A casual reader of Barbara Kralis' article (below) might conclude that the difference between Bush and Kerry on abortion is less than enormous, that President Bush flip-flops on abortion, and that Senator Kerry is trying to "limit the harm" from abortion, albeit not as much as the President.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, knows what is and is not gravely sinful.
 
To assist the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to cope with the problem of pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians and their penchant for pretending to be fit to receive Holy Communion, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a brief memorandum for Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the head of the task force tasked with dealing with the problem, and Bishop Wilton Gregory, the president of the Conference.
 
The entire memorandum was NOT shared with the other bishops at their last meeting, but this terse note received Cardinal McCarrick's approval and was publicized:

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. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour 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.

The terseness of Cardinal Ratzinger's note has proven problematic and has been exploited by the spreading of misinformation and the sowing of confusion by opportunistic Kerry supporters who want faithful Catholics to refrain from voting for President Bush, because he accepts abortion in limited circumstances, even though President Bush would limit abortion greatly and their candidate Kerry, posterboy of NARAL and Planned Parenthood, would not limit it.
 
The misinformation must be corrected and the confusion must be dispelled as soon as possible among both the good and the bad.
 
Barbara Kralis described the problem perfectly: "Faithful Catholics, not purposely, confuse the teaching 'proportionate reason' as being against the teachings supporting ‘Life,’" and "unfaithful Catholics bamboozle this teaching as carte blanche to do evil for an evil gain." 
 
Bishop Robert J. Carlson of Sioux Falls, South Dakota helpfully offered this more readily understandable elaboration of Cardinal Ratzinger's note:

If one had a properly formed conscience admitting the grave evil of abortion and euthanasia, as the Church teaches, and does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and euthanasia, but votes for the candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation which can be permitted, Cardinal Ratzinger states, if proportionate reasons are present, e.g., the candidate would limit abortions.

Nevertheless, manipulative, malevolent Kerry supporters in the Church and the media have been shamelessly and sinfully misusing Cardinal Ratzinger's note as permission to vote for Senator Kerry instead of President Bush.
 
Their predictable, perverse, patently political-driven claim is as unworthy of belief as Dan Rather's forged documents and perhaps as easily exposed by those who take the time to examine it against established Church teaching.

No matter how often or how loudly Kerryites assert their Big Lie, a faithful Catholic may NOT justify voting for Senator Kerry based on Senator Kerry's opposition (from time to time) to President Bush's Iraq policy by claiming that is a "proportionate reason" to vote for the ardently pro-abortion Kerry.
 
Father Robert J. McClory of the Archdiocese of Detroit stated that Cardinal Ratzinger's note was "much more nuanced" than Kerryites claim.  He said:  "Suffice it to say that 'proportionate reasons' go far beyond simply 'agreeing with the candidate's other stands.'"

Father Stephen Torraco, theology department chairman at Assumption College in Worcester, Massachussetts, explained that the term "proportionate" has a very specific meaning within Catholic moral theology and that "proportionate reasons" for voting for a pro-abortion candidate would have to be limited to stopping other intrinsically evil acts similar to abortion. Even a candidate's support for capital punishment or war could not be used to justify voting for a pro-abortion candidate, he said, because neither of those things are intrinsically immoral according to Catholic teaching.
 
Bishop Rene Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, clarified what "proportionate reasons" means in the context of the upcoming presidential election:

There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life.  That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not. 

Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable. 

The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand. 

The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).  Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand.  In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances.

Pope John Paul II himself endorsed pragmatism designed to reduce harm, as follows:

…When it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality.  This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

Ms. Kralis tried to limit the harm done by MISusing "proportionate reasons," in her article entitled "Limiting the harm using proportionate reasons," posted at Catholic Online.

Ms. Kralis noted that "[t]he accusing group consists of secular and Catholic media, faithful Catholics and dissenting Catholics….accuses [Cardinal] Ratzinger and [Archbishop Raymond] Burke [of St. Louis] of watering down the Church’s infallible teachings on abortion in order to get a pro-abortion candidate elected in the United States.

Ms. Kralis rightly reported that "[m]any confused persons wrongly accused [Archbishop] Burke of flip-flopping on abortion."

And Ms. Kralis rightly noted that "this traditional Church teaching of ‘proportionate reason'" receiving attention "is not necessarily confusing but is certainly confused by many" and "[s]ome perhaps confuse it purposely, with expectation of a great pro-abortion political victory this November."

Unfortunately, in properly pointing out that President Bush is not "100% pro life" despite "his pro-life efforts and legislation," Ms. Kralis may have sowed some confusion herself by describing President Bush as "pro-life only some of the time, not most of the time" and relating that "[o]n the 2000 campaign trail, Bush said he did not think Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that good people can disagree on this issue," and "[a]s Governor of Texas, he did appoint pro-abortion judges." 

Ms. Kralis conceded that, "Bush is certainly not promoting procured abortion for all women or for all reasons," and "has attempted several noteworthy legislations to limit the number of abortions, perhaps as no other President before him." 

But Ms. Kralis then commented that "Bush is trying to ‘limit the harm’ more than his opponent…."

A casual reader of Ms. Kralis' article might erroneously conclude that the difference between President Bush and Senator Kerry on abortion is less than enormous, that President Bush flip-flops on abortion (instead of consistently favoring exceptions for rape and incest and refusing to use a litmus test in making judicial appointments), and that Senator Kerry IS trying to "limit the harm" from abortion, albeit not as much as President.

Each of those conclusions would be wrong.

On March 12, 2004, Kerry for President issued a press release complaining that "[a]t a UNESCAP meeting in Bangkok, Thailand in 2002, the U.S. delegation fought to change language in a landmark international reproductive health care agreement and advanced a position that life begins at conception."

Catholic News Service now acknowledges that there is no issue on which the distinction between Bush and Kerry is clearer than abortion.

It credits President Bush with signing the partial-birth abortion ban and defending it in court; signing the Born Alive Infants Protection Act; reinstating the ban on the use of United States foreign aid to promote abortion in other countries; refusing to fund the United Nations Population Fund; and nominating pro-life federal judges.

Kerry, on the other hand, it notes, voted against the partial-birth abortion ban six times; co-sponsored the proposed Freedom of Choice Act in an attempt to stop states from applying restrictions on abortion; opposed parental involvement in the abortion decisions of their own minor children; pledged to end the ban on the use of United States foreign aid to support abortion in other countries; and declared that he would only nominate abortion supporters to the United States Supreme Court so that women will continue to have a legal "right to choose" to abort their unborn babies.

Ms. Kralis acknowledged that a "proportionate reason" could apply to justify a vote for President Bush, that being that President Bush "would limit the harm" from abortion, but then inexplicably added that "[t]he good that Bush would do would far outweigh any evil that Kerry would do."

In fact, President Bush will do much more good than harm, Kerry will do much more harm than good, and the good that President Bush will do will far outweigh any GOOD that Kerry would do.

As for any who thinks Kerry IS working to limit abortion, the information listed on Kerry Wrong for Catholics.com is simply overwhelming.