It does another thing that is unrelated to reproductive health that I don't understand. (Unlikely to be what he was thinking of.) A person would need to be under the care of a doctor for this prescribed use, I imagine.
Even if I was pro-abortion (in some mirror universe where Spock has a beard) I would want women to receive proper health care face to face from a medical professional (who could e.g. rule out ectopic pregnancy, and ask them if they are experiencing relationship abuse, and check their blood pressure and niceties like that). Some things are not appropriate for over the counter use if one actually cares about the customer as a human being.
I'm not sure how it changes the conversation. All the bishops that intend to employ various disciplinary measures for religious reasons will presumably continue to intend to employ them for religious reasons. The ones that have never intended to discipline erring politicians will presumably continue to not intend to.
Which means there will be no disciplinary measures in the diocese of DC.
As Nancy Pelosi proved, the bishops are so disinclined to follow what a person's local ordinary says, that the Diocese of Columbus will only matter when he's actually in the Diocese of Columbus. Which will be hardly ever, if he's elected.
As for Bishop Fernandes, he had been bishop about 6 months when the race between Catholic JD Vance who opposed abortion at the time, and "Catholic" Tim Ryan, who supports abortion, for the US Senate kicked off. As far as I can tell, he was not denied Holy Communion during or after his campaign. For what that's worth.
They won't. Not unless each diocese can precisely balance the number from each party that they ban from Holy Communion will those concerns be nullified... and carefully arranging it that way would be partisan. That's the trouble with concerns about looking partisan.
The short answer: the Eucharist is to withheld if this public stance by Vance on Mifepristone remains. Them's the rules, chief. (It could also be the case that he is genuinely unaware of the scale of chemical abortions; most Catholics - if they even oppose abortion at all - are unaware that surgical abortion is fairly uncommon now and that abortion pills constitute most abortions. This is a lot like the current GOP stance on IVF - most people have no familiarity with the moral question surrounding IVF).
Vance is perceptive and means well, I think the bully pulpit would have a positive effect on him. Now, if Vance gets the VP slot and his position on Mifepristone doesn't budge, am I still voting for him? Yeah, I would. The brass tacks is that Catholics can either vote GOP this year, or vote for Democrats that have openly and earnestly said that they vehemently hate us and will militantly enforce every grave evil and abomination known to man, ruthlessly suppressing anyone who stands in even slight opposition.
Edit: I've just learned that a recent Army force-wide briefing at Fort Bragg listed National Right to Life as a terrorist organization. When people ask "surely it can't be that bad?" I always say "well, what if... it just is?"
Or a Catholic can protest against both parties by voting third party, writing in a candidate, choosing "None" (if that's an option), or conscientiously abstaining from the presidential election while voting down-ticket instead.
No, not really. If we really take to heart what the CCC, CST, and the Faithful Citizenship guide teaches, it becomes clear that what you’ve listed are not licit options in our country - but rather copouts and loopholes so a Catholic can say “well, I mean *technically* I still voted…” which is contrary to how Catholics are to approach moral acts.
We do not live in a multi-party system; we live in a two-party system, and we need to honest about that. Plus, it appears contrary to any good sense of political expedience (which does matter) to throw away one’s vote to satisfy a mere technicality.
"When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil
act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the
extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation,
may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods."
Thanks, JD! I am aware of that passage. Considering the whole of what the modern package of CST presents, full abstention of votes is a *last* resort, and the "vote for the candidate deemed less likely" is the prioritized option when possible. It is clear beyond any doubt that no American Catholic can in good conscience vote for Biden/Harris. However, it is possible for one to vote for Trump/TBD in good conscience. As such, we haven't reached the dilemma to which you've alluded in quotation - somethign more akin to voting the DPRK.
The repsonsibility falls on the Catholic to make a genuine engagement with the political system - that's what the guidelines are aiming at. The Catholic approach to faith & morals has been never one of looking for loopholes and exploiting technicalities; voting for novelty micro-third-parties in a two-party system where at least one of the two candidate is acceptable, then brushing one's hands as one walks out the polling booth, seems to run contrary to the integrated whole of CST.
This starts to veer into a separate, broader discussion about some real flaws and problems with the modern package of CST (essentially taking the worldview of post-WW2 liberal European democracies and simply adding a Catholic glaze over it), and its influence in driving the perennial battle of Catholic hair-splitting in the eternal search for "the perfect candidate." Notwithstanding those serious critiques, this is what we've been given to work with in our time. I take this very seriously, and I'm not being flippant when thinking this through and laying this all out. I appreciate your work!
I don't think the bishops have said that full abstention is a less preferential option than the "less likely" candidate. Maybe they have, I am just not aware of it. Also, I don't tihnk the bishops say that you have to vote for a candidate likely to win, which is why I think FC views third party voting as a totally cromulent and reasonable option. Do you think I'm mistaken on that -- I'd be glad to know it.
