Faithfulness to All of God’s Commands

Barring some irrefutable evidence (none has been presented yet) that invalidates a portion of ballots in a way that changes the Electoral Vote count, we need to face the reality of a new President… a President who is on record as saying he will institute things at odds with the Catholic faith that he professes to follow. So, it is understandable that some Catholic voters will be dismayed or angry at the results^†. Of course, when any government tries to make an unjust law, we have the obligation to oppose it.

But the obligations of Catholics do not stop with opposing unjust laws. We are called to act rightly, even when those who hate us treat us wrongly. And that calling means we may not hate or do evil to anyone.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? (Matthew 5:43-47)

That is the kind of command that does not permit evasion or exceptions. Whatever you think of the President-Elect, we are commanded to love him even should he make himself our enemy by his actions. And even if he does govern unjustly, we are forbidden to behave in certain ways. As St. Peter teaches:

For whenever anyone bears the pain of unjust suffering because of consciousness of God, that is a grace. But what credit is there if you are patient when beaten for doing wrong? But if you are patient when you suffer for doing what is good, this is a grace before God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his footsteps.  (1 Peter 2:19-21)

I think we need to keep this in mind. Barring a miraculous change of heart, we can expect Biden to do certain things contrary to the teachings of the Church as he promised to do. But we do not have the right to disobey Christ just because Biden refuses to follow the Church Christ established. Nor do we have the right to disobey Christ just because the “other side” refused to act in this way towards his predecessor.

Tragically, many seem to think that this obligation means we must stay silent and not oppose evil. So, we can expect a litany of charges against Biden and what he supports along with accusations that we are either ignorant of or supporting evil policies. But that is not true. We are aware. Christians were not ignorant or silent in the face of the persecutions in the Roman Empire either. But they still insisted on recognizing that the persecutors were human beings and needing salvation. As St. Paul wrote to St. Timothy:

First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone, for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity. This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:1-4)

In following his lead, we are not only asking for deliverance from being harmed by them, but we are also seeking the ultimate good for them. 

And that brings us to our own obligation. We are called to take part in the Great Commission (see Matthew 28:19-20). That is achieved in part by our words, and in part by the witness we provide in our actions. Do we show that we practice what we preach to them? People are good in spotting hypocrisy on the other side, but not so good spotting it on their own side. So, even if those who oppose us should live in a reprehensible way and not notice it, they will notice if we fail in our calling to live according to what Jesus taught.

There is an old quote, apocryphally attributed^‡ to St. Francis of Assisi, that goes Preach the Gospel Always. If Necessary, Use Words.  What it means is, we should be living in a way that shows we believe what we claim. The Christian life was one of the greatest witnesses to the pagans. Tertullian observed (Apology, Chapter 39.7):

The practice of such a special love brands us in the eyes of some. ‘See,’ they say, ‘how they love one another’; (for they hate one another), ‘and how ready they are to die for each other.’ (They themselves would be more ready to kill each other.)

So, let us consider that. If we believe that the incoming government and the people within it are championing it are doing and risking their souls, what is going to be a response more likely to let them respond to the grace God offers: An opposition that treats them like a brother, or an opposition that treats them like the scum of the Earth^§?

You might say that the stakes are too high, and these are unrealistic ideals. But countless Christians who were martyred chose to witness love, not hatred to their persecutors. What Christ commands is not unreasonable. So, if we are inclined to balk, we must ask whether it is a case where we just do not want to follow it when it threatens our comfort.

We are the ones who witness Christianity to the world. We should ask ourselves how that witness looks to the outside world, and whether we will be called to give an accounting of ourselves.

________________

(†) Some seem to be in denial, expecting that the rumors of voter fraud will be proven true.

(‡) It does not seem to have been known in this form before the 1990s.

(§) If someone chooses the latter as a correct answer, might I suggest a remedial course in Catholic teaching?

Our Obligations Begin Now

So it seems clear to me that we need to realize that the missions are not far away in Africa and Asia.  The mission is right here.  Our neighbors, our families are the mission field.  God desires the salvation of His people, and has sent us to carry it out.

Regardless of what government policies may be enacted in the next four years, the next eight years, the next generation… we have a mission to re-evangelize America.

—From my own blog after the 2012 elections^†.

What we cannot do is let our partisan values supersede our Catholic faith. We have to bear witness in Democratic administrations and in Republican administrations, regardless of whether it seems to be convenient or not (see 2 Timothy 4:2).

So my recommendation over the next four to eight years of this administration is to remember our Catholic faith and let it shape our response, neither giving our next President a free pass nor unremitting hostility based on our personal politics. Let us pray for our country, and that those who govern us may govern justly.

—From my own blog, after the 2016 elections.

As I sit down to write this article, we in the United States do not have an official call on who will be our next President. However, barring any stunning reversals in the final counts, and setting aside all the bizarre conspiracy theories, we can make a safe assumption on who it will be. And like 2016, we will have to face up to our Catholic obligations.

This is where we must move from infighting to standing up for our Catholic Faith and morals. We cannot speak out when the other party is in power and stay silent when our own is running the show. But here is something we cannot avoid. Those Catholics whose votes helped bring our President into power have a special obligation to stand up against those presidential acts that go against our Catholic teaching. Why? Because, regardless of what party the President is from, we need to realize that criticisms from Catholics in the other party do tend to be written off as political attacks. So, Catholic Democrats need to lead the way in challenging a Democratic President while Catholic Republicans need to lead the way in challenging a Republican President. That obligation exists even if the “other side” failed to do it in the previous administration. The fact that person X sins by omission does not excuse person Y from acting rightly.

What is more, if we fail to do what we demanded that others do, we show ourselves to be hypocrites and cause scandal by leading people to think our moral beliefs are merely partisan behavior and therefore something to dismiss.

