Victor R. Claveau, MJ
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
—Proverbs 31:8-9.
The Antiquities of the Jews, a work compiled in Rome between the years 93 and 94 A.D. by the historian Flavius Josephus, makes a specific reference to Christ “executed by order of the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.”
Jesus of Nazareth was condemned by the Sanhedrin[1] as a blasphemer, and by Pilate as a usurper. Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the King of the Jews?” (Jn 18:33). Precisely because the Sanhedrin accused Christ of claiming it.
Jesus answered, “My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world.” Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” (Jn 18:36-38).
“So, when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this righteous man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” (Matt. 27:24-25).
Pilate knew in his heart that Jesus was innocent of the charges that were laid against him, yet he did not have the courage to deny the mob their demands. His cowardly action was influenced by those who cried out, “Crucify Him, crucify Him” (Jn 19:6) in a staccato frenzy.
Was Pilate truly innocent of the blood of Jesus? He had the power to prevent the execution, but instead he yielded to public opinion; he complied with the crowd. As a result, his name will forever live in infamy.
There are others, in this day and age, whose names will be written beside Pilate’s in the hall of shame. These are the politicians who say, “I am personally against abortion, but I don’t believe that I should allow my personal belief to interfere with my responsibility to vote as my constituency expects.”
Is it a Mortal Sin to Vote for a Pro-Abortion Politician?
This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about mortal sin:
§1857 Mortal sin is sin (1) whose object is grave matter, (2) is committed with full knowledge and (3) deliberate consent.
§1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.
§1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God. [emphasis mine]
The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the document Declaration on Procured Abortion (November 18, 1974). Paragraph 22 states:
“…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.”
Any politician who votes for an abortion law is a formal accomplice to that law. Any citizen who votes for that politician is a material accomplice to the abortions which will ensue from the election of that pro-death politician. Obviously, if the act by which a person materially cooperates is itself sinful, the material also is sinful. Material cooperation in the evil of abortion is a mortal sin.
Unfortunately, there are many who call themselves Catholic who support the legalized murder of unborn children. Such Catholics reject the Church’s constant teaching throughout her history that abortion is a sin against God. Furthermore, they cannot claim invincible ignorance of the intrinsic evil of pre-natal murder, as we see in § 62c of The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae), promulgated by Pope John Paul II:
“I declare that direct abortion…always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being…. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself and proclaimed by the Church.”
Some will say that even though a politician is pro-abortion, his stance on other issues, such as war, capital punishment, hunger, social justice, the environment, etc. may provide a proportionate reason for voting for him. This is absolutely false. In the 1998 American Bishops’ document Living the Gospel of Life, § 23, they state:
“Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing and health care. Therefore, Catholics should eagerly involve themselves as advocates for the weak and marginalized in all these areas…. But being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding attacks on innocent human life.” (Emphasis in original.)
What are “Proportionate Reasons”?
To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong….
What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?
Certainly, policies on welfare, national security, war, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
In Humanae vitae,[2] Pope Paul VI taught the immorality to commit evil for a greater good:
“Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (See Rom 3. 8)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of (people), even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.
Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a 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.
There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life.
That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.
Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A), who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B), who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion, and candidate (C), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable. The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand. The Catholic can vote for candidate (C) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A). Therefore, the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B) is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances.
In the current election campaign, there is a clear choice between pro-life candidates and virulently pro-abortion candidates, whose rabid support of pre-natal murder disqualifies them from holding ANY public office. Catholics, no matter what their party affiliation, cannot in good conscience vote for a pro-abortion candidate. To do so is to put their immortal souls in grave danger.
[1] The Sanhedrin was an assembly of twenty-three or seventy-one rabbis appointed to sit as a tribunal in every city in the ancient Land of Israel.
[2] Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae, n. 14, Pope Paul VI, given at Rome, from Saint Peter’s, July 25, 1968, in the sixth year of his Pontificate.