Post by Portiaami on Oct 7, 2020 18:19:23 GMT
Limiting Evil
In 2004, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a letter to the Bishops regarding the worthiness to receive Holy Communion by voting Catholics.
www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
“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.”
Does this mean that Catholics may vote for a proabortion and/or pro- euthanasia politician? Yes, it does. But only if there are proportionate reasons to do so. If a Catholic votes for a proabortion/pro euthanasia politician because the Catholic shares those views, he or she is guilty of formal cooperation in evil and is not worthy to receive Holy Communion.
Most times no political candidate shares all the moral views of the Church or the Catholic faithful. This is where "proportionate reasons" comes in and another term called "limiting evil" or "limiting harm." That's what proportionate reasons is about, limiting evil.
First, though, the 5 non-negotiables that the Catholic Church teaches are intrinsically evil. Intrinsically evil actions are those that can never be performed under any circumstances. They are in conflict with the moral law.
1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Rearch
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual "Marriage"
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. (2358)
There are other issues that are not considered intrinsically evil. These include just war and the use of capital punishment.
Getting back to proportionate reasons which is concerned with limiting evil, it might best be explained by using examples.
Candidate A supports abortion.
Candidate B supports abortion and euthanasia.
Catholics may vote for Candidate A, not because he or she supports abortion, but because Candidate B also advocates for euthanasia. This is limiting evil by voting for Candidate A.
Another scenario:
Candidate A supports both abortion and homosexual marriage.
Candidate B is against abortion but supports homosexual marriage
Catholics would be able vote for candidate B in this situation and still be worthy to receive Holy Communion. Again, by voting for the candidate who supports fewer intrinsic evils, this is limiting evil.
A third scenario:
Candidate A supports abortion. He does not support capital punishment.
Candidate B does not support abortion. He supports capital punishment.
The choice is very clear in this situation. Catholics may vote in good conscience for Candidate B because abortion is an intrinsically evil act and capital punishment is not.
In 2004, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a letter to the Bishops regarding the worthiness to receive Holy Communion by voting Catholics.
www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
“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.”
Does this mean that Catholics may vote for a proabortion and/or pro- euthanasia politician? Yes, it does. But only if there are proportionate reasons to do so. If a Catholic votes for a proabortion/pro euthanasia politician because the Catholic shares those views, he or she is guilty of formal cooperation in evil and is not worthy to receive Holy Communion.
Most times no political candidate shares all the moral views of the Church or the Catholic faithful. This is where "proportionate reasons" comes in and another term called "limiting evil" or "limiting harm." That's what proportionate reasons is about, limiting evil.
First, though, the 5 non-negotiables that the Catholic Church teaches are intrinsically evil. Intrinsically evil actions are those that can never be performed under any circumstances. They are in conflict with the moral law.
1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Rearch
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual "Marriage"
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. (2358)
There are other issues that are not considered intrinsically evil. These include just war and the use of capital punishment.
Getting back to proportionate reasons which is concerned with limiting evil, it might best be explained by using examples.
Candidate A supports abortion.
Candidate B supports abortion and euthanasia.
Catholics may vote for Candidate A, not because he or she supports abortion, but because Candidate B also advocates for euthanasia. This is limiting evil by voting for Candidate A.
Another scenario:
Candidate A supports both abortion and homosexual marriage.
Candidate B is against abortion but supports homosexual marriage
Catholics would be able vote for candidate B in this situation and still be worthy to receive Holy Communion. Again, by voting for the candidate who supports fewer intrinsic evils, this is limiting evil.
A third scenario:
Candidate A supports abortion. He does not support capital punishment.
Candidate B does not support abortion. He supports capital punishment.
The choice is very clear in this situation. Catholics may vote in good conscience for Candidate B because abortion is an intrinsically evil act and capital punishment is not.
