Find essays by keyword, title, or author name

No Reason to Be Depressed About Pro-Life 2.0: A Response to Roberto Rivera

Would You Like Some Wine With That Cheese?

Should a Catholic Vote in This Election?

No Reason to Be Depressed About Pro-Life 2.0: A Response to Roberto Rivera

Would You Like Some Wine With That Cheese?
Mattias A. Caro
March 6, 2016

Unlike other election cycles, this particular election is challenging Catholics to properly and proverbially “vote their conscience.” This problem has been growing over the last few cycles with both parties taking increasingly problematic positions. Catholics could reliably hope that the nominees of one party would not support intrinsic evils such as abortion. It was possible for Catholics to follow the recommendation of the USCCB given in their electoral guide:

In making these decisions [voting], it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose policies promoting intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

An Uncomfortable Position

Against partisan machinations, the bishops of the United States have always recognized the preeminence of opposing policies that promote intrinsic evil, over supporting others that the voter believes advances the common good. This is not a comfortable position.

For one thing, it can point the Catholic vote primarily to “do no evil” over promoting the common good. Second, it can lead to a capture of the Catholic vote by parties and politicians willing to say the right thing strongly and do the right thing only incrementally. Third, the overwhelming, grave nature of the evil can lead Catholics to necessarily downplay the decay of prudence and judgment on other issues of impact. All of this necessarily impoverishes the Catholic witness in the public square.

1.3 million abortions per year in America has necessitated this posture. That is, the above is not a critique of the bishop’s application of the Catholic teaching. It is an acknowledgment of how abortion corrodes our public life and discourse. It shows how strongly it has limited the Catholic imagination and witness as a faithful citizenship.

This election presents a new challenge: likely nominees who present no significant difference on abortion. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s record on abortion needs no expounding. Mr. Trump, however, was for it before he was against it. All of a sudden Catholics not only hear the erstwhile voice of Reagan saying, “Trust, but verify” (although from the grave you might hear him yell, “Never trust Trump!”), but the need to take into account “a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.”

Nothing in Trump’s record as a businessman and politician (until this campaign) indicates his new views on life are anything but a teaser designed to get our vote. Actions like his supporting Planned Parenthood suggest that his commitment, even if real, is limited and qualified. In other words, a Catholic may reasonably believe that Trump’s stated commitment to the defense of unborn life can’t be trusted because his character here simply is not reliable.

What To Do

What to do? Fortunately, the bishops have already provided guidance on this issue, in the preceding paragraph of the same document:

When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

Catholics have the option to simply not vote for any candidate in an election where both candidates of both primary parties are odious to the conscience. This is not a decision to be taken lightly and it is one only that can only be justified after weighing the totality of the circumstances.

This should discount the canard that “failing to vote” will hand the election to one candidate who may be even more objectionable. This is often presented with the claim that if Catholics don’t vote for Trump, they are helping elect Clinton. That is false.

Those who vote for Clinton are electing her. The Catholic who chooses not to vote is engaged in another act. A withdrawal of the vote is an affirmation of the political independence of the Church and the Catholic voter and a judgment upon the alternatives that the current political class has produced. It is a call for that class to reverse course and to affirm certain ultimate goods and reject intrinsic evils. The political class will understand that a Catholic withdrawing from the vote sees no hope in the present choices before him or her.

This position represents a grave obligation placed on the Catholic. For we must continue to be faithful citizens and good stewards of the political order handed on to us. This temporary disengagement from one electoral act places upon us a deeper obligation towards a sober and earnest reengagement in the public square.

The Common Good

The Catholic has the responsibility of showing that he did not decline to vote out of partisan spite or a need for an emotional gratification, but from the requirements of conscience and a continuing desire to advance the common good. His desire to practice good citizenship will push him into a deeper engagement with his fellow Americans.