Put in a syllogism, we might say:

1.      All [violations of Catholic moral teaching] are [that which must be opposed by Catholics] (All B is a part of A)

2.      [Policy X] is a [violation of Catholic moral teaching] (C is a part of B)

3.      Therefore [Policy X] is [that which must be opposed by Catholics] (Therefore C is a part of A)^‡.

So, when the Church condemns policy X, no Catholic can justify supporting it. During elections, one might say we must give a higher level of priority to opposing policy Y than policy X—if policy Y is also a violation of Catholic moral teaching—but we can never absolve ourselves from opposing policy X.

But, once the election is over, we will have a clearer position as to which Catholic teachings will be under fire from the political policies of the winning party. We will have an obligation to defend those teachings, not explain them away or ignore them.

And, if someone voted for the party which winds up out of power, the obligation to change things is not limited to political sniping at the other party, while saying “that is all I can do.” The reform of one’s own party remains an obligation. Those who voted for the other candidate have the obligation to work to influence their party to be closer to the Catholic position. This is the time to work to change planks in a platform and vote for midterm candidates who are closer to the Catholic position on all issues^§.

But, regardless of how we voted, and regardless of the result, we do have an obligation to oppose abortion and euthanasia; to work for social justice; to defend marriage. Where a party is in the wrong, we have the obligation to say no. On the other hand, where a party does something in line with our beliefs, we should not play “dog in the manger” and oppose it because of the source, or that it isn’t in line with our preferred party platform.

As Catholics, we are obligated to work for the good of our nation, recognizing that what our Church teaches does promote that good. If we should put party above Church, or confuse our party preference for Church teaching, what we do is worthless and potentially damning. So, regardless of how we voted and how our party did, our obligations begins now.

________________

(†) While I was blogging in 2008, and did have a post-election reflection then too, those articles existed only on the now defunct Xanga site and are lost to time (I haven’t been able to find them on any of the internet archive sites). Of course, given how bad my writing was back then, that is probably a good thing.

(‡) Since C is entirely contained in B and B is entirely contained in A, ∴ opposition to C is mandatory.

(§) Yes, those who voted for the party that takes control of the Presidency also have this obligation. But I am focusing on those Catholics who might think that their obligation stops at voting.

Thoughts on the Misuse of the Ratzinger Referendum in 2020

Everybody has talking points they use to promote their position and refute their opponent’s. Sometimes these talking points have merit to them. At other times, they are merely rattled off like an incantation intended to ward off an opponent’s challenge, but with no real understanding of what it actually means. 

Unfortunately, in 2020, we are seeing a very nuanced document—commonly known as the Ratzinger Memorandum—turned into an incantation by both sides, each conveniently reading it in a way to attack the other side, with no attempt to apply it to their own. This memorandum (which can be read HERE) was written in response to a question by the disgraced and defrocked McCarrick on whether one would be unworthy to receive Communion if they held a position in opposition to Church teaching. Only two points ever get cited by partisan Catholics. Section #3 and the bracketed Nota Bene. For convenience, they are reproduced here:

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

* * *

[N.B. 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. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour 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.]

Those who intend to vote for a pro-abortion candidate cite the nota bene and argue (dubiously at best) that the candidate’s other positions or the positions of the other candidate, become a “proportionate reason.” Those who support another candidate who is not pro-abortion candidate but is also morally bad in other areas emphasize Section #3 and say there is nothing wrong with voting for a candidate who supports those things. Both are misinterpreting the matter.

When it comes to the issue of abortion, we need to remember that the Catholic Church equates it with other barbarities. In Gaudium et Spes #14, we read:

Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.

So, the candidate who supports abortion cannot be simply excused for it in the name of the other positions he might support any more than a candidate who supports genocide can be excused. This isn’t a rhetorical appeal. The Catholic Church calls these things infamies. So, when you have a Democrat who supports some of the infamies listed and a Republican who supports others on the list of infamies, you cannot say that voting for them is morally good. Nor can you claim that the issues your candidate is wrong on (if it’s on the list) is unimportant.

With this in mind, the Catholic who says they are enthusiastic supporters of the candidate who announces his intent to promote and/or defend these infamies have—at best—grossly misunderstood Church teaching. Since both major party candidates in 2020 are at odds with some items on this list, the only appropriate attitude for a Catholic who believes he or she must vote for one of them must be an attitude of sorrow and reluctance… a sense that both are terrible, but one will do less damage to the moral good than the other. Such an attitude cannot say that “Well, issue X is more important, so we’ll fight Issue Y ‘later.’”

No. It seems to me that Catholics belonging to a major party must vote in the primaries against a candidate who supports one or more of the infamies. If said candidate makes it to the national election, we had better (to build on something said by Archbishop Chaput§) make sure our reasons are going to be justifiable before God and the victims of our vote at the final judgment. If we act as if the issue our party is wrong on is “less important,” then let’s stop the pretense that we will fight for the other issue “later.” We should be fighting now to reform whatever party we identify with so they might be less inclined to nominate a similar candidate next time. That fight doesn’t end on Wednesday, November 4th 2020.

If we truly think that the candidate we vote for is the lesser of two evils† and he gets elected, the Catholics who voted for him had better take a “You broke it, you bought it” attitude when it comes to the evils they identified as “lesser.” The Catholics who voted for his opponent had better work to eliminate those evils within their own party. Unfortunately, this never seems to happen.

I would like to address another error Catholics commit in citing the Ratzinger Memorandum against the US Bishops on the Death Penalty. It is true that Benedict XVI (then-Cardinal Ratzinger) did point out that support of the death penalty was morally tolerable. But we need to remember that this was written in 2004. It is superseded by what Pope Francis wrote in 2018, amending the Catechism on the Death Penalty. Benedict XVI was not in error in 2004, because the teaching was not yet refined. But those Catholics who think they can treat the 2018 teaching as if the 2004 memorandum outranked it have fallen into a dangerous error. There is no more permissible “legitimate diversity” of opinion here.

