Click here to download or listen! (24.5 min)
To download, right-click on the "6.0 MB" underneath the "Apple Lossless Audio" in the lower right corner of the link's page. To stream and listen, left-click that same "6.0 MB" link or the Play Arrow in the upper right corner.
The Catholic Church is not going to tell you for whom to vote. Nor does the Church want one-issue voters. But because of the principles talked about in the two previous homilies—the end doesn't justify the means & the principle of double effect—people of a moral mindset can nourish and inform their consciences to vote for the best workable scenario for a common good.
There are no perfect candidates, therefore all voting decisions come down to double effect, proportionality, and the principle of double effect.
 | |
|
There is no such thing as voting for "the lesser of two evils". No, we're voting for humans (or really, for scenarios that are configurations of many humans), and so we're voting for "the best of several imperfect goods".
Are there times when some goods issues trump others? You bet. Are there some issues that could balance out a candidate being "wrong on a big issue"? Maybe. For years people have pitted Cardinal Bernadin's "seamless garment" idea against the idea that some issues are more fundamental than others. Neither idea is wrong, you just need Cardinal Ratzinger to break it down right. He nails it; he knows his rules of double effect. He is kind of smart, you know.
[Update: I should certainly give credit for what is not entirely my own. An astute parishioner brought up the "seamless garment" topic after hearing the homily, and I thought it was a perfect item to emphasize not only what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, but to show continuity—if distinction—in thought.]
This isn't just about the Presidency. Lots of times the key races are the "small races". Much hangs in the balance with governors and representatives, senators and regents. Parties are as crucial as policies here, and it's all tied to together in the messy world of proportionality and prudence.
Educate yourself; challenge yourself. The Church's thinking on this stuff is subtle and weighty and complex. Don't let your thinking be anything less.
[Update] Here are the actual texts from the 2004 Ratzinger-to-McCarrick letter: #6 and its footnote, and #3. Whole text available here.
6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
Nota Bene: 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 favour 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. (Emphasis added.)
3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
