A Thoughtful Response

An MOJ reader, Chuck Roth, offered this thoughtful response to the question in my last post:

I suspect that "Bush's offenses to Catholic values are proportionately greater" than Mr. Kerry's, and I agree that this is a necessary question for many - but I would submit that before we get there, one or two other questions should be raised.

I understand the analysis of Professors Bradley and George (following Cardinal Ratzinger) to be: (1) material cooperation with evil is permitted only if there are proportionate reasons for it, (2) voting for a pro-choice candidate is material cooperation with evil, and (3) there are not sufficienty grave reasons to vote for Kerry.

But (1) this analysis only gets us halfway; it stops after analyzing Kerry, never asking whether a vote for Pres. Bush is also material cooperation with evil, and (2) it contains an implicit presupposition that one need vote for either Kerry or Bush. Solid pro-lifers such as Alisdair MacIntyre and Mark Noll point out that refusing to vote for either is also a viable choice.

I understand the argument to be that abortion is very grave matter, and that things like the environment, how to help the poor, and when to wage war, do not clearly implicate grave matter. From which it seems to follow that one is obliged not to vote against Kerry, but not obliged to vote against Bush.

I see two flaws with this analysis. First, even if a vote for Bush is not categorically problematic, it may be problematic under current circumstances. I don't see that one could be obligated to affirmatively vote for a candidate who supports any evil - even if his opponent supports grave evils such that one is obligated not to vote for him, either. The natural Christian response would be to abstain from cooperation with any evils, unless grave reasons exist for it. So even as to the "soft" social justice issues (e.g., poverty, immigration, environment), this could justify a decision not to vote for Bush.

Second, I do think that the Bush Administration has supported evils which are categorically classified as grave matter, such that a proportionate reason would need to be given for a vote for Mr. Bush. In that category, I would include (1) the wilful use of torture, as a policy of state, and (2) Aggressive War. I'm not necessarily talking about Abu Gharaib, but I would include both our not-so-secret policy of "rendition" of suspects to friendly countries who use torture as an interrogation tool, and the apparent use of torture by the CIA. "Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity." Catechism para 2297.

Regarding the waging of war, I agree that an error in judgment is not grave matter; but an error in underlying principles (departing from Just War principles) may well be. If one, for example, advocated aggressive wars for the purpose of conquering a foreign country to take their gold and silver, this would seem to be not merely an error of application, but a theologically erroneous view. The "preemptive war" concept isn't per se a violation of Just War theory; but it sure looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. For instance, one of the reasons I heard given for invading Iraq was that it would give the US political capital which it could use to resolve the Palestinian conflict. This would imply that an unjust war might reasonably be started in order to obtain political advantage - which is hard to distinguish from the aggressive war concept. It might be reasonable for non-Christians, but our moral obligations preclude a purely ends-based policy. It is my conclusion that the
current conflict in Iraq results directly from the rejection of Just War teaching, and that this is gravely evil (even if individual culpability is less than total).

Both a rejection of Just War theory and the intentional use of torture lend themselves to the sort of categorical denunciation which can also be applied to abortion; if one agrees that these two areas involve grave matter, it follows that one could vote for Bush only for grave reasons. One could respond that the grave reason is the need to protect life; fair enough. But then one must consider alternatives, likelihood of success, and whether the evils committed as a result are less evil or less important than the evils which will follow from a Kerry Administration, coupled with a pro-life Senate.


Finally, please allow me to add a caveat which I've not seen elsewhere. I happen to live in a "blue" state. I know to a moral certainty that Illinois will not be won by Bush. I therefore find myself in a circumstance where I know to a moral certainty that there is no true need for me to vote for either candidate. I suppose a Kantian might disagree, but it seems to me that if I have an obligation not to vote for either candidate except for grave reasons, and if there's really no effect of a vote either way, there is no grave reason for me to vote for either candidate. Hence, my analysis stops there.

Nevertheless, the question you propose is very proper, for those living in Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Michigan, etc. I find it unnecessary to answer it for myself, but I look forward to seeing what others can say on this point.

- Mark