But, before those Catholics who already opposed the death penalty get too smug, let them remember this: If they recognize that Catholics who treat the death penalty as a “lesser issue” are wrong, then they are utterly without excuse if they treat abortion the same way. It is true we can easily defend Pope Francis’ change on the grounds that self defense requires the minimum force required and in modern times, the death penalty is no longer the minimum force required. However, the supporter of a pro-abortion candidate can’t escape the fact that abortion can never be justified. As long as Christianity existed, abortion was condemned as murder… which is an infamy. So if Catholics who support a candidate who is in favor of the death penalty are wrong, where does it leave the Catholics who support a pro-abortion candidate?‡

___________________

(§) What he said was: ‘And what would such a “proportionate” reason look like? It would be a reason we could, with an honest heart, expect the unborn victims of abortion to accept when we meet them and need to explain our actions—as we someday will.’ (Chaput, Charles J. Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life (p. 230). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

I believe we can logically extrapolate from this and apply it to all issues that the Catholic Church describes as Infamies.

(†) One of the propaganda pieces used by some Catholics is “voting for the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.” The irony is, it tends to be used by Catholics who enthusiastically intend to vote for a different candidate (hopefully in spite of) who still supports an infamy against a Catholic who reluctantly plans to vote for the other. It overlooks the possibility of a Catholic voter seeking to reduce damage as much as possible (much like accepting the consequences of a side swipe to avoid a head-on collision). 

(‡) Please don’t argue that you are “eliminating the need for abortion.” That doesn’t work for the other infamies listed in Gaudium et Spes, and it doesn’t work here either.

The Dangerous Double Standards and Tu Quoque Fallacies

While it’s easy to lose sight of it in the midst of the coronavirus and BLM protest news, we do have an election coming up. This brings up the usual problems with American Catholics acting goofy. Following the news—frequently little more than editorials—I notice a bipartisan problem. That problem is the rush to condemn something only when it shows up in an administration run by the opposing political party, but staying silent on the issue when it’s prevalent in an administration one supports.

That doesn’t mean we need to be silent on both of course. Quite the opposite in fact. If something is an injustice, it needs to be solved regardless of who is in power. But if we only speak out on it when our enemies are in power, and make excuses for when our favored faction ruled, we are hypocrites who are looking for a stick to bash our opponents over, not effect lasting reform.

One of the problems seems to be that we treat politics as a zero-sum game and don’t want to endanger our party’s prospects when an election is on the line by criticism. I say zero-sum because everybody tends to think that if someone does anything to challenge their preferred party, that person is accused of acting to benefit the other side… and all the evils that the other side is associated with. 

So, we tend to kick our own scandals under the table and blame the problem on the other party. But, in pointing out the failures of the other side, we show we are aware that the problem is an evil, and that we were silent when our own party was in power. For example, I’ve seen Catholic Democrats† take pleasure in pointing out the fact that—under Republican administrations—abortion hasn’t gone away, while Catholic Republicans point to the fact that we had incompetent handling of epidemics and unjust handling of illegal immigration under the Democrat administrations. Both are right in saying that the other side has a history of injustice and failure.

The problem is, because they overlook their own party’s fault, the hypocrisy is staggering. As Catholics, we have an obligation to do what is right in accordance with the teachings of the Church. Downplaying the evils or making it seem less important than the evils of the other side is an evasion at best. If we know X is morally wrong when our political opponents do it, we have an obligation not to tolerate it in our own party. Reform isn’t simply a matter of voting for the party you see as less of a disaster. It also means reforming your own party when it goes wrong… regardless of whether the other side does the same.

If we will not do that, we are hypocrites and will have to answer for the scandal we cause. I say scandal because, if we give a witness of setting aside those Church teachings that our own party is guilty of, we set an example of letting others do the same for their own party. Whether a Catholic is a Democrat†, an independent‡, a Republican, or a supporter of a Third Party, we cannot turn our backs on evil or injustice while pointing out the problems of the other side. We cannot argue that another Catholic must violate his conscience in order to vote the way we like, just because we fear the consequences of our party losing.

We have to ask ourselves about how we will answer for our evasions and brush-offs at the final judgment. It will do no good to say, “I chose to violate teaching A to promote teaching B.” It will do no good to say “they did it too.” When we knowingly ignore what the Church teaches, we will have to give an account. When we choose not to learn the truth about why the Church speaks against the policy of a politician we support when we easily could have done the research, our ignorance will not be a defense. Invincible ignorance exists when we have no way of knowing we are in the wrong. But when we have a Church speaking against that wrong, we do not have that excuse.

 

__________

(†) As always, I choose to contrast Democrat-Republican, Left-Right, Conservative-Liberal in alphabetical order to avoid appearance of bias.

(‡) I am using “independent” in the sense of “not affiliated with a party,” not in the sense of the American Independent Party (a third party).

What is Our Focus? Building the Kingdom? Or Supporting a Party?

Introduction

Every four years, American Catholics tend to forget the focus of the teachings of the Church and instead turn to the ephemeral disputes of getting their preferred candidate elected. We get so distracted by this dispute that we turn our individual political opinions into dogma, declaring that those who disagree with us are enemies of the Church.

If I go on Facebook, I can be sure of seeing “MAGA cult” and “Never Trumper” hurled around as anathemas. Both sides are utterly convinced of their righteousness, claiming to possess the only authentic Catholic position and condemning the other side of openly supporting evil. 

