In approaching the intersection between Orthodoxy and voting, it is vital to distinguish between a political personality and a political platform. In a Republic we do not vote for a personality as much as we vote for a platform. To get lost in personality in regards to political advocacy is a cul de sac.
That being said, if a platform explicitly and directly advocates sin, such as the sin of legalized and even federally funded abortion, then to vote in favor of that platform is to endorse and even participate in that sin, and therefore to be guilty of it. This kind of situation is a deal-breaker for an Orthodox Christian. A Christian cannot guiltlessly vote for a platform whose substance includes the explicit advocacy of sin.
The foregoing is different from a situation in which a platform does not advocate some sin, but where some sin may seek to attach itself as a consequence of that platform's position. For the sin which may be consequent to that platform is not necessary to the platform itself. Although the sin may be a result of that platform at the moment, it can be corrected because it is not necessary to the platform itself.
If the position of abortion is a direct platform position of some Party, then it is a deal-breaker for an Orthodox Christian. That does not necessitate a vote for any other Party if that Party also has a Platform for direct advocacy of sin, but it does at minimum remove that other Party with a Platform sin from legitimate consideration for an Orthodox Christian.
At this point a confusion may arise, for it could be the case that, say, the Liberal Party has a better policy than the Conservative Party on some important issue, such as access to medical care. Let's say hypothetically this is the case. Now, the Conservative Party does not have a platform position which programmatically denies healthcare to anyone, but perhaps makes it difficult for some people to receive healthcare as an amenable consequence of their position. In other words, the Conservative Platform does not aim to legalize medical discrimination, even if it could happen that medical discrimination might occur as a result of their policy. If in fact this discrimination was the result, then it would be perfectly consistent with their Platform to also try to solve that or any problem created by their policies.
On the other hand, the Liberal Party has a direct aim to legalize the slaying of unborn children. Therefore, abortion is not an accident, not an unintended consequence of their policy, but a directly intended outcome. Thus, even though they may hypothetically have a better position re: access to medical care, their direct advocacy of abortion makes one voting for them for the sake of medical care yet complicit in every abortion that results from their larger platform.
It therefore does not matter if they have a better policy as regards health care. Infanticide is a sin, whereas voting for imperfect healthcare policies that can be amended through further development is not a sin because one is not voting for the unintended consequences of that policy. One can only be held responsible for what the platform directly and explicitly advocates. Although one is not thereby compelled to vote Conservative because of that fact, it would seem that since no Conservative policy directly advocates for medical discrimination, then voting Conservatively in this instance would not be the advocacy of any sin. Voting for the Liberal Party and its abortionistic Liberal Platform, however, certainly leaves the blood of dead infants on one's hands.
-Fr. Joshua Schooping
No comments:
Post a Comment