This means, first and foremost, that the Catholic choosing this path has an obligation in charity to listen to our neighbors, particularly those who are strong partisans of the candidates we’ve rejected. This is an election cycle of much anger, some of it rightly directed, much of it aroused by demagoguery. Sometimes this will mean working to address wrongs, and other times it will mean pushing back against dangerous rhetoric and actions.

Not voting in an election does not mean giving up our responsibilities as citizens. That we act in obedience to a higher authority than the American government does not mean that higher authority has absolved us from our duties to work for the good of all. Catholics should renew their commitment to be leaven at all levels of government and public life, actively participating in debate, discussion, and executing of action that raises the common good. We are extending the definition of faithful citizenship beyond the first Tuesday of November, which seems to capture all of our better attention and energy.

Not voting does not mean we despair of American electoral politics or the possibilities of our political order. It means that in obedience to God we decline to make a particular choice, precisely for the good of our country. That is an opportunity for hope.

 

Readers are invited to discuss essays in argumentative and fraternal charity, and are asked to help build up the community of thought and pursuit of truth that Ethika Politika strives to accomplish, which includes correction when necessary. The editors reserve the right to remove comments that do not meet these criteria and/or do not pertain to the subject of the essay.

  • mortimer zilch

    YOU ARE TOTALLY VILE AND CORRUPT! agent provocateurs embedded within a cloak of Catholicism to serve the interests of the US governmental intelligentsia. How dare you counsel Catholics to withdraw from voting! You’ve got it ALL WRONG. Here are the real choices facing the Catholic voter in this particular election: 1) Hillary Clinton must not get elected; 2) Therefore the candidate on the ballot representing the other major party must gain the Catholic vote IF that candidate is not equally as reprehensible as Hillary Clinton. Mr.Trump has proved himself beyond any doubt to not be equally reprehensible as Hillary Clinton - or ANY OTHER PROBABLE Democratic candidate…and so, DONALD TRUMP rightly deserves the Catholic vote.

    • Villainy should pay more. I’ve yet to receive my check from the US Government Intelligentsia.

      • Payroll Dept, US Govt Intell.

        Dear Mr. Caro: As we have explained before, we pay you in Etsy gift certificates. It’s called being under “deep cover.” Haven’t you watched enough spy shows on tv to understand this yet? And haven’t you noticed the increase in one of a kind craft items in your home? The U.S. Government Intelligentsia department doesn’t have to pay you at all, you know.

      • mortimer zilch

        trivialization, obfuscation, deceit, mockery, and denial…the tools of your trade. You are a disgrace.

  • Mack

    No, Mr. Zilch (presumably not your real name). To vote for a lesser of two evils is still to vote for evil.
    Further, to label someone as “VILE AND CORRUPT!” (sic) for not agreeing with you is uncharitable.
    - Mack Hall (real name)

    • Tamenund

      But you would be preventing the greater evil from taking place.

      Moral issues are generally those where we approach from the beginning and then we run into a crisis of conscience; simply opting not to do anything may be a perfectly acceptable option.

      In this case, we are approaching a situation that is already underway; one of two people is going to be elected President. Nothing is going to change that, which limits our options. Not doing anything means accepting the possibility that the greater evil will take place.

      • Catholics have unfortunately succumbed so much to the partisan game of seeing Hilary as evil that we can’t see past our noses on this issue. Hilary is a failed, ambitious politician whose time has long passed. Casting her as evil merely justifies and rationalizes an “anything goes” mentality to stop her, even if you burn everything in your path.

        • Tamenund

          “Hillary’s time has long passed.”

          Really, Matt?

          You might want to let her know this; she’s thisclose to becoming the next president.

    • Eric Scheidler

      Mack, while I agree with your criticism of Mr. Zilch’s tone, I believe your analysis of the voter’s dilemma is flawed. While it is true that to choose the lesser of two evils is still to choose evil, that’s not really what a voter is doing.

      In the voting booth, we’re choosing between candidates — human beings, who, whatever evil they may have done or may do, are not themselves “evils.” Indeed, it is a denial of the Gospel to call another human being “an evil.”

