args

it is not wrong for catholics to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate

Although my opponent did not offer a source for the quote she used, I figured I should still respond to the quote so I can clear up the confusion my opponent seems to be having. She quotes then Cardinal Razinger as saying, "When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor 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." My opponent seems to think that the Catholic Church says it's ok for its members to vote for a pro-choice candidate as long as the voter has other reasons other than the abortion issue. THIS IS NOT TRUE. The key phrase is "proportionate reasons". In this context, "proportionate reasons" basically means "of equal value". "We thus might ask: What kind of reasons could there be to vote for a pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia politician? Here is a clear case: Suppose that in a given election either Candidate A or Candidate B is morally certain to win, but it is not clear which will win. Candidate A"s only policy is that he supports abortion, while Candidate B has two policies: He supports both abortion and euthanasia. In this case, more harm will be done to society by the election of Candidate B, and so based on principles touched on by John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae 73, one may cast one"s vote in such a way as to limit the harm done to society." [2] At any rate, in our current political climate, there has never been a presidential election where both candidates were pro-choice, so my opponent's claims that "proportionate reasons" exist is just wrong. And since proportionate reasons don't exist in the current political climate, the resolution has been proven false. Finally, my opponent said, "voting for a prochoice candidate despite them being prochoice is not engaging in propaganda for that law. and is not voting for it, it's voting in spite of it."the quote by con is irrelevant. and con hasn't even engaged my reasoning about how voting for a prolife candidate likely won't change anything anyway." My response: That's not what then Cardinal Ratzinger said. He said, "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," Sounds like the then Cardinal Ratzinger says voting for such a person would be a problem for a Catholic. And whether or not things "likely won't change" is irrelevant to this debate. We're not debating that. We're debating whether or not the Catholic Church is ok with its members voting pro-choice. Sources: 2.http://jimmyakin.com...