given proportional reasons is open to interpretation, it...
it is not wrong for catholics to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate
con has taken it upon himself to define what proportinoate reasons means, on behalf of the catholic church. given it wasn't defined, it is more open to interpretation. and, the quoted part where ratzinger said a catholic can't vote for a prochoice person because they are prochoice, was irrelevant to this situation.... the people are voting for them in spite of their prochoice stance. given proportional reasons is open to interpretation, it would make common sense to say if nothing is going to change to vote for a candidate, that you don't have to vote on that issue. a common issue presented back in the days of that quote, was torture. eg A is prolife but protorture, an intrinsic evil. B is prochoice but not protorture. the abortion issue won't change as a practical matter in this hypothetical. torture is pivotal on who wins. everything else is the same issue wise. how is it not proportionate to vote for B given torture has a chance of changing? it is proportionate. anything else would be to read an agenda into the pope's words.