Fellow CKW editor, Christopher, writes an excellent post called Cardinal Ratzinger, Bishop Burke and "Proportionate Reasons."
My own thoughts are less precise than his. The problem many people experience with proportionate reasons is that they are in fact relativists. Nothing is proportional when everything has the same weight. But of course even relativists assign weights to favored causes. It is like liberating Bergen-Belsen and your first reaction is to call for the raising of the minimum wage for Jewish people. This is not to say that one issue only must be worked on at a time, instead it is to work to consistently bring us closer to the culture of life where the dignity of each person is respected. That respect is destroyed directly in the abortuaries, but Catholic social teaching doesn’t end after one’s escape from the surgical implement of an abortionist. Tom of Disputations also makes a good point on single issue voting.
My point is narrow: It’s wrong to criticize Catholic statements on politics for mentioning issues other than the right to life. Particular statements may be criticized for muddling the issues, but not simply for mentioning them. To do so is to fail both politically and morally(!); politically because you’ll never get what you want if you don’t tell anyone what you want; and morally because you have an obligation under justice to contribute to the common good by promoting Church teaching on the issues to the body politic.
Update: Jimmy Akin does an in depth post on cooperation and proportionate reasons. A must read with good examples for clarifications of the terms used.a
3 comments
Check out Jimmy Akin’s blog. He just posted on this issue and it’s fabulous!
Can we vote for Pro-Abortion Politicians?
I know this issue is a key concern of Catholics and we’ve clearly been on one side of the bandwagon. Today I read Jimmy Akin’s treatment of this topic based on Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter. Take a few minutes to read…
Cardinal Ratzinger’s choice to end his statement with ‘proportionate reasons’ is, in my opinion, a form of ‘doublespeak’ to avoid offending anyone and practice of a particularly cruel form of political correctness.
Wimp comes to mind but I want to keep this on a little higher plane and not call names.
The church teaches that life begins at conception, that willfully ending that innocent life is murder and murder is a sin condemned by the church. Not ‘unacceptable’ or ‘not condoned’ but condemned as a grievious sin.
Now then, I am of the opinion that Cardinal Ratzinger should have given a few practical examples of ‘proportionate’ reasons to vote for someone who favors this act of murder.
Leaving the interpretation of the Cardinal’s statement to the bishops has resulted in chaos. I think it disrespectful,at least, to Holy Mother Church to issue a statement that would allow one to make a decision based on the level of disaffection with one candidate or the other.
I have no doubt that for many, ‘proportionate’ reason is subjective at best and an easy out to justify supporting the candidate of ‘choice’ (pun intended).
To put it in the vernacular, ‘if you guys (our spiritual leaders) continue to be mealy mouthed about abortion and euthanasia, catholics will eventually put it in the same category as birth control and refrain from it when it is convenient’. wb