Not giving an inch to reporters who err about church teaching
"After the 2004 election, progressive Catholics started to organize and appeared to win some victories. In 2006, the bishops’ conference all but banned outside voter guides from parishes. And last fall, the bishops revised their official statement on voting priorities to explicitly allow Catholics to vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights if they do so for other reasons. And it also allowed for differences of opinion about how to apply church principles. The statement appeared to leave room for Democrats to argue that social programs were an effective way to reduce abortion rates, an idea the party recently incorporated into its platform." (underlining mine)That Catholics may vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights simply "for other reasons" is simply untrue. In fact, they may only do so under certain circumstances, for truly grave moral reasons. In fact, the clear move in recent voting guides has been towards placing a greater emphasis on the gravity with which one must decide to vote for a pro-abort politician, not the reverse (as the article claims).
Today the NYT published a letter to the editor penned by Bishops William Murphy and Nicholas DiMarzio:
Keep it up. Keep. It. Up!
Actually, the bishops said candidates who promote fundamental moral evils such as abortion are cooperating in a grave evil, and Catholics may never vote for them to advance those evils.
A Catholic voter’s decision to support a candidate despite that gravely immoral position “would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.”
This standard of “grave moral reasons” is a very high standard to meet. The bishops added that “a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.”