      I’m sure you would agree, but the way we so often refer to the voter’s dilemma as a choice between the “lesser of two evils” obscures this reality. What you probably mean is the evils of the different bad policies the candidates would likely advance; but in a representative democracy, it’s the officeholders we choose on election day, even if the policies they’re likely to advance inform that choice.

      If it were otherwise — if the evil a candidate might do in office becomes the voter’s own choice by casting that vote — then the bishops could not say that the “conscientious voter . . . may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.”

      I’ve had to follow this course several times as a voter for whom the abortion issue is the first priority. In 2014 I voted for the pro-choice GOP candidate Bruce Rauner for governor of Illinois, over the incumbent Pat Quinn, because I believed (correctly) that he would be “less likely to advance” his “morally flawed position” on abortion.

      In fact, several anti-life bills — including one that would have forced pregnancy centers and pro-life doctors to make abortion referrals — were defeated last year, in large part because they lacked a strong advocate in the Governor’s mansion.

      I similarly voted for pro-choice Republican Mark Kirk for the U.S. Senate in 2010. He had a somewhat more moderate position on abortion than the Democratic candidate, but my main motivation for voting for Kirk was that his presence in the Senate would help shift the majority to the GOP — so pro-life legislation could move — which indeed happened.

      That Senate majority is now playing a critical role in preventing President Obama from filling the Scalia vacancy with a pro-abortion justice who would surely roll back the pro-life legislation enacted in recent years in the states, block federal legislation (like defunding Planned Parenthood) and even threaten the civil rights of pro-life activists like me.

      And that concern — for the shape of the Supreme Court — is why I will cast a vote for Donald Trump in November, if he prevails at the GOP nominee, however unsavory a character he may be, and however uncertain his pro-life conversion may be.

      We know exactly what Hillary Clinton’s agenda is when it comes to abortion. We know she will reshape the Supreme Court to advance that agenda. These are absolute certainties, barring a “road to Damascus” moment after her election, which isn’t something I want to count on.

      I don’t particularly love having to count on Trump either, but the potential nominees he’s floated would be very good, and however thin his convictions may be on abortion, I don’t see him threatening his entire program — the things he really cares about like border security and the trade deficit — by appointing the kind of judges Hillary Clinton would.

      It’s a noisome choice to have to make, but I believe it’s the right choice, and one that is in harmony with what the bishops advise.

    • mortimer zilch

      yes, a vote for a lesser evil is to vote for an evil - a LESSER EVIL. Do you tell people NOT TO EAT because everything on the menu either has too much salt, too much fat, artificial ingredients or is GMO? That’s what this Catholic imposture author is doing!!! Will you think about it, please.

  • NDaniels

    As long as the bishops refused to inform those persons who condone the act of abortion, and/or same-sex sexual acts, that they are no longer in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, it will appear as if one can be Catholic while denying that God Is The Author of Love, of Life, and of Marriage. One cannot be for Christ and anti Christ simultaneously. The fact that God, not Caesar, Is The Author of Love, of Life, and of Marriage, cannot be compromised, for truth is not a matter of opinion.

    • This is a red-herring. The US Bishops have long taught consistently and publicly on these issues. No US Politician can claim invincible ignorance, even if they feign otherwise.

      • NDaniels

        If it was true that The U.S. Bishops have taught consistently and publicly on these issues, why are those who condone abortion and same-sex sexual acts, permitted to present themselves to receive The Holy Eucharist?

        • Your issue then is on the presentation for communion, not the teaching. Those are two different issues and not the subject of this piece.

          • NDaniels

            The Eucharist is the source and summit of our Catholic Faith.
            We are One Body, One Spirit, in Christ; there is no division in The Body of Christ.

            Perhaps you can explain how it is possible for a Catholic to be for Christ and anti Christ?

          • As soon as I figure out how to square a circle, I’ll answer your query.