Cromulent? From Merriam-Webster unabridged online:
//
Origin of CROMULENT
crom- (apparently an arbitrary formation) + -ulent
Note: The word was introduced in "Lisa the Iconoclast," an episode of the Fox animated television series The Simpsons that first aired on February 18, 1996. Coinage of the word has been attributed to the television writer David X. Cohen by Bill Oakley, one of the series' producers, in a commentary to the DVD release of the series.
How do you reconcile support for Trump with this line from the Faithful Citizenship Guide?
"At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity,”
As I understand it, I am not committing a deliberate sin when I vote for a third party or otherwise do not cast a vote for the two major parties, and, if I was at all uncertain or if I expected to be plagued by scrupulosity I would consult my regular confessor or my spiritual director, whichever one I happen to have; or if I did not have a regular confessor or a spiritual director I would first take the step of acquiring one and in the meantime ask the pastor of my parish whether I would be committing a sin. I would BY NO MEANS permit random people on the internet to rob me of interior peace through their own personal speculations about what is or is not a sin.
>"As *I understand it*, I am not committing a deliberate sin"
>"rob me of interior peace through... personal speculations about what is or is not a sin"
;) Light good-humored ribbing aside, please know that I'm not being flippant when I think these things through and lay them out, nor am I just trying to stan for the GOP. I take these questions very seriously, and I approch them through a wholistic and integrated framework that the Church, in various sources, presents to us. These aren't my personal musings projected onto Church teaching, but the opposite: this is a conclusion reached in this particular situation based on application of the whole of what the Church has given us to guide us in these matters. Thanks, Bridget!
Respectfully, there is nothing in the Catechism, the USCCB's Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, or Catholic social teaching that morally obligates (or even encourages) a voter to affirmatively support the lesser of two evils. They only recognize that, at times, it may be permissible for a voter to do so.
I believe that you have put a lot of thought into your position, and I suspect we may even agree on more than you might think. But be careful about laying heavy burdens on the consciences of others. Catholics can vote in good conscience without supporting either the Democrat candidate or the Republican candidate, and it is not a "copout," a "loophole," or a "technicality" for them to do so.
I think my issue with all of this is that it should be clear that democrats are leaning hard into protecting the rights to abortion, IVF, and birth control (saw a blatant political ad yesterday that explicitly said republicans will eliminate all of these if they win).They are trying to create as much fear and panic as possible so more people will vote for the dem ticket all the way down. And we have already seen prolife measures lose in every state that they’ve been brought up in so far. It seems clear to me that sacrificing human life is the ultimate god and core value of the dem platform. While the views of Trump and Vance are disappointing, I feel more hope for a change in their views. A change in the dem view seems nigh on impossible at this point. All this to say, if enough people vote third party, Biden will win and increased access to abortion and limits on religious freedoms are guaranteed. But then, maybe that’s God’s will for our country.
I’ll just add that it is a no-brainer to me that Vance should be denied communion if he persists in this view. I would pray that he repents and would honestly feel grateful if this happened, even if no other Catholic politician is ever denied communion.
PS I voted 3rd party in 2016 so it’s not a foreign concept to me. Maybe I am a weaker person than most, but the stakes just feel higher to me now.
Okay, this is just nonsense. It's a given that my state's electoral votes will go to Harris - it's as blue as can be - so why must I cast my vote for a doomed (in my state) candidate whose views I don't fully approve of? Why not rather register my preference for candidates who don't compromise on issues important to me?
Do you know why only a Republican or Democrat can win in this country? Solely because people believe it's true, and for no other reason.
I am not running for public office. Was this a "gotcha" moment, or are you just unaware of the distinction the Church makes about the "public" "manifest" "grave" and "sin" parts?
I don't think this is a question of him running for public office and you not. Your statements here could be construed as sufficiently public to count as "manifest", although the "obstinate" part has yet to be determined and I think the "sin" part is entirely lacking. It's really a question of culpable material cooperation with evil vs. nonculpable material cooperation with evil vs. formal cooperation with evil. From what I've read from you, I would put you firmly in the nonculpable material cooperation category.
What might be the political effect of voluntary abstention from the Eucharist by a Catholic politician who personally opposes abortion but doesn’t view criminalizing it or withholding abortifacients as a practical possibility?
If such a politician were to continue to attend Mass regularly, but without presenting themselves for Communion, how do you think voters would react?
Vance supports abortion bans at the state level. You're twisting his words to make it sound like he's saying something he's not.
Democrats will reverse EVERY pro life law and force Catholics to perform abortions. Trump and Vance will let states ban abortion and they will protect conscience protections.
Trump and Vance support the Dobbs decision. Biden and Harris would reinstitute Roe. There's a moral chasm between their stances. Democrats are trying to legalize abortion everywhere. Republicans are letting states ban abortion.
