Continuation of My Reply Under "Some Reactions" from Jan 20th

As I said, I believe an abstention from the MA vote would have been objectively wrong.  Of course I cannot presume to know interior motivations that might have impelled some to choose not to vote, so there's no way I can accuse anyone of sin; be assured, such was not my purpose.

Evangelium Vitae doesn't say much (as far as I could find) about how citizens should vote for candidates.  Rather, what it does discuss are the moral guidelines that the legislators themselves must follow.  Some common sense would say that our responsibilities are similar.  One of the articles to which I alluded in my comment is a Voter Guide put out by EWTN.  Questions 8 and 10 seem most relevant to the MA situation, as they discuss recommended actions when all candidates are pro-abortion.  Note the obvious point made - that either one or the other will win the election.  Thus, no matter what happened Tuesday evening, a pro-abort was going to take Kennedy's seat.  Then Father says, "you should do your best to judge which candidate would do the least moral harm."  Ladies and gentlemen, while Brown is pro-abortion, he has also stated that he will oppose the Hell Bill.  We all know that this bill, if passed, will immensely increase abortion in our culture.  Moreover, our elderly and infirm would be placed in jeopardy.  Coakley was going to support this.  In light of this, is there really any question as to which candidate would do the least moral harm?  In light of this consideration, would it have been morally licit to abstain from voting for the candidate who stated that he would oppose the Hell Bill?  No.  Had Coakley won, would your abstention have contributed towards increased evil?  Yes. 

The EWTN "voters guide" was echoed by Bishop Robert Finn last year, when he stated "specifically we offered the example of two candidates who were permissive on abortion. We taught that, in such an instance, we should choose the candidate whose position will likely do the least grave evil, or whose position will do the most to limit the specific grave evil of abortion."

To sum up, does it not only make sense that when we have candidates whose life-stances are equally poor, that we have a positive moral obligation to exercise our powers as United States citizens to mitigate any damages and dangers to our brothers and sisters that would be posed by the more dangerous candidate?  How, in the face of what we knew about the MA elections, could it possibly have been morally legitimate to abstain from that vote?  When we cast our votes, intellect and reason must trump our otherwise-understandable emotional reactions to the candidates.  I cannot see how it wouldn't be a sin against the virtues of prudence, justice and charity to do otherwise.  If I am missing something, please advise.  I think it's good to have this conversation, as there might be similar situations next November.

To those Massachusetts readers who might have abstained from that vote, I have a question.  What tangible, measurable moral good did you achieve by your abstention?  What motivated your abstention?  I truly am interested, if you care to elaborate.  Thank you.