Tragically, while they condemn the other side for their failings, they are perfectly happy with excusing their own. We are told that, Yes, X is important, but this election is too crucial to risk having the other side win. So we have to worry about that issue later. The temptation is to think that provided that as long as the intended good outweighs the evil, we say our action is good and we can forget about the bad parts. We might try to excuse it double effect, but that’s not the case^*. Rather, what we are doing here is Proportionalism.

What is Wrong With Proportionalism?

We should remember what Cardinal Sarah wrote:

A false conception of good, replaced by duty, gives rise to erroneous theories like consequentialism. According to this system, nothing is good or bad in itself; the goodness of an act depends solely on its end or purpose and its foreseeable consequences. The end then justifies the means. There is an American form of moderate consequentialism, proportionalism, in which the morality of the act results from the calculation of the proportion of good and evil that the subject sees involved in it.

—Cardinal Robert Sarah, The Day is Now Far Spent

Most of the time, Catholics seeking to be faithful to the Church know that Proportionalism is wrong. We may never choose to do intrinsic evils, for example. No matter what good we think it might do, there is a line we cannot cross.

Germain Grisez (Way of the Lord Jesus, vol. 1, p. 159) defines Proportionalism this way:

Some Catholic moral theologians have adopted a theory called “consequentialism” or “proportionalism.” This is the view that a moral judgment is based on a comparative evaluation of benefits and harms promised by the possibilities for choice; one ought to choose the possibility which offers the best proportion of good to bad. There are many varieties of proportionalism, but this comparative evaluation of benefits and harms is central to all.

He goes on to critique why it doesn’t work (ibid p. 160):

Its proponents cannot say how to measure benefits and harms in the options so that their proportion can be settled. Moreover, it involves two incompatible conditions: first, that a morally wrong choice be possible; second, that the alternative which is superior in terms of the proportion of good to bad be known. But this cannot be, for if the alternative which is superior in these terms is known, other possibilities fall away, and there can be no morally wrong choice. In other words, proportionalism simply says it would be wrong to choose what its account of moral judgment would render it impossible to choose. Since proportionalism is inherently unworkable, it is not false but incoherent.

American Catholics often fall into the Proportionalism trap when it comes to our political parties because the parties are at odds with Catholic teaching on serious matter in some way. Because American politics are dualistic (either Democrat or Republican), many American Catholics of good will feel torn between choosing a party that calls the legalized slaughter of the unborn a moral good and a party that justifies the mistreatment of migrants.

Turning “Weighing the Issues” into “Evading Our Responsibilities”

Sincere or not, many American Catholics practice proportionalism by weighing Church teachings and drawing a line that inevitably puts their favored party on the right side and the other party on the wrong side. If pressed, they might admit that the other issue is wrong too—but it’s not as important as the issue their party is right on. Because of this, they treat a vote for their party as morally good, and a vote that is NOT for their party (whether for the other major party, a minor party, or not voting) as a moral evil.

Archbishop Chaput, in a 2016 article, rejected that way of thinking:

It’s absurd—in fact, it’s blasphemous—to assume that God prefers any political party in any election year.  But God, by his nature, is always concerned with good and evil and the choices we make between the two.  For Catholics, no political or social issue stands in isolation.  But neither are all pressing issues equal in foundational importance or gravity.  The right to life undergirds all other rights and all genuine social progress.  It cannot be set aside or contextualized in the name of other “rights” or priorities without prostituting the whole idea of human dignity.

Of course, the right to life is the first right (all subsequent rights depend on being alive first). What some Catholics of both parties forget is that the Right to Life is defined more broadly by the Church than the partisan Catholics admit. The Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes (#27) tells us:

Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.

The Church calls a number of actions infamies that the partisan Catholics treat as “less important” to the point that it effectively means “not important.”  

Effectively Negating the Obligation to Oppose Abortion

On one hand, we have a group of Catholics who argue that we will never end legalized abortion and we should work to make it less sought after. This group exercises proportionalism by evading the fact that abortion is the legalized killing of human beings. The argument of the Catholic justifying a vote for a pro-abortion politician in the name of other issues cannot be reconciled with the teaching of St. John Paul II.

He said (contra those who argue that other issues are important too) in Christifideles Laici #38:

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

And against the argument that it’s useless to try to end legalized abortion so we should make less need for them^{^}, we need to remember Evangelium Vitae points out that we cannot tolerate evil laws, even if we think it is futile to oppose them. #70 tells us

While public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to something which—were it prohibited would cause more serious harm, it can never presume to legitimize as a right of individuals—even if they are the majority of the members of society—an offence against other persons caused by the disregard of so fundamental a right as the right to life. The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom.

Elsewhere we are told (#72),

Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.

And in #73,

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.

Letting abortion remain legal while hoping to reduce it through increased social programs does not fulfill our obligation to oppose that evil. If some Catholics support candidates who openly champion abortion because of their positions on certain economic issues, they are effectively refusing to carry out their obligation to defend life.

Effectively Negating the Obligation to Treat Human Beings with the Dignity Due a Child of God

While I believe that the canard of opponents of abortion only caring about life from conception to birth is a calumny, some Catholics do effectively deny the importance of defending life in the social justice teaching by acting as if voting for anti-abortion candidates exempted them from speaking out against the other evils those candidates support.

Pope Francis reminds us of these things in Gaudete et Exsultate when he writes:

100. I regret that ideologies lead us at times to two harmful errors. On the one hand, there is the error of those Christians who separate these Gospel demands from their personal relationship with the Lord, from their interior union with him, from openness to his grace. Christianity thus becomes a sort of NGO stripped of the luminous mysticism so evident in the lives of Saint Francis of Assisi, Saint Vincent de Paul, Saint Teresa of Calcutta, and many others. For these great saints, mental prayer, the love of God and the reading of the Gospel in no way detracted from their passionate and effective commitment to their neighbors; quite the opposite. 

