology,” Origins, 12, (March 31, 2001): 679.
[46] John J. Myers, Archbishop
of the Diocese of Newark, “The obligations of Catholics and the rights of
unborn children, A Pastoral statement,” Available [Online]: 1990 < http://www.wf-f.org/Myers-90-cooperation.html>
[Accessed 11/15/04].
[47] Szoka, Abp., “Formal and Material Cooperation in Moral Theology,” 679.
[48] Ratzinger, Memorandum – Worthiness.
[49] Women for Faith &
Family. “Statements by Bishops on Catholics and Political Responsibility.”
Updated November 5, 2004. Available [Online]:
<
http://www.wf-f.org/Bishops_Catholics_Politics.html> [Accessed 11/15/04].
[50] Bishops’ Sheridan, Burke, Gracida and Myers and Catholic
theologian George Weigel all reach the same conclusion, but for slightly
different “proportionate reasons.” For Bishop Sheridan, the “RIGHT TO LIFE . .
. is the FIRST right. This is the issue that trumps all other issues.” Michael
Sheriden, Bishop of the Diocese of Colorado Springs, “A Pastoral Letter to the
Catholic Faithful of the Diocese of Colorado Springs on the duties of Catholic
Politicians and Voters,” Available [Online]: May 1, 2004
<http://www.wf-f.org/Sheridan_May1Letter.html > [Accessed
11/15/04]. Bishop Burke stated, “Thus, in weighing all of the social conditions
which pertain to the common good, we must safeguard, before all else, the good
of human life and the good of marriage and the family.” Raymond Burke,
Archbishop of St. Louis, “A Pastoral letter to Christ’s faithful of the
Archdiocese of St. Louis,” Available [Online]: October 1, 2004
<http://www.wf-f.org/Bishops_Catholics_Politics.html#anchor3913934>
[Accessed 11/15/04]. Bishop Gracida stated, “None of the reasons commonly
suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic
voting for [a pro-abortion candidate]. Reasons such as the candidate’s position
on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health
plan, or Social Security, or AIDS, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any
similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in
proportionality.” Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi.
“Catholics can choose lesser of two evils” Available [Online]: September 19,
2004 <http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/opinions_comments.php?id=P61217_0_11_0_C>
[Accessed 11/15/04]. Bishop Myers stated, “Another acceptable form of material cooperation
is that of the citizen who votes for a pro-choice candidate with the intention
of helping to prevent the election of someone whose pro-abortion position is
even more extreme.” Myers, The
obligations of Catholics and the rights of unborn children. Mr. Weigel stated that one such situation
would be where there are “two pro-abortion candidates, and a voter opts for the
pro-abortion candidate of a pro-life party in control of Congress. . .” Ron
Brocato, “Theologian: Freedom means doing things that are morally good,” Clarion Herald, 6 October 2004, 9.
[51] Hughes, Alfred C.,
Archbishop of New Orleans. “Catholics and political life.” Clarion Herald, 22 September 2004, 5-6.
[52] Bishop Gumbleton says that,
“We must each consult our conscience and consider the entirety of church
teaching. . . [as we] measure ‘all candidates, policies, parties and platforms
by how they protect or undermine the life, dignity, and rights of the human
person, whether they protect the poor and vulnerable and advance the common
good.’” Thomas J. Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Detroit,
“President’s policies are in opposition to a culture of life,” Available [Online]:
October 20, 2004<http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/egumb20_20041020.htm
> [Accessed 11/15/04]. Father Kophfensteiner, a theologian and professor at Fordham University
in New York is reported to have said that one issue voting, even abortion, is
foreign to the Church’s moral tradition. Catholic News Service, “Theologian
says one-issue voting is foreign to Catholic tradition,” Available [Online]:
October 25, 2004 <http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0405868.htm
> [Accessed 11/15/04].
[53] Sheridan, “A Pastoral
Letter to the Catholic Faithful of the Diocese of Colorado Springs on the
duties of Catholic Politicians and Voters,” 2.
[54] Evangelium Vitae, #73
[55] Ratzinger, Doctrinal Note, #4a.
[56] USCCB, Living the Gospel of Life, #32 and Catholics in Public Life.
[57] American Life League. “Exceptions” Available [Online]:
<http://www.all.org/policy.htm>
Select: Exceptions [Accessed 11/15/04].
[58] William Bole, “Catholic
thinkers debate merits of ‘imperfect’ law,” Available [Online]: Our Sunday
Visitor – September 19, 2004 <http://www.osv.com/periodicals/show-article.asp?pid=1014
> [Accessed 11/15/04].