  • Faithr

    I think Father Longnecker said something along the lines of go local. Vote in local elections to do your civic duty, but you can refrain from the presidential if those candidates are reprehensible (as may be the case this year). I think he called it the Amish option or something like that. I still have hope that Trump might not wind up being the nominee. It ain’t over til it’s over!

    • The local part is good and important. You suddenly discover how hard voting is when you go local—hard in the sense that the easy “big issues” to make us decide melt away in some respects. Ultimately, it is a BOTH/AND situation. Local and national. Both state and federal.

    • Tamenund

      Both candidates may be reprehensible? Really?

      One may be reprehensible; the other would simply be terribly boorish.

  • Mary Ann

    If I’ve learned anything these last few years it’s this. Abortion is not the only issue. It is one issue. There are many others. That is not to diminish its importance. Rather than fighting to change the law, we need to fight to change the hearts of woman. It doesn’t matter if there is a law that says it’s ok if no one is getting an abortion. Obama is an idiot. Twice the voters of this country placed him in office. This says volumes to me about the hearts of the people in this country and it makes me very sad. My husband says the people of this country would put in the devil himself if they thought it was to there advantage. Let’s look at the current candidates. Hillary is a liar and a despicable person who doesn’t give a crap about anyone. Look at Benghazi. I respect the candidate that takes responsibility for his/her actions and tries to do what’s right. She was too busy blaming everyone else. She just wants to be queen of the White House. As for Trump, what can you say. The point is…there are other republican candidates running and voters still have time to do what right. Trump might not be the candidate. There is still time. You can only do this by voting. The republicans and democrats have very different view points. The democrats believe if they hand everything to everyone freely, Equality will rein and all will be well. Republicans believe you need to work. Equality is not a given nor will it ever be. People who work hard for what they have respect their property as well as others. People who do not earn what they have, never learn this lesson. I don’t believe that not voting is the answer. Your candidate may not win, but at least you stood up for the candidate who is closest to your view point. There is still time. Trump is not the only candidate running.

    • Yes. My point in the above is highlighting now “before it is too late” the quandary Catholics will find themselves in if it is a “Clinton vs. Trump” election. I did not mean to preclude that Trump “can be stopped.”

  • LawProf61

    Complete nonsense legally, ethically and certainly politically. Trump says he has changed his position on abortion. (He has no objections to Planned Parenthood’s provision of contraceptives, or occasional referrals for mammograms.) This is certainly plausible. Contrast this with Hillary’s full-throated support for abortion, on-demand, taxpayer-funded, and at all 40 weeks of pregnancy. Oh, and don’t forget the Affordable Care Act’s mandate. And at least one if not two or three Supreme Court justices. When progressives start insisting that Catholic doctors, nurses and hospitals perform and provide abortions as part of federally mandated “reproductive care,” will an Obama/Hillary court come down in the side of religious liberty? The answer to that question is crystal clear to anyone who gives it a moment’s thought, and it is NO.

    That, without more, justifies a vote for Trump. Admittedly, he does not have a dog in that fight. But that means that he has no reason to continue with the current Democrat-Progressive attack on Christianity that Obama and his minions are waging full force. And which Hillary will certainly continue.

    Democrats have one God - it is the state. One church - of unrestrained sexuality. And their holiest sacrament is abortion. Everything else is secondary.

    Do I expect Catholics to see the light? *snort* The same group that voted for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama by a 51%+ margin? You’re joking. Catholics fall hook, line and sinker for the “social justice” shtick that Progressives trot out every time they want to deflect attention away from their support for policies that attack religious liberty, undermine economic freedom, promote sexual libertinism, erode the family and strengthen the stranglehold that the federal government has on every aspect of our lives.

    I am not a Donald Trump fan. But if he gets the Republican nomination, you can be damn sure I will not stay home and hand Hillary Clinton the election. Nor will I encourage anyone else to do so out of some misguided sense of not actively participating in whatever evil a Clinton presidency would foist upon this country. If you know what’s coming, and you do nothing to stop it, you are just as culpable as those who are actively promoting it.