101. The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.

102. We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue. Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the “grave” bioethical questions. That a politician looking for votes might say such a thing is understandable, but not a Christian, for whom the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children. Can we not realize that this is exactly what Jesus demands of us, when he tells us that in welcoming the stranger we welcome him (cf. Mt 25:35)? Saint Benedict did so readily, and though it might have “complicated” the life of his monks, he ordered that all guests who knocked at the monastery door be welcomed “like Christ,” with a gesture of veneration; the poor and pilgrims were to be met with “the greatest care and solicitude.”

103. A similar approach is found in the Old Testament: “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you yourselves were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Ex 22:21). “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Lev 19:33–34). This is not a notion invented by some Pope, or a momentary fad. In today’s world too, we are called to follow the path of spiritual wisdom proposed by the prophet Isaiah to show what is pleasing to God. “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own kin? Then your light shall break forth like the dawn” (Is 58:7–8).

While Leo XIII formulated the approach of modern social justice, the obligation to care for those who are in desperate need of help so they don’t die is also part of the right to life.

No Matter how we Vote or who gets Elected, we have a Battle to Fight

Both the Catholic who denies the importance of opposing abortion and the Catholic who denies the importance of protecting the weak and oppressed are doing wrong in the sight of God. Not because they are focusing on one side, but because they are ignoring or downplaying the evil inconvenient to their party.

But, in our dualistic political system, no matter who wins, one party^§ will gain the presidency and that party will be at odds with Church teaching on grave matter. So what are we to do?

We have to be prepared to fight. That’s obvious if our party loses. But we have to fight if our own party if it should win. The Catholic Democrats must fight their party on evils like abortion. Catholic Republicans must fight their party on evils like the mistreatment of migrants. Catholics who voted for a minor party, down voted, or did not vote (for a valid reason, obviously) must fight the victorious party on these evils.

This is the difference between improving the world and working for God’s kingdom. As the Vatican II document Apostolicam Actuositatem #5 points out:

Christ’s redemptive work, while essentially concerned with the salvation of men, includes also the renewal of the whole temporal order. Hence the mission of the Church is not only to bring the message and grace of Christ to men but also to penetrate and perfect the temporal order with the spirit of the Gospel. In fulfilling this mission of the Church, the Christian laity exercise their apostolate both in the Church and in the world, in both the spiritual and the temporal orders. These orders, although distinct, are so connected in the singular plan of God that He Himself intends to raise up the whole world again in Christ and to make it a new creation, initially on earth and completely on the last day. In both orders the layman, being simultaneously a believer and a citizen, should be continuously led by the same Christian conscience.

If we work (and vote) to renew the temporal order as part of the mission of the salvation of men, we do right. But if we turn a blind eye to the evils our party does, we are complicit through silence. In the final judgment, we will be asked, “what did you do in response to those in need?” (cf. Ezekiel 33:1-9, Matthew 25:31-46). Did we seek to be faithful, speak out (charitably, not abusively), and help to the best of our ability? 

God will know. God will judge.

I’m Writing to You, Not the Other Person 

I’m as guilty as anyone else when, reading an article about moral obligation, to think “I know somebody who should be reading this!” But the issues I describe can affect all of us. It’s easy to think of our own problems as minor and those of the “other side” as unforgivable. But I hope I demonstrated that this way of thinking can lead us to excusing our own wrongdoing when we might be as guilty as those we denounce.

Yes, we have to work to bring others to Christ. But if we do not also cooperate with God’s Grace to grow closer to Him, we might find we have excluded ourselves while others enter.

___________________

(*) Properly speaking, Double Effect occurs when an unavoidable and unintended lesser evil occurs in carrying out a legitimate action intended to cause good. If the evil is avoidable, intended, or greater than the intended good, one cannot plead double effect. 

(§) Sure, a minor party might win. You might win the lottery tomorrow too. I wouldn’t recommend making plans around either though. But (as I hope to discuss in my next article) the fact that they cannot win doesn’t make the vote for such a party evil.

They Say “Things are Too Urgent to Deal With THAT”

As the silly season (AKA the Presidential Elections) approaches, some American Catholics seem to be celebrate by throwing aside the timeless teachings of the Church for the ephemeral values of politics. “Yes,” we’re told, “these teachings are important. But we have to be realistic.”

“Being realistic,” apparently means sacrificing certain Church teachings that go against our preferred candidate because these individuals are outraged when the bishops speak out on the moral teachings that go against their party^§. Oh, they say they accept those teachings. But they’re angry when these moral issues get mentioned. At the same time, when Catholics on the other side of the political divide get angry, these Catholics point to it as “proof” that the other side are bad Catholics because they refuse to listen to the Church.

The problem with that is: if one cites the authority of the bishops when it suits them, then they have no excuse to refuse obedience when it suits them because they have shown that they recognize that the authority exists.

It is true that both major political parties are in the wrong on some major issues if one recognizes that the Catholic Church teaches with God’s authority. It’s also true that—barring an unforeseen seismic shift in political views—one of the two major parties will gain control of the White House. That means one of the two parties will be able to implement evil policies and the other will be temporarily hindered. One of the parties will control the appointment of judges who will green light or block the policies of the party in charge; will sign bills into laws (or veto them). So, obviously it will matter which one gets in… even if both are at odds with Church teaching in different ways. So, how do we choose?

First, against the bullies who argue you must vote for Party X or you’re guilty of sin^#, I would remind them of Archbishop Chaput’s wise words in a 2016 column:

It’s absurd—in fact, it’s blasphemous—to assume that God prefers any political party in any election year.  But God, by his nature, is always concerned with good and evil and the choices we make between the two.  For Catholics, no political or social issue stands in isolation.

