Professor Bainbridge Is An Ass Who Can't Read

In the midst of an argument that "Andrew Sullivan is an ass," Professor Bainbridge reveals that he likes to shout at mirrors. To wit, Bainbridge offers remarks by and consonant with the views of Grand Inquisitor Ratzinger [it will at least be some time before I'm able to refer to "Pope Benedict XVI"--ed.] as exculpating him of Sullivan's charge of "declar[ing] a war on modernity, liberalism (meaning modern liberal democracy of all stripes) and freedom of thought and conscience." The following, excerpted by Bainbridge, is supposed to be evidence that Ratzinger respects liberal democratic autonomy:

Cardinal Ratzinger’s note underlined the principles involved for the Catholic voter. “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,” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote. “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor 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,” he said.

Of course, the particular issue at stake was the presidential campaign of John Kerry, and it's true that there were Catholic bishops (also excerpted by Bainbridge) who suggested that a vote for pro-choice politicians (meaning, obviously Kerry) would have been a "grave sin" simpliciter.

Ratzinger's view, which is more nuanced than that, elicits this interpretation (which, since Bainbridge doesn't comment further, I assume he assents to):

In other words, if a Catholic thinks a candidate’s positions on other issues outweigh the difference on abortion, a vote for that candidate would not be considered sinful.

Get out of jail free. Ratzinger says that voting for pro-choice/pro-euthanasia politicians amounted to "cooperation in evil" rendering the voter "unworthy for holy Communion" just in case the voter affirms the candidate's own position. So he makes an allowance for those who would vote for Kerry despite his position on abortion. So what? The point is clear. Dissent from the Ratzinger line on abortion and euthanasia is functional disqualification from membership in the church. And since a candidate must be presumed to agree with his own position on any issue, Ratzinger's view if applied to US politics would have rendered Kerry a non-Catholic. The GI just oozes respect for liberal democracy, does he not? And "freedom of thought and conscience"? Means of formal cooperation in evil, QED.