(LifeSiteNews) — Around 15 years ago, my late father and I attended a local Lenten parish mission on the four last things: Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell given by a visiting traditional, ascetical and forthright priest.
For his Wednesday evening session, he preached on the hard, clear reality of the pains of hell and provided a refined examination of conscience for the congregation. It was so fiery that some in the suburban church became offended and it caused a stir of controversy in the parish, encouraging much debate and discussion on these most important topics.
But my father, Tom Delaney, who was born in 1940, had only one brief observation, saying, “I wasn’t scandalized, offended or surprised at all” by the presentation. “When I was a boy, all the priests preached like that.”
And, of course, such preaching from the Church’s pastors instilling the fear of hell in their congregants coincided with a society that largely enjoyed Christian moral norms, including the understanding of the sanctity of human life in the womb.
But this is no longer the case.
With over 1.1 million preborn girls and boys in the womb being directly killed each year by surgical abortion in the United States alone, there may be an even more dangerous evil emanating from these moral crimes.
Radical pro-abortion state constitutional amendments, such as one coming up this November in Virginia, extend the evil of direct complicity with abortion to millions of voters across the nation where their casting a vote in favor of such a measure — unlike a mere vote for a candidate — squarely brands them with the guilt of a mortal sin.
Casting a ballot for a candidate may be a permissible ‘remote’ cooperation with evil
Voting is always an important moral responsibility that requires all people of good will to properly form their conscience regarding the non-negotiable ethical principles that must always be recognized and honored as necessary for the common good. Most fundamental to these is the inherent human right to life that proceeds from the very nature of every human being.
When considering candidates for office, however, there may be some prudential weighing of goods based on multiple factors, including what one expects may reasonably be legislative, policy or other outcomes from their exercising the power of that particular office. It may even be morally permissible to vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of legal preborn child killing in “exceptional” cases so long as there are other proportionate, that is, morally grave reasons to do so, such as to avoid the election of a candidate who wishes to zealously expand this deadly practice of abortion.
Such a vote may be considered a morally permissible “remote material cooperation” with the candidate’s intrinsically evil acceptance of abortion in these “exceptional” cases. And should this candidate, while in office, act as a legislator to advance these or other unforeseen intrinsically evil policies in law, the guilt for such a sin will be imputed to their conscience but not that of the citizen who voted for them, presuming he or she does not support any such evil.
With amendments, voters become legislators, proximate cooperators with grave evil
However, unlike the typical case of voting for candidates where voters may in fact be guiltless for intrinsically evil legislation enacted by these office holders they supported, this is not the case for those who vote to ratify radical pro-abortion state constitutional amendments such as the so-called “Fundamental right to reproductive freedom” measure up for a vote on November 3 in Virginia.
In this case, the voters themselves become legislators, who in voting “Yes” will be willing the enactment of every word of this amendment along with its insertion into the highest law of their state.
If passed, this abortion amendment will establish in the Virginia Constitution a “right” to surgical abortions, abortion pills, contraception, and fertility “treatments” such as embryo-destructive in vitro fertilization (IVF).
“The extreme abortion amendment, which will proceed to a referendum for voters to decide later this year, would go far beyond even what Roe v. Wade previously allowed,” Bishops Michael Burbidge of Arlington and Barry Knestout of Richmond wrote in a January statement. “It would enshrine virtually unlimited abortion at any stage of pregnancy, with no age restriction.”
READ: Virginia bishops vow to ‘fight’ radical pro-abortion amendment with ‘maximum determination’
The prelates warned the measure “would severely jeopardize Virginia’s parental consent law, health and safety standards for women, conscience protections for healthcare providers, and restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions.”
Such cooperation a mortal sin that will cause unrepentant souls to ‘descend into hell’
Simply based on the natural moral law, the Catholic Church has always affirmed that anyone directly involved in lawmaking has “a ‘grave and clear obligation to oppose’ any law that attacks human life.” This is the case for people of all backgrounds and religions, including every Catholic.
Therefore, as is clear, voting in favor of this abortion measure in Virginia—which the voter has a “grave and clear obligation to oppose”—constitutes an objectively grave moral offense. If done with sufficient knowledge and freedom, this equates to what Christian Tradition refers to as a mortal sin that merits eternal separation from God. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
Of course, individual culpability may depend upon the knowledge of the voter and their freedom as a result of sufficient access to such moral teaching or their failure to adequately inform themselves when they otherwise could have. In other words, if a voter has an insufficient understanding of the gravity of voting for this radical abortion amendment, moral culpability may be mitigated.
In battling evils of amendment, might the Church want to emphasize this crucial and dangerous reality?
However, given the grave and eternal dangers this referendum presents to millions of souls in Virginia, and the laissez-faire inertia of the population having, for all practical purposes, become largely indifferent to the absolute horror of abortion, might it serve the cause of life, and eternal life, for the Church to, at this time, reemphasize the dangers of hell being presented to Virginia voters in November?
For my part, I would humbly submit for the consideration of wiser men than me, our dear bishops and priests, that such an approach may be advisable as part of the broad catechesis on this issue within the Church’s efforts to oppose these radical pro-abortion measures and even more importantly advance the cause of eternal salvation to all of those — Catholics and non-Catholics — that God has put under their charge.
Patrick Delaney is a Wisconsin based journalist for LifeSiteNews. He holds two master’s degrees in sacred theology, one with an emphasis in moral theology. Prior to joining LifeSite, Patrick served for over 17 years in Catholic education as an instructor of Catholic doctrine and a Director of Evangelization and Catechesis at the diocesan level.