That doesn’t mean “vote however you feel.” All of us will need to answer to God over how well we seek to form our conscience in accordance with the Church teachings and whether we follow it. Now there are certain evils that we must oppose without equivocation. If the issue involves an intrinsic evil, we had better have a justification proportionate to the evil enabled if we choose to vote for somebody who favors it. We had better be prepared to fight the “lesser” evil we endured to block the greater one. But if we stay silent out of fear of hindering “our” candidate’s chances, we become complicit in this evil.

It’s undeniable that the Catholic teaching on defending life is the key issue in America. Indeed, in Christifidelis Laici, St. John Paul II taught:

38. In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of the rights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change—let alone eliminate—them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

We can’t pretend that the sum of other issues can outweigh the right to life. But some Catholics believe that as long as they vote for the candidate who claims to oppose abortion, they’ve done their duty. Others think that if they support a candidate who (often superficially) seems to agree with them on issues A+B+C, they are okay with the fact that the candidate openly supports abortion and euthanasia as good. But these Catholics of both sides fail to act on the fact that the Church defines the Right to Life far more broadly than they obey.

The Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes (#27) tells us:

Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.

Pope Francis reminds us of these things in Gaudete et Exsultate when he writes:

100. I regret that ideologies lead us at times to two harmful errors. On the one hand, there is the error of those Christians who separate these Gospel demands from their personal relationship with the Lord, from their interior union with him, from openness to his grace. Christianity thus becomes a sort of NGO stripped of the luminous mysticism so evident in the lives of Saint Francis of Assisi, Saint Vincent de Paul, Saint Teresa of Calcutta, and many others. For these great saints, mental prayer, the love of God and the reading of the Gospel in no way detracted from their passionate and effective commitment to their neighbors; quite the opposite. 

101. The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.

102. We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue. Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the “grave” bioethical questions. That a politician looking for votes might say such a thing is understandable, but not a Christian, for whom the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children. Can we not realize that this is exactly what Jesus demands of us, when he tells us that in welcoming the stranger we welcome him (cf. Mt 25:35)? Saint Benedict did so readily, and though it might have “complicated” the life of his monks, he ordered that all guests who knocked at the monastery door be welcomed “like Christ,” with a gesture of veneration; the poor and pilgrims were to be met with “the greatest care and solicitude.”

103. A similar approach is found in the Old Testament: “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you yourselves were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Ex 22:21). “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Lev 19:33–34). This is not a notion invented by some Pope, or a momentary fad. In today’s world too, we are called to follow the path of spiritual wisdom proposed by the prophet Isaiah to show what is pleasing to God. “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own kin? Then your light shall break forth like the dawn” (Is 58:7–8).

Tragically, factional Catholics seem to fall into one error or the other that he describes. Either they reduce the Church to a lobbying organization for certain laws and policies, or they reduce the important issues to what suits them. I can hardly think of a politicized Catholic who, while insisting, “you must vote for Party X”  even begins to acknowledge those issues of life their own party is at odds with. Instead I see sneering comments accusing the other side of hypocrisy, while being equally hypocritical themselves. Too many say that the issues their party fails at are “lesser” and say that this election is “too important” to sacrifice by holding their party accountable for them.

But while we can choose to live that way, we can’t pretend it’s authentically Catholic to do so. In the same letter I cited above, Archbishop Chaput wrote:

God created us with good brains.  It follows that he will hold us accountable to think deeply and clearly, rightly ordering the factors that guide us, before we act politically.  And yet modern American life, from its pervasive social media that too often resemble a mobocracy, to the relentless catechesis of consumption on our TVs, seems designed to do the opposite.  It seems bent on turning us into opinionated and distracted cattle unable to gain mastery over our own appetites and thoughts.  Thinking and praying require silence, and the only way we can get silence is by deciding to step back and unplug.

This year, a lot of good people will skip voting for president but vote for the “down ticket” names on their party’s ballot; or vote for a third party presidential candidate; or not vote at all; or find some mysterious calculus that will allow them to vote for one or the other of the major candidates.  I don’t yet know which course I’ll personally choose.  It’s a matter properly reserved for every citizen’s informed conscience.

So the question is: Will we think about what we must do, with God as our judge, to rightly form our conscience—to the best of our ability^*—according to Church teaching? Will we determinedly oppose the evils that are unwillingly enabled by our vote? Or will we shout slogans and ignore the evils we enabled?

However we do vote, we need to remember that God will be our judge. We cannot deceive Him. He will know our sincerity or lack thereof.

I am merely a member of the laity. I have no authority to order you to vote a certain way. So I won’t even try to persuade you to do so. All I can do is point to the Church as the authority to follow, whether you agree with my own views or not. In doing so, I also urge you to beware of those who do try to pressure people (with no authority to do so) into accepting their political preference as Church teaching 

__________________

(§) During the 2008 and 2012 elections, the US bishops were condemned as “the Republican Party at prayer.” In 2016, they were accused of being “obviously” pro-Democrat. Their teachings had not changed in that period.

(#) Sadly, I’ve seen Catholic partisans of both sides try to strong-arm other Catholics into voting for their side regardless of any concerns of conscience.

(*) God does not hold us accountable for what is impossible for us to do. We’re all fallible human beings and can err without intending to break God’s law. But if we don’t make that effort, we can’t make that excuse.

Our Silly Season: Preparing Ourselves for the 2020 Election

Every four years, American Catholics on social media celebrate our silly season (also known as “the presidential elections”) by taking an IQ nose dive while coming up with theological reasons why we are fully “justified” in setting aside Catholic teachings which our party is at odds with. In this season, Catholics who point out that Candidate X is at odds with Church teaching on a subject get accused of supporting every evil that candidate Y supports. And, if you decide to vote for a minor party or to only vote “downballot” (vote only for offices below the Presidential level), then you are also guilty enabling the victory of “the other side.”^§ This isn’t a quirk of one faction. Catholics from both major parties do this while accusing the other side of doing it.