    Telling people anything to the contrary is irresponsible to the point of being immoral.

    • NDaniels

      ” It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom.”

      There is nothing that precludes The Bishops from pointing out where the candidates stand on Life issues; there is nothing that precludes a Catholic from voting for a candidate other than Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump.

      • That’s fine, too.

        • mortimer zilch

          “oh yeah, just so long as you don’t vote for Trump”….that is the author’s main goal. And it is total B.S. Hillary Clinton and/or Bernie Sanders…aka EITHER OF THEM! must not get elected this election. NO REPUBLICAN establishment candidate should get elected either - because BOTH PARTIES yield the same horrible results. DONALD TRUMP is an outsider who must first win the more difficult election - securing the Republican nomination! The establishment GOP would rather LOSE THE ELECTION to the Democrats, than lose control of the Republican Party to Donald Trump!!! That’s the facts. Mr. Caro here is an agent of the establishment to scuttle Trumps bid for Candidacy of the Republican Party. A loathsome deceit it is.

          • Does the Establishment pay in Etsy gift certificates too? Asking. For a friend.

    • Please reread what the Bishops have previously said on this issue. You’re free to believe that Mr. Trump has had a conversion on the life issue. Pray that it were so. But his repeated defense of Planned Parenthood shows that believing his words is a leap of faith at best. Mr. Trump has also advocated for the military killing of innocents and non-combatants, something that is both immoral and a war crime. But I guess he is being nuanced there too, right?

      • Tamenund

        Mattias,
        There are 109,000 Iraqis dead because of an unnecessary war the United States launched under the “pro-life” President George Bush.

        And Trump opposed the war (in 2003). (And he backtracked on his words about killing innocents and non-combatants.)

        This idea that Trump and Hillary can be compared with one another on the subject of abortion is absurd.

        • In 2003 Trump was also pro-abortion, since that is the relevant issue.

          • Tamenund

            Mattias,

            You’re pretty good at the witty reply, which I imagine almost anyone would be after say, oh, two or three days in your shoes.

            But you didn’t address my point.

            You made a point against Trump on his position on the targeting of terrorist families; I pointed out that he reversed that position, which you didn’t address in your witty reply.

            I pointed out that the “pro-life” establishment President launched a war of aggression that resulted in 109,000 dead Iraqis (to say nothing of the maimed or the dead and maimed Americans). He did this over the protestations of the Holy Father, Saint Pope John Paul II, who traveled the world roaring his opposition to the war during its run-up.

            Where was the outrage against George Bush during his re-election in 2004? Where was the voice of those who now seem to find it in their hearts to sympathize with the families of the terrorists?

            It’s all too little, too late, I’m afraid; Trump is the natural consequence of a tepid leadership, be it by the American politicians or the American clergy. Live with it.

          • Sorry if I am not persuaded that Trump will bluster at a debate and then hide behind campaign press releases to CYA on something that any person running for President should know better. BTW, did he also recant water-boarding? Or is he going to hide behind technicalities in the law?

            Many, many Catholics were mistaken over their support of President Bush. Indeed, I remember the Bishop of Baghdad warning Catholics gathered at a national prayer breakfast of a coming persecution.

            Trump may be the consequence of such inaction, but “live with it” seems a vindictive stance to take, especially in this year of mercy, wouldn’t you say?

  • Phil Sakimoto

    I think that with this election we need to beyond the usual issues. Pope Francis, in his encyclical Laudato Si’, reminds us about the the significant harm that climate change is doing to every person on Earth. While I am usually not in favor of voting on the basis of a single issue, in this case I think differently. If we do not solve the climate problem, nothing else will really matter.

    • So where would that take you? And the problem of a candidate advocating grave evil and objective evil is not solved. Are the Bishops are there?