It's not good enough to be better than the most avid on the pro-abortion side. He said twice he supports Mifepristone being available. I watched him say it myself. No twisted words. I prefer Republicans over Democrats on abortion too, but support by Vance for Mifepristone is a grave moral matter, and clearly causes scandal regardless of where Democrats stand on abortion.
You should watch the clip again and pay closer attention.
He's talking about the recent court decision where the Supreme Court found, by a 9-0 margin, that pro life doctors lack standing to sue the FDA over the abortion pill.
Vance has the same position as Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Neither Vance nor Trump would overturn abortion bans. Biden would make abortion pills legal where they are currently illegal.
Voting for Republicans results in banning the abortion pill at the state level. Voting for Democrats results in legalizing abortion pills at the state level.
This is precisely the quote I was going back to look for. Thanks JD. I don't think Justice Thomas or Justice Alito would say they support Mifepristone being accessible. They ruled on a narrow point of standing
This is no different than Supreme Court nominees saying they, "respect the precedent of Roe v Wade" in their confirmation hearings. Pro lifers were fine with justices giving equivocal responses less than four years ago to get Roe overturned. It's wrongheaded to suggest this approach is beyond the pale now
Vance and Trump support banning abortion pills at the state level. They will not lift a finger to protect access to the abortion pill. Biden on the other hand would legalize the abortion pill everywhere.
But there is a difference between "Can a pro-life Catholic voter licitly vote for this politician?" (clearly yes, imo); and "Should this politician be barred from Communion due to their publicly held, intrinsically immoral positions, if they
cannot be convinced to repent (best outcome!) or refrain voluntarily?"
There's nothing intrinsically immoral about Trump or Vance's stance. It's always wrong to legalize abortion (like what Biden and the Democrats are attempting nationwide). It's not always wrong to refrain from banning abortion. It depends on the circumstances. If it was always wrong to refrain from banning abortions, then voting for laws that ban abortions but with rape and incest exceptions would be a mortal sin. Clearly that's not true.
I oppose taking illegal drugs but I’d support legalization to stop drugs from being cut with dangerous substances by dealers hoping to hook people and to reduce money going to cartels. Now I don’t hold elected office, but would holding that stance really make me out of communion? Abortion is much more serious because it’s a human life but it’s a similar concept. And why would it be okay for a senator to hold Vance’s stance but not a vice president? Do we really want to say only the very powerful have to agree with the church? What about state governors and small town mayors? If the USCCB does come up with something it should apply to everyone- not just politicians.
From the CDF's Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974) quoted in part in Evangelium Vitae:
"22. It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application. It is, for instance, inadmissible that doctors or nurses should find themselves obliged to cooperate closely in abortions and have to choose between the law of God and their professional situation."
I am aware of no similar explicit statement from the Church on laws legalizing drugs. I don't intend to suggest either way on the admissibility of such laws, but on the matter of laws permitting abortion, I don't think there can be any serious doubt about the admissibility of voting or campaigning on their behalf.
It should indeed apply to everyone, and not just politicians. In fact it does. If Joe Schmoe publicly posts on his blog that he thinks abortion is OK in certain circumstances, and refuses to retract that upon request, than he is obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin, and must be denied Holy Communion. IF anyone finds out - which is the main difference between politicians and small-time bloggers. We don't generally involve the Inquisition prior to Mass to find these things out, so the more publicly known you are, the more likely it is to become an issue.
And yes, murder does change things somewhat. If you want to argue for legalizing murder so that it can occur safely, you've either lost your senses, or you don't think the murdered person really counts as a person (y'know, like all the safe murder of Jews, blacks, homosexuals, gypsies, Irish, Armenians, Slavs, etc. that history has seen). There is some leeway for legalizing things that are intrinsically evil if banning them would be more destructive to the common good than tolerating them (imagine if lies were all illegal!).
I think you've said a few things backwards here but yes. I agree Republicans are better on abortion. Which party is a political matter to be figured out at the ballot box.
Supporting Mifepristone access is nonetheless intrinsically immoral and for the sake of the church, the souls involved, and the many more likely to be scandalized by this position, the church shouldn't pretend the lesser evil isn't itself an evil
Not to mention, if chemical abortions get the nod from the "pro-life" party and federal protections for the unborn are removed from the platform, how long will it be before abortion isn't even an issue that gets trotted out at election time, because not even the Christians raise a fuss about it gradually becoming part of the national landscape, and all 50 states allow for it?
Not long. The moment Dobbs was decided (thanks be to God), the enemy set to work dismantling the win, as we are witnessing with the change to the RNC platform.
For the question of whether someone should be denied Holy Communion, the question is who is actively promoting an intrinsically immoral position on abortion.
For the question of who to vote for, the question is who has the worse position on abortion.
What I find so disheartening about Vance is that he seems to be such an intellectually well-formed Catholic. How could the man who wrote this: https://thelampmagazine.com/blog/how-i-joined-the-resistance be the same man who's now so willing to toe the party line?