[59] Thomas A. Droleskey, “No
exceptions to the fifth commandment,” Available [Online]: October, 2002 <http://www.prolifepac.com/html/artfifth.htm
> [Accessed 11/15/04].
[60] The genesis of this
argument goes back to the mid-1960’s when Cardinal Cushing of Boston advanced
the idea of private morality versus public morality during the debates
surrounding the legalization of contraception. It was reported that he gave the
Catholic members of the Massachusetts legislature the go ahead to vote for the
legislation by saying, “I do not see where I have an obligation to impose my
religious beliefs on people who just do not accept the same faith as I do.”
See, Thomas A. Droleskey, “A Champion of the Americanist Spirit,” Available
[Online]: Seattle Catholic - March 22, 2004
<
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20040322.html>
[Accessed 11/15/04].
But
the real credit for this position goes to the former governor of New York,
Mario Cuomo, who in 1984 in a speech at the University of Notre Dame laid out
the basic premises of the “personally opposed, but. . .” position. See, Todd M.
Aglialoro, “ ‘Personally Opposed, But. . .’ Five Pro-Abortion Dodges,”
Available [Online]: Crisis – April 1, 2004
< http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2004/aglialoro.htm > [Accessed 11/15/04]; and American Rhetoric. “Mario Cuomo: "Religious Belief and Public Morality -- A Catholic Governor's Perspective” Available [Online]:
<
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/cuomoreligiousbelief.htm>
[Accessed 11/15/04].
[61] Amy Welborn, “ ‘Personally
opposed, but’ doesn’t cut it with abortion,” Our Sunday Visitor, 93(3), (May 18, 2003): 16.
All biblical references are from the New American Bible, St. Joseph Medium Size Edition, 1992.
Aglialoro, Todd M. “ ‘Personally Opposed, But. . .’ Five Pro-Abortion Dodges.” Available [Online]: Crisis – April 1, 2004 < http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2004/aglialoro.htm > [Accessed 11/15/04]
American Life League. “Legislative Policy.” Available [Online]: <http://www.all.org/policy.htm> Select: Legislative Policy [Accessed 11/15/04]
American Life League. “Exceptions” Available [Online]:
<http://www.all.org/policy.htm> Select: Exceptions [Accessed 11/15/04]
American Rhetoric. “Mario Cuomo: "Religious Belief and Public Morality -- A Catholic Governor's Perspective” Available [Online]:
< http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/cuomoreligiousbelief.htm> [Accessed 11/15/04]
Americans United for Life, Changing Law to Protect Human Life, State by State. “Court Decisions.” Available [Online]: 2001-2004 <http://www.unitedforlife.org/court_decisions.htm> [Accessed 11/15/04]
Associated Press. “Bush signs ban on late-term abortion.” Available [Online]: CNN.com – November 6, 2002 < http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/abortion.ap/> [Accessed 11/15/04]
Bohr, David. Catholic Moral Tradition, Revised. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1999.
Bole, William. “Catholic thinkers debate merits of ‘imperfect’ law.” Available [Online]: Our Sunday Visitor – September 19, 2004 <http://www.osv.com/periodicals/show-article.asp?pid=1014 > [Accessed 11/15/04]
Brocato, Ron. “Theologian: Freedom means doing things that are morally good.” Clarion Herald, 6 October 2004.
Burke, Raymond, Archbishop of St. Louis. “A Pastoral letter to Christ’s faithful of the Archdiocese of St. Louis.” Available [Online]: October 1, 2004 <http://www.wf-f.org/Bishops_Catholics_Politics.html#anchor3913934> [Accessed 11/15/04]
Catechism of the Catholic
Church:
Ligouri, Mo: Ligouri Publications, 1994.
Catholic
News Service. “Theologian says one-issue voting is foreign to Catholic
tradition.” Available [Online]: October 25, 2004 <http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0405868.htm
> [Accessed 11/15/04]
Daughters
of St. Paul, ed. Life – A Gift of God.
Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1985.
Droleskey,
Thomas A. “No exceptions to the fifth commandment.” Available [Online]:
October, 2002 <http://www.prolifepac.com/html/artfifth.htm
> [Accessed 11/15/04]
Droleskey,
Thomas A. “A Champion of the Americanist Spirit.” Available [Online]: Seattle
Catholic - March 22, 2004 < http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20040322.html>
[Accessed 11/15/04]
Flannery,
Austin, ed. The Basic Sixteen Documents,
Vatican II, Constitutions Decrees Declarations. New York: Costello Publishing
Company, 1996.