  • Rachel Meyer

    I think it’s pretty clear that Hilary Clinton is more likely to actively seek to advance abortion “rights” in this country. A female democrat of her age would certainly take that as a guiding issue and want to leave a “legacy” in that area. Her ideal is free abortions for all, paid by the state. (We’re already 1/3 of the way there.) Is Trump sincerely convicted about the sanctity of life? Probably not. But he won’t take the advancing of abortion as an unquestionable good. I think it’s likely that there would be an absolute higher number of abortions after a Clinton presidency than after a Trump presidency.

    It’s really not even fair to say that there is no significant difference between the two on abortion, since one candidate prides herself on forcefully supporting it and another claims to be opposed to it. Even if that choice is a political and not conscientious one, it’s still a choice not to support abortion.

    • These are fair points. I will say similar things were said vis-a-vis President Obama and given his vote on born-alive in Illinois. The needle has not moved much in seven years. But it can’t just be a gamble that Trump at least provides a chance to be better. That has to be based on evidence and some reasonable conclusion. For me, his words are simply unreliable, especially when he praises PP.

      • You thinking runs as if Trump will be a dictator. No, he will have a Republican administration and a base electorate that is pro-life. He will have to be pro-life. Otherwise his support collapses.

        • Really? This man touts how “self-funded he is”—why does he need the pro-life base at all (a base he has hardly courted….I don’t even recall him attending the March for Life). This thinking simply does not stand up to the facts.

          • Obviously you don’t understand politics. Once in office a president’s approval numbers gives him political capital, not funding, either from self or others. Congress will only go along with his policies if it’s in their interest or they fear he will campaign against them. If his base abandon’s him, then his approval drops into the 20’s, just like the last year of Pres G. W. Bush, and then no one will fear him. The pro life base is a significant part of his bottom line support. He would abandon them at his peril.

          • I don’t think it’s reasonable to conclude that the pro-life base is part of Mr. Trump’s base at this time and possibly in the future.

          • You don’t? They’re going to go for Hillary? Well, we just disagree. Have a nice night.

          • The point is the pro-life vote might not go for anyone at all.

      • Tamenund

        Mattias,
        It almost sounds as if you have reached your conclusion before thinking it through.
        There are plenty of examples of people running for office and changing their tune on a hot-button issue; abortion is probably the obvious one.
        You start the argument from the position that Trump’s position is not credible because it’s HIS position. You have a greater obligation to believe that he is sincere in his position until proven otherwise.
        As has been pointed out, comparing Trump’s changed position on the subject of abortion to Hillary’s committed support of it is almost disingenuous.

        • I have read Trump’s letter on his new found position and also heard his statements on planned parenthood. Seems reasonable to apply Reagan’s mantra of “trust but verify.” Simply put, many people do not like the fact that Trump does not “verify” on this subject. It seems rather mind-blowing that sincere, pro-life Catholics would believe a man who has, among other things, spent his life pushing smut in his casinos. Do we or do we not believe the life issue and sexual ethics are connected?

          Additionally, there is no equivocating between Trump and Hilary in the sincerity of their positions. However, given how little the abortion rate fluctuates between various president, the power of the Presidency is truly limited in this capacity. And given that Trump once mentioned he’d nominate his very pro-abortion sister to the court, I see very little reason for hope that in the few places where the President can make a difference, Trump will.

          And this is all without touching his other major problems, including the advocating of war crimes of targeting innocent civilians.

          • Brian

            The needle certainly has moved when the govt. is now forcing Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for abortifacients.

    • Nicely said.