Never underestimate a Politician’s ability to twist their principles into pretzels for the sake of party backing. The only politician I have ever come across who voted in the best interest of the common good against her self interest was my great great Grandmother. She was the first female in the 1940s to be elected to the Western Australian state senate. She actually voted herself out of office via a parliamentary reform bill that eliminated her seat.
What if, in addition to arguing in the comments about which politicians' souls are seemingly in more immediately grave peril than others', we all spent one day fasting* (according to the lenient modern Latin Catholic rules of a Lenten fast) for the repentance and conversion of all American politicians? (But not on a Sunday, if you are reading this on a Sunday; on some other day of convenience.)
* substituting any other appropriate penance by those for whom fasting is imprudent
"74. The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the issue of cooperation, since they have a right to demand not to be forced to take part in morally evil actions. Sometimes the choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement." - Pope Saint John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae
The Bishops only concern should be the soul of the person that supports abortion whether a politician or not. Correction can be painful for the Bishop but God has entrusted him with this responsibility.
Yo. I just wanted to thank all of you for discussing this topic with charity and mutual respect. Pillar has the best comment section on the entire internet.
Gee, I read all the comments, but to me it boils down to under which party will more babies die? We know that answer hands down.
And Trump said several times 'you have to get elected first' He also recently mentioned one of my friends by name, involved in a prolife rescue. He said he will commute all their sentences on day one. It's the Biden Administration's DOJ and FBI creating severe penalties for non-violent civil disobedience.
A third party vote is a vote for Biden. Clearly there is a lesser of two evils. Biden has done everything in his power to push abortion to the max. Maybe technically the USCCB guidelines allow 3rd party, but what is common sense, and will save the most lives? Thanks for listening.
A third party vote is a third party vote unless the popular vote margins in a given state are very narrow or unless that state is one of a small handful that do not award votes on a “winner take all” basis. Most states are “winner take all”, meaning all of that state’s electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the majority of popular votes in that state. If the margin is going to be wide and the state is winner take all, third party votes don’t affect the outcome of how that state’s electoral votes are awarded. I could have edited that to be less clunky, but it is not even close to always the case that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the other guy. It depends on the margins and the state’s electoral award laws. My state will no question award its electoral votes for Trump. I could vote for Biden or the mailman or dress as a clown and write in Mickey Mouse and Trump would still be elected by my state.
A third party vote, like mine will be for the American Solidarity Party, is just that, a vote for that party. And I hope to prove wrong the glib sentiment that pro-life voters are over a barrel, and that we'll follow the GOP like lemmings wherever they go, like off-course.
If I believe my one vote means anything at all, I want to use it to express support for what I actually believe in.
Any other vote than that (for Sonski) is probably a wasted vote, particularly voting for the worst or the second worst candidate. So that clears up who we are voting for, but doesn’t address what that Ohio bishop needs to address. And the Washington archdiocese for that matter. Wonder if Vance will get the Pelosi and Biden treatment at the Vatican?
" but to me it boils down to under which party will more babies die?"
Me too. Obamacare alone resulted in one million fewer abortions. Dobbs did nothing to lower the abortion rate and even saw a slight rise. Paid maternity leave profoundly means fewer babies dies. Public acceptance of multiple divorces and banging Stormy creates a culture that leads to more abortions.
The USA is not a Catholic country. It's not even a Christian country. To expect all candidates for national office to believe and speak and behave strictly in line with the Magisterium is irrational and worse. That's especially true when not all Catholic clergy believe and speak and behave that way.
Yes, killing an unborn child is killing a human being. But yes also, I imagine that very few people in the contemporary Western world believe that it is.
"Not support murder" isn't too much to expect, since this can be known without divine revelation. I think you're conflating something requiring everyone to accept the filioque with requiring everyone not to kill babies.
https://www.korlym.com/about-korlym/how-korlym-works
It does another thing that is unrelated to reproductive health that I don't understand. (Unlikely to be what he was thinking of.) A person would need to be under the care of a doctor for this prescribed use, I imagine.
Even if I was pro-abortion (in some mirror universe where Spock has a beard) I would want women to receive proper health care face to face from a medical professional (who could e.g. rule out ectopic pregnancy, and ask them if they are experiencing relationship abuse, and check their blood pressure and niceties like that). Some things are not appropriate for over the counter use if one actually cares about the customer as a human being.
I'm not sure how it changes the conversation. All the bishops that intend to employ various disciplinary measures for religious reasons will presumably continue to intend to employ them for religious reasons. The ones that have never intended to discipline erring politicians will presumably continue to not intend to.
Which means there will be no disciplinary measures in the diocese of DC.
You're forgetting about the Diocese of Columbus.
(I don't know what Bishop Fernandes, whom I understand is quite orthodox, would/will do.)
