Dear Charles:

I think it is worthwhile to publish the entire Memorandum of the Cardinal here on this forum. There will be some additional comments after the article (sentences in bold are my emphasis):

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles
by Joseph Ratzinger

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2000], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

[N.B. 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.]

This last note states that a person who votes for a pro-abortion candidate on purpose because of the candidates stand on abortion would be an accomplice to sin and thus barred from the Sacrament.

The second situation where a person disagrees with a pro-abortion candidate but votes for him anyway due to other issues is guided by the principle of proportionate reasons.

We need to carefully understand what the Principle of Proportionate Reasons means and how it relates to this upcoming election.

If you will indulge me, for purposes of continuity, I will copy your quotes from the bishops about "proportionate reasons".

Cardinal Burke from St Louis states "What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? And I just leave that to you as a question. That's the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason?" and also “It would-- theoretically-- be justifiable to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, if the candidate's opponent supported a policy as clearly, gravely wrong as the deliberate slaughter of innocent children. But there is no comparably evil policy-- no proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate."

Bishop Gracida states :… “What kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion?"

Bishop Gracida explains that a candidate’s position on war, taxes, health issues, immigration, etc., can in no way be considered “proportionate reason” to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate that supports abortion.

Although the good bishops cannot think of any proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, I can think of one example.

If the candidates for President was John Kerry who is pro-abortion and Adolph Hitler who, for purposes of this illustration is anti-abortion but still the way he was otherwise, the Principle of Proportional Reason would justify voting for John Kerry.

Since George Bush is not a Hitler, Stalin, or other evil incarnate genocidal maniac, Proportional Reason cannot apply to justify voting for a pro-abortion candidate.

"Real" Catholics Unite!

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary

P.S. And just in case some wise guy tries to assert that Bush is liken to Hitler or Stalin because of the Iraqi war and the war crimes committed by some, all I can say is, "you'd be an idiot" and please don't come to this website again. :)