Gorman,
Michael J. Abortion & the Early
Church, Christian, Jewish & Pagan Attitudes in the Greco-Roman World. New York: Paulist Press, 1982.
Gracida, Rene Henry, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi. “Catholics can choose lesser of two evils” Available [Online]: September 19, 2004 <http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/opinions_comments.php?id=P61217_0_11_0_C> [Accessed 11/15/04]
Gumbleton, Thomas J., Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Detroit. “President’s policies are in opposition to a culture of life.” Available [Online]: October 20, 2004 <http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/egumb20_20041020.htm > [Accessed 11/15/04]
Hoyas,
Eugene. “A brief, air-tight argument against abortion.” New Oxford Review, 68(8), (September 2001): 18-20, 22.
Hughes,
Alfred C., Archbishop of New Orleans. “Catholics and political life.” Clarion Herald, 22 September 2004.
Kengor, Paul. “Kerry loses his faith.” Available [Online]: The American Spectator - November 5, 2004 [Accessed 11/15/04] < http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7355> [Accessed 11/15/04]
Lavastida, Jose I., S.T.D., Human Sexuality and the States of Life, MT 201 – Fall, 2004, Handout on Modes of Church Teaching.
L’OSSERVATORE ROMANO, WEEKLY EDITION IN ENGLISH. Vatican City, 4 June, 2003.
Myers, John J., Archbishop of the Diocese of Newark. “The obligations of Catholics and the rights of unborn children, A Pastoral statement.” Available [Online]: 1990 < http://www.wf-f.org/Myers-90-cooperation.html> [Accessed 11/15/04]
Noonan,
John T., Jr. A Private Choice, Abortion
in America in the Seventies. New York: The Free Press, 1979.
O’Brien,
David J. and Shannon, Thomas A. Catholic
Social Thought: The Documentary Heritage. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books,
1992.
Pope
John Paul II. The Theology of the Body,
Human Love in the Divine Plan. Boston: Pauline Books & Media, 1997.
Ratzinger,
Joseph Cardinal. “Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation
of Catholics in political Life.” Congregation
For The Doctrine Of The Faith, Rome, 2002. Available [Online]: < http://www.wf-f.org/CDF-Politicians.html>
[Accessed 11/15/04]
Ratzinger,
Joseph Cardinal. “Memorandum: Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion – General
Principles.” Congregation For The
Doctrine Of The Faith, Rome, 2004. Available [Online]: < http://www.wf-f.org/Catholics_and_Politics.html#anchor48018164>
[Accessed 11/15/04]
Seper,
Franciscus. Cardinal. Sacred Congregation
For The Doctrine Of The Faith, Declaration on Abortion. Rome, 1974.
Sheriden,
Michael, Bishop of the Diocese of Colorado Springs. “A Pastoral Letter to the
Catholic Faithful of the Diocese of Colorado Springs on the duties of Catholic
Politicians and Voters.” Available [Online]: May 1, 2004
<http://www.wf-f.org/Sheridan_May1Letter.html> [Accessed 11/15/04]
Stolley, Anna, Uchimiya, Ellen and The Associated Press. “Judge Blocks Parital-Birth Abortion Ban.” Available [Online]: Fox News Channel – June 2, 2004
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121435,00.html
> [Accessed 11/15/04]
Szoka, Edmund Casimir, Abp. “Formal and Material Cooperation in Moral Theology.” Origins, 12, (March 31, 2001).
USCCB.
“Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics.” United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1998. Available [Online]:
<
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/gospel.htm>
[Accessed 11/15/04]
USCCB.
“Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility.” United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops, September, 2003. Available [Online]:
<
http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html>
[Accessed 11/15/04]
USCCB.
“Catholics in Political Life” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,
June, 2004. Available [Online]:
<
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/catholicsinpoliticallife.htm>
[Accessed 11/15/04]
Welborn,
Amy. “ ‘Personally opposed, but’ doesn’t cut it with abortion.” Our Sunday Visitor, 93(3), (May 18,
2003).
Women
for Faith & Family. “Statements by Bishops on Catholics and Political
Responsibility.” Updated November 5, 2004. Available [Online]:
<
http://www.wf-f.org/Bishops_Catholics_Politics.html
> [Accessed 11/15/04]