Following is a letter from Dr. James Likoudis, president emeritus of "Catholics United for the Faith", to the Editor of The Wanderer' Forum, answering Mr. Edward A. Hummel, who wrote an opinion letter to the same Forum's column, asserting a very rigid interpretation of Catholic Doctrine regarding voting issues.

Mr. Hummel's letter reads in part as follows:

I believe it is important to add that in matters involving moral absolutes, e.g., abortion, euthanasia, human embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, homosexual acts, we may never vote for the lesser of two evils. Each is so intrinsically evil that we cannot be complicit in the admissibility of even one act. Let's visit a bit of Church teaching:

• "There are acts, which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object... One may not do evil so that good may result from it" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1756).
• "Circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act subjectively good or defensible as a choice" (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81).

We cannot aid and abet evil and simultaneously claim to be doing good. The lesser of two evils approach has left us with an increasingly lengthy list of moral evils. Ours is to remain faithful in our voting and entrust the Holy Spirit with ultimate success.

Dr. James Likoudis answers as follows:

(Editor's Note: James Likoudis, president emeritus of Catholics United for the Faith, has written a response to the above letter, at the request of Dr. von Hildebrand.)

THE WANDERER' "FORUM"

Dear Editor:

We admire Edward Hummel's defense of the moral law and the existence of intrinsic moral evils that can never be permitted. However, his understanding of the natural law with respect to voting choices is not correct.

Hummel interprets Evangelium Vitae (n. 73) as permitting an elected official to "licitly support proposals limiting the harm done by [say, abortion]," but not permitting a voter to support it. This is unreasonable since it would make no sense for an elected official to propose a law such that no one ought to vote for it! He is also unaware of a statement issued in 2004 by the then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which declared that not only are politicians and voters who support abortion or any other intrinsic moral evil guilty of formal cooperation in evil, but that voters are likewise guilty if they deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's support for abortion or other intrinsic moral evils (euthanasia, "same-sex marriage," and so on).

What happens, though, when the pro-life voter is confronted by moral dilemmas involving a hierarchy of evils? For there is a hierarchy of evils. What should a voter do when one candidate (as mentioned in Dr. von Hildebrand's article) is "passionately for both abortion and homosexual marriages and the other strongly opposes abortion but favors homosexual marriages"? In Hummel's view, the Catholic should not vote for either and thus fail in his obligation as a Catholic and a citizen to cast a vote for the common good. He might cast a write-in vote, but that would be ordinarily useless.

As moral theologian Dr. William May observed:

"Permitting evil, is not choosing it. [Deliberately] choosing evil can never be justified; permitting evil, while obviously not always justified, can sometimes be justified".
(Catholic Sexual Ethics, second edition, p. 94)

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

"When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion, etc., but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

It is the matter of "proportionate reasons" that qualifies Hummel's view that "we may never vote for the lesser of two evils."

Thus, in the case, only too common today, where the voter is confronted with a choice between two candidates, both of whom support abortion or euthanasia, or human cloning, or homosexual acts, a Catholic may vote for the one who is less pro-abortion, etc. As mentioned previously, it is necessary that the voter does not personally agree with any of the moral evils supported by a candidate (for that would involve formal cooperation in evil). But in voting for the candidate who constitutes the lesser evil, one is not voting in support of the evil "per se" but to prevent the election of a candidate who is calculated to do more harm to the moral fabric of society.

A vote for an imperfect candidate is primarily a vote against a disastrous one.

 

---