(Entire letter to be found here)
Prudential Judgments on Social Policy:
In some moral matters the use of reason allows for a legitimate diversity in our prudential judgments. Catholic voters may differ, for example, on what constitutes the best immigration policy, how to provide universal health care, or affordable housing. Catholics may even have differing judgments on the state's use of the death penalty or the decision to wage a just war. The morality of such questions lies not in what is done (the moral object) but in the motive and circumstances. Therefore, because these prudential judgments do not involve a direct choice of something evil and take into consideration carious goods, it is possible for Catholic voters to arrive at different , even opposing judgments.
Not withstanding a possible diversity of prudential judgments, each of us should guide our decision making on such issues by a fundamental respect for the dignity of every human person from the moment of conception to natural death. This is a non-negotiable principle. It is the foundation for both Catholic social teaching and of a just society. (There is more written on this, again for all the details you can go to the complete article here.)
Good and Evil in the above mentioned issues can be determined by the use of right reason. While it is true that the Church's teaching on these matters is clarified and strengthened by the light of the Gospel, throughout history persons of good will have understood these truths from reason alone, independent of faith.
Their letter continues:
Judgments Concerning MORAL EVILS:
A correct conscience recognized that there are some choices that always involve doing evil and which can never be done even as a means to a good end. These choices include elective abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, the destruction of embryonic human beings in stem cell research, human cloning and same-sex "marriage." Such acts are judged to be intrinsically evil, that is, evil in and of themselves, regardless of our motives or the circumstances. They constitute an attack against the innocent human life, as as marriage and family.
More details are written regarding this and it is finally summed up as follows:
Concerning choices that are intrinsically evil, Catholics may not promote or even remain indifferent to them.
A Conscientious Voter's Dilemma:
In light of the above, it is a correct judgment of conscience that we would commit moral evil if we were to vote for a candidate who takes a permissive stand on those actions that intrinsically evil when there is a morally-acceptable alternative. What are we to do, though, when there is no such alternative?
Because we have a moral obligation to vote, deciding not to vote at all is not ordinarily an acceptable solution to this dilemma. So, when there is no choice of a candidate that avoids supporting intrinsically evil actions, especially elective abortion, we should vote in such a way as to allow the least harm to innocent life and dignity. We would not be acting immorally therefore if we were to vote for a candidate who is not totally acceptable in order to defeat one who poses an even greater threat to human life and dignity.
Again - if you wish to read the whole letter in detail please click here.
If anyone has any doubts as to Obama's position on abortion please click here and here.
Please feel free to link here or better yet to the actual letter on your blog. It just doesn't get any more clear than this letter - does it?