As Nancy Pelosi proved, the bishops are so disinclined to follow what a person's local ordinary says, that the Diocese of Columbus will only matter when he's actually in the Diocese of Columbus. Which will be hardly ever, if he's elected.
As for Bishop Fernandes, he had been bishop about 6 months when the race between Catholic JD Vance who opposed abortion at the time, and "Catholic" Tim Ryan, who supports abortion, for the US Senate kicked off. As far as I can tell, he was not denied Holy Communion during or after his campaign. For what that's worth.
I know it's only wishful thinking but hopefully now that it's "both sides" the bishops will free from concerns about looking partisan
They won't. Not unless each diocese can precisely balance the number from each party that they ban from Holy Communion will those concerns be nullified... and carefully arranging it that way would be partisan. That's the trouble with concerns about looking partisan.
Yeah :/ I certainly don't envy the bishops tasked with shepherding their flocks through times like these. We really ought to pray for them
I am absolutely delighted that I'm not a bishop.
On the other hand, if they acquit themselves well... such a heaven for them!
Except now that it is a Republican, they will say nothing.
The short answer: the Eucharist is to withheld if this public stance by Vance on Mifepristone remains. Them's the rules, chief. (It could also be the case that he is genuinely unaware of the scale of chemical abortions; most Catholics - if they even oppose abortion at all - are unaware that surgical abortion is fairly uncommon now and that abortion pills constitute most abortions. This is a lot like the current GOP stance on IVF - most people have no familiarity with the moral question surrounding IVF).
Vance is perceptive and means well, I think the bully pulpit would have a positive effect on him. Now, if Vance gets the VP slot and his position on Mifepristone doesn't budge, am I still voting for him? Yeah, I would. The brass tacks is that Catholics can either vote GOP this year, or vote for Democrats that have openly and earnestly said that they vehemently hate us and will militantly enforce every grave evil and abomination known to man, ruthlessly suppressing anyone who stands in even slight opposition.
Edit: I've just learned that a recent Army force-wide briefing at Fort Bragg listed National Right to Life as a terrorist organization. When people ask "surely it can't be that bad?" I always say "well, what if... it just is?"
Or a Catholic can protest against both parties by voting third party, writing in a candidate, choosing "None" (if that's an option), or conscientiously abstaining from the presidential election while voting down-ticket instead.
No, not really. If we really take to heart what the CCC, CST, and the Faithful Citizenship guide teaches, it becomes clear that what you’ve listed are not licit options in our country - but rather copouts and loopholes so a Catholic can say “well, I mean *technically* I still voted…” which is contrary to how Catholics are to approach moral acts.
We do not live in a multi-party system; we live in a two-party system, and we need to honest about that. Plus, it appears contrary to any good sense of political expedience (which does matter) to throw away one’s vote to satisfy a mere technicality.
Does this part of Faithful Citizenship not count:
"When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil
act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the
extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation,
may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods."
Thanks, JD! I am aware of that passage. Considering the whole of what the modern package of CST presents, full abstention of votes is a *last* resort, and the "vote for the candidate deemed less likely" is the prioritized option when possible. It is clear beyond any doubt that no American Catholic can in good conscience vote for Biden/Harris. However, it is possible for one to vote for Trump/TBD in good conscience. As such, we haven't reached the dilemma to which you've alluded in quotation - somethign more akin to voting the DPRK.
The repsonsibility falls on the Catholic to make a genuine engagement with the political system - that's what the guidelines are aiming at. The Catholic approach to faith & morals has been never one of looking for loopholes and exploiting technicalities; voting for novelty micro-third-parties in a two-party system where at least one of the two candidate is acceptable, then brushing one's hands as one walks out the polling booth, seems to run contrary to the integrated whole of CST.
This starts to veer into a separate, broader discussion about some real flaws and problems with the modern package of CST (essentially taking the worldview of post-WW2 liberal European democracies and simply adding a Catholic glaze over it), and its influence in driving the perennial battle of Catholic hair-splitting in the eternal search for "the perfect candidate." Notwithstanding those serious critiques, this is what we've been given to work with in our time. I take this very seriously, and I'm not being flippant when thinking this through and laying this all out. I appreciate your work!
I don't think the bishops have said that full abstention is a less preferential option than the "less likely" candidate. Maybe they have, I am just not aware of it. Also, I don't tihnk the bishops say that you have to vote for a candidate likely to win, which is why I think FC views third party voting as a totally cromulent and reasonable option. Do you think I'm mistaken on that -- I'd be glad to know it.
Cromulent? From Merriam-Webster unabridged online:
//
Origin of CROMULENT
crom- (apparently an arbitrary formation) + -ulent
Note: The word was introduced in "Lisa the Iconoclast," an episode of the Fox animated television series The Simpsons that first aired on February 18, 1996. Coinage of the word has been attributed to the television writer David X. Cohen by Bill Oakley, one of the series' producers, in a commentary to the DVD release of the series.
