Dear George,

We see the world so differently. Nevertheless, I have great respect for the truly good person you are.

I will first respond to your statements and then discuss our different view of the world.

1. You say, “an absolute priority must be given to preventing intrinsic evils.” Priority means a preferential treatment. Priority or preferential treatment implies that there are other considerations over which intrinsic evil is given priority. It appears to me through our discussion that you do not mean preferential treatment—you mean exclusive treatment. But I must ask you, is that what you mean?

2. Now, regarding the Hitler metaphor. I would under no circumstance vote for
Hitler. He as a whole person can only be considered evil in his manner of
justifying what he had to know was truly evil, that is, the slaughter of the Jews, the priests, and the good people that disagreed with him. So he could not be counted on to do any good. He could not have been following his conscience.

But conversely, consider a pro-choice candidate. He/she can be a totally good
person--however much we disagree with that person’s belief system. Consider the following examples: 1. A pro-choice candidate can believe a fetus is not a human person with a soul. 2. A person, though believing himself that abortion is wrong, might believe that truth cannot be absolutely known. Therefore, if truth cannot be absolutely known, one would commit an egregious error forcing one’s belief on others. Such a person looks at the errors others have made such as in the inquisition. In the inquisition people were burned at the stake because the inquisitors believed they had the absolute truth, which had to be absolutely defended. 3. Or a person taking the oath of office to follow the constitution of the United States would believe he had taken a sacred oath not to force one person’s religion on another. Each person decides one’s own conscience and must act accordingly.

On the other hand, you and I have faith that the fetus is fully human and abortion is murder. Thus we must fight almightily to save those humans. We believe that as a nation we stop murderers. Thus, we ask, how are abortions any different? Abortion is murder. So each of us from our own belief system arrive at different conclusions regarding legislation. But that does not make the person who believes differently than us deserve to be likened to Hitler. That person is following his conscience. Our church believes that, in the final analysis, we must follow, rightly or wrongly, what our informed conscience dictates. St. Peter would open the gates of heaven to such a soul-searching candidate. Unlike Hitler, such a pro-choice candidate could be trusted to be a good, possibly even holy person working to help others.

3. Regarding our other discussion about the inference of the Bishop's statement
"When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious
voter faces a dilemma." If you read this statement in context, the next statement is "The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods." Isn't the dilemma in this passage specifically relating to a certain person to decide to vote or not to vote? The dilemma is for a conscientious person like yourself for whom abortion is the "absolute priority" to try to decide whether or not to vote. That’s the specific dilemma for people like yourself, is it not? This passage only addresses if both candidates positions favor an intrinsic evil. The dilemma is very specific. It applies to the dilemma of a particular kind of individual and the choice he must make to vote or not vote. You are reading into the passage what is not there. You add to the statement suggesting that there would not be a dilemma if one candidate does not favor an intrinsic evil. You say you would necessarily vote for the one who does not favor an intrinsic evil thus no dilemma. You’ve gone beyond what the bishops say in the passage. They wouldn’t have hinted that there is no dilemma if one was pro-choice and one is pro-life. They would have said it. The bishops never say you cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate even if one of the candidates is pro-life.

4. Now regarding our different view of the world. You see the murder of the pre-born by the red shirt theory. The value to you of the lives of the unborn is priceless in comparison to ??? the suffering and death of the people of the world (which includes the pre-born)? I believe that is what you are saying. For me, no single segment of humanity can be more important to me than all the people of God. I think this view is where we differ.

Do we have a different view of the grand suffering of people through out the world? Whenever you write you do not express much concern for “feeding the poor/caring for the environment/stopping a questionable war,” as you put it. Do you see the suffering of the world casually? Perhaps you see troubled others, as for example, some people do when talking about welfare. Some believe that people need to take care of themselves. Such a view could certainly account for our different worldview. You see the red shirt metaphor as just applying to abortion. I see caring about life from birth to death, which the bishops speak of in their document, as deserving of my greatest respect and action.

Perhaps this is the great divide between our conclusions. That is, we view the world’s need differently. I think it needs more care. Do you believe it needs less care? I read where you say you care for the needs of other. But it seems when it comes to voting, you are exclusionary considering only the hope you can do something to prevent abortions by choosing a candidate who professes to be pro-life..

4. The second way we seem to be unable to agree seems to me to be your sole focus on the words “intrinsic evil, and the absolute priority which you give these words.

For the sake of understanding, are you saying regardless of all other considerations if there were to be only one abortion of a pre-born, your position is absolute. You would not vote for a pro-choice candidate even if there would be only one abortion during his tenure in office?

5. How much can be accomplished? Are there better ways to accomplish the reductions in abortion than trying to get judges to change Roe v. Wade such as reducing poverty which is a large cause of abortions? Even pro-life appointed judges, such as Scalia, believe that once appointed they must honorably interpret the constitution wherever logically that leads them. Pro-life judges have been appointed and little progress is made. Abortions continue in their great numbers and all the other Christian concerns are left in the dust. If the intrinsic evil is not corrected by voting for a pro-life candidate, what’s the purpose? What about the commandment of Jesus to care for our fellow man? Does this commandment fall by the wayside because of some vague hope to change a law?

Where does it say that pre-born humans have absolute rights over all other humanity?

5. Now to a side discussion, how some in the church lost Christ’ message to care for one another. The bishops were driven to emphasize the protection of the unborn. Strong language was needed. Tremendous education went forward to protect the unborn. Rightly so. Then this focus got caught up in politics. It was an issue that people could unite over. Who isn’t horrified by the murder of millions of unborn innocents? Then somehow Jesus message to care for all of life was lost for a segment of Catholics.

Reread the bishop’s document. The message is clearly there. The second wrong temptation is to choose a pro-life candidate to protect innocent human life, and in doing so to dismiss other serious threats to human life and dignity. The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic goods that every human person needs to live and thrive. This is Christianity.

There are some bishops who like yourself see no other issue than abortion. I believe the document came out with words that allowed bishops like our bishop who sees abortion as the only issue to be able to vote for the document. I believe the hope was to obtain a unanimous vote for the document, which they did. But the absolute necessity to care about human life from conception to death is equally there, in the document, if one is not closed to finding those passages. The document clearly states to avoid the temptation to choose a pro-life candidate to protect innocent human life, and in doing so to dismiss other serious threats to human life and dignity. The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic goods that every human person needs to live and thrive.

Thank you for your continuing discussion. Your position is the same as my dear brother who lives the very essence of his life defending the same position as you.