    • Ethan Thompson

      Fair point but you ignore the other additional costs that come with Trump. Donald Trump vindicates every biased, misleading thing i’ve heard liberal teachers, professors, etc. claim about Republicans and the conservative movement my entire life. I will not be complicit in associating him with the Republican Party any longer than necessary. He is a net loss. If he did somehow win the Presidency, the conservative brand would be attached to all the judges he appoints, all the taxes he helps impose and would be largely culpable for Republicans losing the senate and late the House, not to mention the trickle down effects on state and local races. Choosing the lesser of two evils only makes sense when one choice is clearly less evil. At a certain point, one cannot reasonably justify betraying his or her values out of a misguided sense of party loyalty. But even if I didn’t care about morals and was only thinking about the Party’s future, i’d still say it’s better to lose this battle now to win the war later. I’d have supported almost any candidate besides Trump. Just be glad i’m not voting for Hillary out of protest.

  • Nigel C.

    I’ve really had enough with this rhetoric when it comes to voting. The reality is that abortion and same-sex marriage are currently legalized, both by Supreme Court decisions and not executive actions of presidents.

    I honestly believe that Bernie Sanders is not interested in increasing abortions. It has not been a part of his platform at all. Rather, his is committed to decreasing poverty (specifically child poverty) and closing the income disparity gap. He is ready to invest in alternative energy solutions to combat climate change. He is in favor of restricting access to dangerous assault weapons, against police militarization and racial violence, against unjust war and interventionism, against the death penalty and the prison industrial complex, committed to providing paid maternity and family leave for working mothers and fathers, supports and welcomes immigrants and refugees to this country, stands up for a living wage and not a minimum wage, and is running his campaign with financial transparency in the face of a corrupt system, in which candidates rise to the top not because of viability, but rather via extreme fundraising from corporate interests. And he believes healthcare is a right.

    ALL of these stances are endorsed by the USCCB.

    (see here: http://wwwmigrate.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-two.cfm)

    That makes just 2 of his stances inconsistent with Catholic social teaching. I have no problem voting for such a candidate, because I don’t believe in only 2 issues being non-negotiable. In previous scenarios of voting for Romney or Ryan, and in current candidates Cruz or Rubio, the opposite is the case. These candidates are against ALL of the USCCB positions except for abortion and same-sex marriage legal. Is that really worth it?

    • The Supreme Court has erred in finding a constitutional right to abortion. There is nothing infallible about the court. This error has lead to a slew of other errors based on that faulty jurisprudence. That is the single biggest place the President can have impact on abortion. There are others, but your point on abortion is valid, in so far as the number of abortions does not fluctuate from president to president and Republican presidents have delivered very little on this issue.

      From Catholic social teaching perspective, Republicans seem to exalt legitimate means (free enterprise, market solutions) damn be their consequences and ends, which CST finds problematic. Bernie reverses that. The question is which brings us to a more just social order. Not sure either accomplishes those stated goals.

      • Randy Duke

        From Catholic social teaching perspective, Republicans seem to exalt legitimate means (free enterprise, market solutions) damn be their consequences and ends, which CST finds problematic.
        Really? So according to you this is what Republicans stand for? This is just plain insulting.

  • Nigel

    I’ve really had enough with this rhetoric when it comes to voting. The reality is that abortion and same-sex marriage are currently legalized, both by Supreme Court decisions and not executive actions of presidents.

    I honestly believe that Bernie Sanders is not interested in increasing abortions. It has not been a part of his platform at all. Primarily, he is committed to decreasing poverty (specifically child poverty) and closing the income disparity gap. He is ready to invest in alternative energy solutions to combat climate change. He is in favor of restricting access to assault weapons, against police militarization and racial violence, against unjust war and interventionism, against the death penalty and the prison industrial complex, committed to providing paid maternity and family leave for working mothers and fathers, supports and welcomes immigrants and refugees to this country, stands up for a living wage, and is running his campaign with financial transparency in the face of a corrupt electoral system. And he believes healthcare is a right.

    ALL of these stances are endorsed by the USCCB, in their document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.

    I have no problem voting for such a candidate, because I don’t believe in only 2 issues being non-negotiable. In previous scenarios of voting for Romney or Ryan, and in current candidates Cruz or Rubio, the opposite is the case. These candidates are against ALL of the USCCB’s positions except for abortion and same-sex marriage. Is that really worth it?