First Known Use: 1996
//
How do you reconcile support for Trump with this line from the Faithful Citizenship Guide?
"At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity,”
Lawyers must have it all ways simultaneously. Reasonable people who are not lawyers are free to differentiate and discriminate.
As I understand it, I am not committing a deliberate sin when I vote for a third party or otherwise do not cast a vote for the two major parties, and, if I was at all uncertain or if I expected to be plagued by scrupulosity I would consult my regular confessor or my spiritual director, whichever one I happen to have; or if I did not have a regular confessor or a spiritual director I would first take the step of acquiring one and in the meantime ask the pastor of my parish whether I would be committing a sin. I would BY NO MEANS permit random people on the internet to rob me of interior peace through their own personal speculations about what is or is not a sin.
>"As *I understand it*, I am not committing a deliberate sin"
>"rob me of interior peace through... personal speculations about what is or is not a sin"
;) Light good-humored ribbing aside, please know that I'm not being flippant when I think these things through and lay them out, nor am I just trying to stan for the GOP. I take these questions very seriously, and I approch them through a wholistic and integrated framework that the Church, in various sources, presents to us. These aren't my personal musings projected onto Church teaching, but the opposite: this is a conclusion reached in this particular situation based on application of the whole of what the Church has given us to guide us in these matters. Thanks, Bridget!
Respectfully, there is nothing in the Catechism, the USCCB's Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, or Catholic social teaching that morally obligates (or even encourages) a voter to affirmatively support the lesser of two evils. They only recognize that, at times, it may be permissible for a voter to do so.
I believe that you have put a lot of thought into your position, and I suspect we may even agree on more than you might think. But be careful about laying heavy burdens on the consciences of others. Catholics can vote in good conscience without supporting either the Democrat candidate or the Republican candidate, and it is not a "copout," a "loophole," or a "technicality" for them to do so.
I think my issue with all of this is that it should be clear that democrats are leaning hard into protecting the rights to abortion, IVF, and birth control (saw a blatant political ad yesterday that explicitly said republicans will eliminate all of these if they win).They are trying to create as much fear and panic as possible so more people will vote for the dem ticket all the way down. And we have already seen prolife measures lose in every state that they’ve been brought up in so far. It seems clear to me that sacrificing human life is the ultimate god and core value of the dem platform. While the views of Trump and Vance are disappointing, I feel more hope for a change in their views. A change in the dem view seems nigh on impossible at this point. All this to say, if enough people vote third party, Biden will win and increased access to abortion and limits on religious freedoms are guaranteed. But then, maybe that’s God’s will for our country.
I’ll just add that it is a no-brainer to me that Vance should be denied communion if he persists in this view. I would pray that he repents and would honestly feel grateful if this happened, even if no other Catholic politician is ever denied communion.
PS I voted 3rd party in 2016 so it’s not a foreign concept to me. Maybe I am a weaker person than most, but the stakes just feel higher to me now.
Okay, this is just nonsense. It's a given that my state's electoral votes will go to Harris - it's as blue as can be - so why must I cast my vote for a doomed (in my state) candidate whose views I don't fully approve of? Why not rather register my preference for candidates who don't compromise on issues important to me?
Do you know why only a Republican or Democrat can win in this country? Solely because people believe it's true, and for no other reason.
You stated you would still vote for Vance. Should the Eucharist be withheld from you?
I am not running for public office. Was this a "gotcha" moment, or are you just unaware of the distinction the Church makes about the "public" "manifest" "grave" and "sin" parts?
Parse it as you wish. A vote for Vance is support for abortion.
Logically, yes. Practically, no. Real life is not logical.
I don't think this is a question of him running for public office and you not. Your statements here could be construed as sufficiently public to count as "manifest", although the "obstinate" part has yet to be determined and I think the "sin" part is entirely lacking. It's really a question of culpable material cooperation with evil vs. nonculpable material cooperation with evil vs. formal cooperation with evil. From what I've read from you, I would put you firmly in the nonculpable material cooperation category.
The Eucharist ought to be withheld. But this seems to have no correlation with it actually being withheld.
Agreed.
What might be the political effect of voluntary abstention from the Eucharist by a Catholic politician who personally opposes abortion but doesn’t view criminalizing it or withholding abortifacients as a practical possibility?
If such a politician were to continue to attend Mass regularly, but without presenting themselves for Communion, how do you think voters would react?
Realistically, I do not think most voters would know or care - it's a pretty niche of niche thing
Vance supports abortion bans at the state level. You're twisting his words to make it sound like he's saying something he's not.
Democrats will reverse EVERY pro life law and force Catholics to perform abortions. Trump and Vance will let states ban abortion and they will protect conscience protections.