That doesn’t mean that the elections should be taken lightly. In each Presidential election, we are selecting who will be responsible for executing laws and appointing judges to rule on what is and isn’t licit. The values of the man elected are important because they will govern the choices made. As Catholics, we need to vote according to our Faith in such a way to promote the public good… or at least block the worse evil.

Unfortunately, American Catholics aren’t a voting block. Our votes are as diverse as the rest of the country^#. So, despite the efforts of the bishops to teach on these values, we’re going see many Catholics pick the teachings their party agrees with and cast them as “the most important,” while treating the teachings their party opposes as “prudential judgment,” “opinions,” or even “bishops getting involved in politics.”^* They will, of course, condemn Catholics of the “other side” for doing exactly the same thing. Such Catholics should be aware of Matthew 7:2. By citing the need to obey the Church where it agrees they show knowledge of the authority which they reject when they disagree.

Both sides are right when they say that neither side is perfect, and that some issues are more immediately pressing or involve graver matters than others^€. Take the Right to Life. The Church does indeed teach that the sanctity of life has to be defended from conception to natural death. That is much broader than partisan Catholics treat it. Some Catholics treat it as only involving abortion and euthanasia. Others try to say these things will never be outlawed and we can only hope to pass laws that reduce the need for them. Both accuse the other side of ignoring Church teaching when actually both sides are guilty. So, what is to be done?

I think that Archbishop Chaput, speaking about the abortion issue, laid down a wise guideline on dealing with voting for candidates who promote what the Church calls evil:

What distinguishes such voters, though, is that they put real effort into struggling with the abortion issue. They don’t reflexively vote for the candidate of “their” party. They don’t accept abortion as a closed matter. They refuse to stop pushing to change the direction of their party on the abortion issue. They won’t be quiet. They keep fighting for a more humane party platform—one that would vow to protect the unborn child. Their decision to vote for a “pro-choice” candidate is genuinely painful and never easy for them. 

One of the pillars of Catholic thought is this: Don’t deliberately kill the innocent, and don’t collude in allowing it. We sin if we support candidates because they support a false “right” to abortion. We sin if we support “pro-choice” candidates without a truly proportionate reason for doing so—that is, a reason grave enough to outweigh our obligation to end the killing of the unborn. And what would such a “proportionate” reason look like? It would be a reason we could, with an honest heart, expect the unborn victims of abortion to accept when we meet them and need to explain our actions—as we someday will.

—Render Unto Caesar,  pp. 229-230

I believe that this applies to every candidate we vote for who is at odds with Church teaching. We can’t accept abortion or torture or same sex marriage or the treatment of migrants as a closed matter. If we believe we must vote for Party X, we must fight to change our party when it is in the wrong. We cannot be silent out of fear that the “other side” might win.

But this is exactly what Catholics don’t do, and I wonder if we really do accept the Church teachings on the issues that our party is wrong about. It seems like we’re more inclined to say that issue X is outweighed by issues A+B+C when our party is in the wrong on X and A+B+C match our personal politics. But, using the archbishop’s challenge, will our reasoning for voting for the candidate who is wrong on issue X satisfy the victims of our vote on the Day of Judgment. Remember, the most dangerous sin is the one that sends us to hell, not the one we are in no danger of committing.

So, when the Pope teaches on an issue that our preferred party is in the wrong over, when the bishops speak out against our immoral national policies, we must listen and form our conscience. No, that doesn’t mean making the perfect the enemy of the good. But it does mean that—if we vote for a candidate in spite of^¥ his support of an evil position—we need to ask ourselves what we are going to do to end the support for evil, remembering that God will be our judge and we cannot lie to Him.

__________________

(§) As a personal disclosure, I believed this one until 2016 when I believed both major party candidates were unfit for office.

(#) While it’s a popular maxim that the Catholic vote shows who will win the election, it only seems true in the sense that the “Catholic vote” will mirror the general sentiment of the country.

(*) In the past twelve years, for example, the US bishops have simultaneously been accused as a bloc of favoring the Democrats and the Republicans.

(€) The prevalence of contraception in America is of course a grave issue. But before we can hope to outlaw it, we will need to convert the moral attitudes of the nation, because an overwhelming number of Christians (including Catholics) see nothing wrong with it.

(¥) Of course, voting for a candidate because he supports that evil is condemned.

Martyrdom and a Pinch of Incense, 2016 Style

The proconsul then said to him [St. Polycarp], “I have wild beasts at hand; to these will I cast thee, except thou repent.” But he answered, “Call them then, for we are not accustomed to repent of what is good in order to adopt that which is evil; and it is well for me to be changed from what is evil to what is righteous.”¹⁰ But again the proconsul said to him, “I will cause thee to be consumed by fire, seeing thou despisest the wild beasts, if thou wilt not repent.” But Polycarp said, “Thou threatenest me with fire which burneth for an hour, and after a little is extinguished, but art ignorant of the fire of the coming judgment and of eternal punishment, reserved for the ungodly. But why tarriest thou? Bring forth what thou wilt.”

 

 Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “The Encyclical Epistle of the Church at Smyrna,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 41.

I think I finally figured out what really bothers me most of all about the 2016 elections: Catholics insisting we must vote for their candidate, and if we will not, we are responsible for all the evils that happen as a result. In doing so, these individuals are, even if they don’t realize it, arguing that we have to sacrifice certain moral teachings as “less important” so their preferred candidate can protect us from the evils of the other side.  That means, depending on whom they support, either pretending that abortion is not as important as the issues we happen to be concerned with or pretending we can ignore other issues we dislike so long as we support abortion. Such Catholics insist concern over the moral issues they downplay are really too unimportant to take a stand on with other things at stake . . . especially if you live in a swing state.

