The following is a Letter to the Editor written by Michael McGonagle, which was submitted to the Philadelphia Inquirer on Monday, October 5th.
As a leader in the effort to persuade Catholics of the moral
unacceptability of voting for Joe Biden or other pro-abortion candidates, I
offer a logical argument and an historical analogy to critique Karl Miller’s
September 30th Commentary that argued such votes can be moral. I
believe that we agree that if A pays B to unjustly kill C, A is equally
morally culpable as B. Also, if A provides funds to B with the knowledge
that B will use some of those funds to pay C to unjustly kill D, then A’s
behavior is also immoral.
Biden has pledged to use federal funds to pay
abortionists to kill children in the womb. Thus, Catholics who, with this
knowledge, vote for Biden become morally culpable for this killing.
The substitution of “slavery” for “abortion” demonstrates the moral failing
of Karl Miller’s “other issues” diversions. He would disqualify a candidate
from his vote, even if he totally agreed with that candidate on the “other
issues” that he mentions, if that candidate supported a “right to choose” to
enslave Black Americans. Abortion and slavery share the common
premise that one human being may legally and morally be the property of
another human being. Miller’s claim to support “the sanctity of all human
life from conception to natural death” becomes highly dubious.
Miller’s analysis contradicts the teachings of Pa.’s Bishops, who have
repeatedly proclaimed, “The protection of human life from conception until
natural death is the preeminent obligation of a truly just society.”
Nevertheless, I agree with him that Philadelphia Archbishop Nelson Pérez
needs to publicly address this issue of the moral acceptability of Catholics
voting for pro-abortion candidates.