Trump and Vance support the Dobbs decision. Biden and Harris would reinstitute Roe. There's a moral chasm between their stances. Democrats are trying to legalize abortion everywhere. Republicans are letting states ban abortion.
It's not good enough to be better than the most avid on the pro-abortion side. He said twice he supports Mifepristone being available. I watched him say it myself. No twisted words. I prefer Republicans over Democrats on abortion too, but support by Vance for Mifepristone is a grave moral matter, and clearly causes scandal regardless of where Democrats stand on abortion.
You should watch the clip again and pay closer attention.
He's talking about the recent court decision where the Supreme Court found, by a 9-0 margin, that pro life doctors lack standing to sue the FDA over the abortion pill.
Vance has the same position as Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Neither Vance nor Trump would overturn abortion bans. Biden would make abortion pills legal where they are currently illegal.
Voting for Republicans results in banning the abortion pill at the state level. Voting for Democrats results in legalizing abortion pills at the state level.
I suspect this is the part that seems to challenge that:
Question: YOU SUPPORT MIFEPRISTONE BEING ACCESSIBLE?
Answer: YES, KRISTEN, I DO, BUT ON PROJECT 2025...
This is precisely the quote I was going back to look for. Thanks JD. I don't think Justice Thomas or Justice Alito would say they support Mifepristone being accessible. They ruled on a narrow point of standing
This is no different than Supreme Court nominees saying they, "respect the precedent of Roe v Wade" in their confirmation hearings. Pro lifers were fine with justices giving equivocal responses less than four years ago to get Roe overturned. It's wrongheaded to suggest this approach is beyond the pale now
Vance and Trump support banning abortion pills at the state level. They will not lift a finger to protect access to the abortion pill. Biden on the other hand would legalize the abortion pill everywhere.
But there is a difference between "Can a pro-life Catholic voter licitly vote for this politician?" (clearly yes, imo); and "Should this politician be barred from Communion due to their publicly held, intrinsically immoral positions, if they
cannot be convinced to repent (best outcome!) or refrain voluntarily?"
There's nothing intrinsically immoral about Trump or Vance's stance. It's always wrong to legalize abortion (like what Biden and the Democrats are attempting nationwide). It's not always wrong to refrain from banning abortion. It depends on the circumstances. If it was always wrong to refrain from banning abortions, then voting for laws that ban abortions but with rape and incest exceptions would be a mortal sin. Clearly that's not true.
Do you have something they said to indicate that they support banning the pills at the state level? I have heard nothing about that.
"Letting the states decide" means letting states ban abortion.
I oppose taking illegal drugs but I’d support legalization to stop drugs from being cut with dangerous substances by dealers hoping to hook people and to reduce money going to cartels. Now I don’t hold elected office, but would holding that stance really make me out of communion? Abortion is much more serious because it’s a human life but it’s a similar concept. And why would it be okay for a senator to hold Vance’s stance but not a vice president? Do we really want to say only the very powerful have to agree with the church? What about state governors and small town mayors? If the USCCB does come up with something it should apply to everyone- not just politicians.
From the CDF's Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974) quoted in part in Evangelium Vitae:
"22. It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application. It is, for instance, inadmissible that doctors or nurses should find themselves obliged to cooperate closely in abortions and have to choose between the law of God and their professional situation."
I am aware of no similar explicit statement from the Church on laws legalizing drugs. I don't intend to suggest either way on the admissibility of such laws, but on the matter of laws permitting abortion, I don't think there can be any serious doubt about the admissibility of voting or campaigning on their behalf.
It should indeed apply to everyone, and not just politicians. In fact it does. If Joe Schmoe publicly posts on his blog that he thinks abortion is OK in certain circumstances, and refuses to retract that upon request, than he is obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin, and must be denied Holy Communion. IF anyone finds out - which is the main difference between politicians and small-time bloggers. We don't generally involve the Inquisition prior to Mass to find these things out, so the more publicly known you are, the more likely it is to become an issue.
And yes, murder does change things somewhat. If you want to argue for legalizing murder so that it can occur safely, you've either lost your senses, or you don't think the murdered person really counts as a person (y'know, like all the safe murder of Jews, blacks, homosexuals, gypsies, Irish, Armenians, Slavs, etc. that history has seen). There is some leeway for legalizing things that are intrinsically evil if banning them would be more destructive to the common good than tolerating them (imagine if lies were all illegal!).
The point is not, who has a worse position on abortion. The point is, who is actively promoting an intrinsically immoral position on abortion.
Agreed. And in this case the answer seems to be Catholics in both parties
You're wrong.
Democrats are promoting legal abortion everywhere with a national abortion ban.
Republicans opposed a national abortion ban. They also support state level abortion bans.
Democrats will end abortion bans. Republicans will protect abortion bans.
I think you've said a few things backwards here but yes. I agree Republicans are better on abortion. Which party is a political matter to be figured out at the ballot box.