I hear this, and it seems reasonable, except for one thing. Many saints went to their deaths despite being told that it was a small thing to offer a pinch of incense to state gods—they didn’t even have to be sincere, so long as they would go through the motions. The martyrs chose death because they realized it was not a small matter. It was a witness that they recognized the authority of the state gods, which meant they denied the full authority of God over the universe. Even an insincere witness could lead people astray. To be faithful to God, the martyr knew he had to give up His life.

Polycarp declared, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury:
how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?” 

As I see it, the problem is the arguments saying we need to support Candidate X to oppose Candidate Y, and that concerns for other issues is putting lesser issues first is a misrepresentation of the Catholic teaching on double effect. Double Effect means that we do not will an evil so good may come of it. In fact, if it were possible to prevent the evil we would do everything possible to avoid it. Also, the unwilled evil must be less than the desired good. So, for example, we endure side effects from medicines for the good of making us well. But if the medicine had a greater than 50% chance of killing the patient for a good like healing a minor illness, we could not choose to prescribe that medicine.

In this election, the evils are avoidable. We choose not to violate our conscience and we choose not to vote for a candidate who will bring about evils. That’s the part people forget when they do a moral calculus. Yes, the Church is quite clear that the right to life is the most fundamental right. We can’t do things that support such a candidate who favors that evil without a proportionate reason (i.e., a reason which outweighs the evil done). Yes, that teaching is well known. The problem is people wrongly think, “Unless Catholics vote for this candidate, this evil will happen, so they need to stop worrying about conscience and vote for this candidate.”

But doing what the conscience forbids is evil, even if we hope to achieve a good end. Saving our lives or our freedoms are good things to strive for. But if it comes at the cost of sinning against God, we cannot choose the sin to save ourselves. That’s true whether we are told to burn a pinch of incense at the altar or whether we’re told to ignore our conscience and vote for a candidate so good may come of it.

So, how should a Catholic vote? I’m not going to tell you, “You must vote for X.” All I can do is urge each person to consider the evils each candidate promotes and how to respond in light of Church teaching. Because the Church rejects abortion so emphatically, I do not believe a Catholic with a proper understanding can invoke “proportionate reasons” in 2016. But does that mean we must support the other major party candidate by default?

No, we can’t accept such a candidate by default. It is possible that both candidates are morally offensive. A hypothetical “Hitler vs. Stalin” shows the flaws with “either-or” thinking in elections. What we have to do is consider a candidate’s positions independently and see how they compare with Church teaching. Of course, we have to avoid making the perfect the enemy of the good (i.e., insist on not voting for any candidate who is not flawless). But we can’t say that we can ignore a candidate’s unjust positions on the grounds of “he’s not as bad as the other guy.”

See, the Church is quite clear that we may not do evil so good may come of it (CCC# 1789). That obligation doesn’t change if we live in a swing state, or if we think that the stakes are vital. The Catechism also says:

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

So, even if one wants to claim that this election is an “emergency” and we have to stop one candidate by voting for the opposite major party candidate, an emergency does not justify doing evil. The problem is. I’m seeing many supporters saying, “That issue isn’t important in an emergency!” But it is. Sins that cry out to God for vengeance include abortion and same sex marriage, yes. But it also includes oppressing the poor and the alien, and defrauding the worker of his wages. In my opinion, if one thinks they must vote for a morally bad candidate to limit evil, they must speak out against that moral evil and make clear that, while they think abortion is the greater evil, they still intend to oppose the moral evils of their candidate. Then, if that candidate is elected, they must publicly follow through. But that’s not what’s happening in the social media I’ve seen.

Regardless of how we vote in 2016, we need to put our Catholic faith first. That means we don’t pretend moral evils in a candidate don’t exist or aren’t important. It means we evaluate our choices in light of being a Catholic. We study the faith and form our consciences in accord with it. We also must pray so we will accept God’s will even if it is not our will. If God wills 2016 to be a sort of “Babylonian Captivity” which forces American Catholics to grow in our faith through some level of government harassment or even persecution, we must not compromise to avoid it. We should remember the witness of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste:

The Forty Martyrs of Sebaste.

After they had been torn by scourges and iron hooks they were chained together, and led to a lingering death. It was a cruel winter, and they were condemned to lie naked on the icy surface of a pond in the open air till they were frozen to death. But they ran undismayed to the place of their combat, joyfully stripped off their garments, and with one voice besought God to keep their ranks unbroken. “Forty,” they cried, “we have come to combat; grant that forty may be crowned.” There were warm baths hard by, ready for any one amongst them who would deny Christ. The soldier who watched saw angels descending with thirty-nine crowns, and while he wondered at the deficiency in the number, one of the confessors lost heart, renounced his faith, and, crawling to the fire, died body and soul at the spot where he expected relief. But the soldier was inspired to confess Christ and take his place, and again the number of forty was complete. 

 

 John Gilmary Shea, Pictorial Lives of the Saints (New York; Cincinnati; Chicago: Benziger Brothers, 1887), 128–129.

If we would save our lives or our security at the cost of compromise, there is no guarantee we will succeed. So, let’s stop bullying others who will not vote for your candidate. Let’s stop pretending a sin is “not important” when our preferred candidate is guilty of it. If we vote in a way which compromises our faith, or leads one to think our Catholic faith is an ideology that can be set aside when convenient, we do evil like the one who would burn a pinch of incense at the altar of false gods in exchange for safety.

So, no matter how we vote in 2016, let’s be sure it’s a vote that witnesses what our Catholic faith holds to be true. And, let’s also make sure that our actions after the election continues to bear witness—especially if the preferred candidate wins.