10-25-2024, 09:26 AM
I would like to post an article written by Father Peter Scott back in 2004 when the SSPX was still faithful. It is published in the book The Best of Questions and Answers from the Angelus, 2009. I have bolded some especially relevant points.
"Q Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?
The casting of a vote can be a virtuous act, even in our modern liberal democracies, in which so much of the system is not only opposed to our holy religion but even to the natural law itself. However, for a vote to be a virtuous act, it must be directed towards its end, namely, the common good. Consequently, it is in itself a grave sin to vote for an unworthy candidate, for the choice of a candidate whose life or policies are immoral is an illicit cooperation in bringing about a grave evil to society. There can be no doubt that abortion, the murder of the innocent, is one of the greatest evils afflicting modern society, and that it is crying out to heaven for venegeance. Consequently, there cannot in itself be any justification for voting for any candidate who is pro-abortion or in any way tolerant of abortion.
The question arises, however, as to whether there could be sufficient reason to vote for a candidate who might consent to some abortions, for example, to avoid a more serious evil, such as to defeat a candidate who might be in favor of homosexual marriages or who might actively promote abortions or some other great evil, such as unjust wars.
The theologians answer that the act of casting a vote is a material cooperation in the evil that that candidate might cause, and not necessarily a formal cooperation (cf. Prummer, III, S604). This means that the person who casts the vote is not necessarily directly responsible for what a bad candidate might do once elected, even if he foresaw that he would perform some evil deeds. In such cases of material cooperation, the Church allows the application of the principles of the indirect voluntary. It is permissible, since the act of casting a vote is not in itself bad, and the end is good, namely, to avoid a greater evil. However, there must be a very grave reason to justify such material cooperation, and all scandal would have to be avoided. This could be the case, for example, if a person were to vote for a Protestant whose platform was in general in accordance with the natural law, but who might have some false principles concerning divorce or the funding of Catholic schools, or on some environmental issue. In such a case, it would be permissible to choose the lesser evil and to vote for a candidate who is not entirely good, on the condition that there is a very grave reaon, namely, to avoid a much greater evil.
The question here is whether there could ever possibly be such a grave reason that could justify a person's voting for a pro-abortion candidate. Is it possible for there to be a greater evil that could justify such a participation in this evil of abortion, even only a material participation? I cannot conceive that this could be possible, for abortion is such a perverse and horrible crime.
It is possible to conceive of a greater evil that would alllow one to vote for a candidate who would accept (unwillingly) abortions under certain exceptional circumstances such as rape, for this is frequently done in order to prevent the election of a candidate who is positively pro-abortion. This is a frequent occurrence and is certainly permissible. However, it is inconceivable that a Catholic would vote for a politician who is positively pro-abortion simply because he likes his tax scheme or his social policies. In such an instance there would be no proportion at all, and it would certainly be a grave sin, even if the intention were only for a material cooperation.
If in general it is narrow-minded to be a single-issue voter, this certainly does not apply to the abortion question. The common good absolutely and necessarily requires the abolition of abortions from public life, and it is of such overwhelming importance for the good of society that no person could be considered imprudent for voting on the basis of this question alone. "
Taken from The Best of Questions and Answers from the Angelus, 2009, pp 283-285
I would just like to add that Trump has accepted a Scapular and a statue of St. Michael. There is reason to hope that he might someday convert to Catholicism.
"Q Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?
The casting of a vote can be a virtuous act, even in our modern liberal democracies, in which so much of the system is not only opposed to our holy religion but even to the natural law itself. However, for a vote to be a virtuous act, it must be directed towards its end, namely, the common good. Consequently, it is in itself a grave sin to vote for an unworthy candidate, for the choice of a candidate whose life or policies are immoral is an illicit cooperation in bringing about a grave evil to society. There can be no doubt that abortion, the murder of the innocent, is one of the greatest evils afflicting modern society, and that it is crying out to heaven for venegeance. Consequently, there cannot in itself be any justification for voting for any candidate who is pro-abortion or in any way tolerant of abortion.
The question arises, however, as to whether there could be sufficient reason to vote for a candidate who might consent to some abortions, for example, to avoid a more serious evil, such as to defeat a candidate who might be in favor of homosexual marriages or who might actively promote abortions or some other great evil, such as unjust wars.
The theologians answer that the act of casting a vote is a material cooperation in the evil that that candidate might cause, and not necessarily a formal cooperation (cf. Prummer, III, S604). This means that the person who casts the vote is not necessarily directly responsible for what a bad candidate might do once elected, even if he foresaw that he would perform some evil deeds. In such cases of material cooperation, the Church allows the application of the principles of the indirect voluntary. It is permissible, since the act of casting a vote is not in itself bad, and the end is good, namely, to avoid a greater evil. However, there must be a very grave reason to justify such material cooperation, and all scandal would have to be avoided. This could be the case, for example, if a person were to vote for a Protestant whose platform was in general in accordance with the natural law, but who might have some false principles concerning divorce or the funding of Catholic schools, or on some environmental issue. In such a case, it would be permissible to choose the lesser evil and to vote for a candidate who is not entirely good, on the condition that there is a very grave reaon, namely, to avoid a much greater evil.
The question here is whether there could ever possibly be such a grave reason that could justify a person's voting for a pro-abortion candidate. Is it possible for there to be a greater evil that could justify such a participation in this evil of abortion, even only a material participation? I cannot conceive that this could be possible, for abortion is such a perverse and horrible crime.
It is possible to conceive of a greater evil that would alllow one to vote for a candidate who would accept (unwillingly) abortions under certain exceptional circumstances such as rape, for this is frequently done in order to prevent the election of a candidate who is positively pro-abortion. This is a frequent occurrence and is certainly permissible. However, it is inconceivable that a Catholic would vote for a politician who is positively pro-abortion simply because he likes his tax scheme or his social policies. In such an instance there would be no proportion at all, and it would certainly be a grave sin, even if the intention were only for a material cooperation.
If in general it is narrow-minded to be a single-issue voter, this certainly does not apply to the abortion question. The common good absolutely and necessarily requires the abolition of abortions from public life, and it is of such overwhelming importance for the good of society that no person could be considered imprudent for voting on the basis of this question alone. "
Taken from The Best of Questions and Answers from the Angelus, 2009, pp 283-285