Supporting Mifepristone access is nonetheless intrinsically immoral and for the sake of the church, the souls involved, and the many more likely to be scandalized by this position, the church shouldn't pretend the lesser evil isn't itself an evil
Not to mention, if chemical abortions get the nod from the "pro-life" party and federal protections for the unborn are removed from the platform, how long will it be before abortion isn't even an issue that gets trotted out at election time, because not even the Christians raise a fuss about it gradually becoming part of the national landscape, and all 50 states allow for it?
Not long. The moment Dobbs was decided (thanks be to God), the enemy set to work dismantling the win, as we are witnessing with the change to the RNC platform.
For the question of whether someone should be denied Holy Communion, the question is who is actively promoting an intrinsically immoral position on abortion.
For the question of who to vote for, the question is who has the worse position on abortion.
What I find so disheartening about Vance is that he seems to be such an intellectually well-formed Catholic. How could the man who wrote this: https://thelampmagazine.com/blog/how-i-joined-the-resistance be the same man who's now so willing to toe the party line?
Never underestimate a Politician’s ability to twist their principles into pretzels for the sake of party backing. The only politician I have ever come across who voted in the best interest of the common good against her self interest was my great great Grandmother. She was the first female in the 1940s to be elected to the Western Australian state senate. She actually voted herself out of office via a parliamentary reform bill that eliminated her seat.
What if, in addition to arguing in the comments about which politicians' souls are seemingly in more immediately grave peril than others', we all spent one day fasting* (according to the lenient modern Latin Catholic rules of a Lenten fast) for the repentance and conversion of all American politicians? (But not on a Sunday, if you are reading this on a Sunday; on some other day of convenience.)
* substituting any other appropriate penance by those for whom fasting is imprudent
There’s a reason why few politicians have been candidates for sainthood.
"74. The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the issue of cooperation, since they have a right to demand not to be forced to take part in morally evil actions. Sometimes the choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement." - Pope Saint John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae
The Bishops only concern should be the soul of the person that supports abortion whether a politician or not. Correction can be painful for the Bishop but God has entrusted him with this responsibility.
Yo. I just wanted to thank all of you for discussing this topic with charity and mutual respect. Pillar has the best comment section on the entire internet.
Gee, I read all the comments, but to me it boils down to under which party will more babies die? We know that answer hands down.
And Trump said several times 'you have to get elected first' He also recently mentioned one of my friends by name, involved in a prolife rescue. He said he will commute all their sentences on day one. It's the Biden Administration's DOJ and FBI creating severe penalties for non-violent civil disobedience.
A third party vote is a vote for Biden. Clearly there is a lesser of two evils. Biden has done everything in his power to push abortion to the max. Maybe technically the USCCB guidelines allow 3rd party, but what is common sense, and will save the most lives? Thanks for listening.
A third party vote is a third party vote unless the popular vote margins in a given state are very narrow or unless that state is one of a small handful that do not award votes on a “winner take all” basis. Most states are “winner take all”, meaning all of that state’s electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the majority of popular votes in that state. If the margin is going to be wide and the state is winner take all, third party votes don’t affect the outcome of how that state’s electoral votes are awarded. I could have edited that to be less clunky, but it is not even close to always the case that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the other guy. It depends on the margins and the state’s electoral award laws. My state will no question award its electoral votes for Trump. I could vote for Biden or the mailman or dress as a clown and write in Mickey Mouse and Trump would still be elected by my state.
A third party vote, like mine will be for the American Solidarity Party, is just that, a vote for that party. And I hope to prove wrong the glib sentiment that pro-life voters are over a barrel, and that we'll follow the GOP like lemmings wherever they go, like off-course.
If I believe my one vote means anything at all, I want to use it to express support for what I actually believe in.
Any other vote than that (for Sonski) is probably a wasted vote, particularly voting for the worst or the second worst candidate. So that clears up who we are voting for, but doesn’t address what that Ohio bishop needs to address. And the Washington archdiocese for that matter. Wonder if Vance will get the Pelosi and Biden treatment at the Vatican?
" but to me it boils down to under which party will more babies die?"
Me too. Obamacare alone resulted in one million fewer abortions. Dobbs did nothing to lower the abortion rate and even saw a slight rise. Paid maternity leave profoundly means fewer babies dies. Public acceptance of multiple divorces and banging Stormy creates a culture that leads to more abortions.
The USA is not a Catholic country. It's not even a Christian country. To expect all candidates for national office to believe and speak and behave strictly in line with the Magisterium is irrational and worse. That's especially true when not all Catholic clergy believe and speak and behave that way.
Yes, killing an unborn child is killing a human being. But yes also, I imagine that very few people in the contemporary Western world believe that it is.
"Not support murder" isn't too much to expect, since this can be known without divine revelation. I think you're conflating something requiring everyone to accept the filioque with requiring everyone not to kill babies.