    • When Bernie is on his way to being the nominee of a major party then this might be the topic of conversation. He is not the presumptive nominee.

    • mortimer zilch

      the bishops not only are giving terrible guidance to the voters, they give terrible example. They have not yet issued a statement about US politics that has been worth its weight in paper, IMHO.

  • The Bishops have never outright said never to vote for pro-abortion candidates. So why this stance now? Frankly it has always appeared to me that the Catholic Church supports the left side of politics, even though the hostility toward religion comes from the left. It baffles me.

    • This stance is not new. The quoted document is from the previous election cycle.

      • Still the Bishops lean left, despite the pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage crowd on the left.

        • “Lean left” is broad and an unhelpful distinction nowadays.

          • To you maybe. Obviously you’re a lefty.

          • Thanks, Manny. That clear up a lot of confusion in my life. Comrades, onward!

          • mortimer zilch

            mockery is a sign of insincerity and deceit. You are what we have called you.

          • It can also be a sign of simply arguing in circles. Sometimes charity requires a bit of levity.

          • mortimer zilch

            You are an utter let-down .

          • Moooooo.

          • mortimer zilch

            that’s all you got…sarcasm. True sign of a bankrupt mentality. U r a paid spy embedded in this fake site to push the Catholic vote around. Really disgusting. Go to Confession and get back to Church.

          • I was not aware that calumny and detraction were no longer sins.

          • mortimer zilch

            okay okay…it is my THEORY that you are paid to derail Catholic thinking…etc. This whole Crisis site if a bogus front if you ask me…sure looks like it, acts like…, smells like it.

  • Jake

    A note on Trump. Whether he is or is not for abortion, there are certain things Trump has specifically and consistently advocated for in this election cycle: (1) committing war crimes by killing putatively innocent family members of suspected terrorists; (2) explicit adoption of torture; and (3) the deportation of 11 million people, with the result of breaking of millions of families. These are not issues that have been typically raised as non-negotiable “intrinsic evils” by the USCCB in the past, because quite frankly no one has seriously advocated such policies. Even W couched his torture program as “enhanced interrogation” and sought to redefine torture so that certain techniques (which almost certainly are torture under any non-tortured definition of the term) would not be legally deemed such.

    This is not about the social justice program of democrats or Trump’s integrity issues. This is about issues that we, as the victors in World War II along with our allies, prosecuted and condemned to death Nazi leaders for committing, because they were intrinsically wrong. If Clinton’s record on abortion disqualifies her from receiving any vote from a Catholic (and I think that it does), Trump’s positions on the three items above should similarly disqualify him.

    So, you’re left with the position of either not voting, or deciding between Clinton and Trump (assuming he gets the nomination and there is no viable third party candidate) on reasons other than the intrinsically evil elements of their platforms.

    • These are all great points. I add that a “not voting” among a large block of Catholics is a very strong signal and coupled with sustained engagement at all levels of the government can turn election cycles quickly. The rise of the ’94 Republicans after Clinton’s election and attempts to turn the country left and the recent rise of the tea party movement after Obama’s election prove out this fact.

      • Jake

        FYI, Mattias, I posted this on Medium a few days ago, and it goes along with my point above.

        https://medium.com/@jakeneu/donald-trump-is-no-true-scotsman-and-other-political-fallacies-a6044ac8b513#.nes35ngow

    • Nick

      I could not agree more. Spot on. Any Catholic that can say that they can vote for Trump in any better conscience than they can vote for Clinton is misguided. As the original article pointed out very well, abortion (something we all care deeply about) is essentially a non-issue this election, because we have one candidate who outright supports it and another who has supported it in the past and now claims to not support it but really does not care about it whatsoever. Because I see both of them as either vocally supporting or being complacent to this “intrinsic evil”, it’s nearly impossible to use abortion as a way of tilting your vote towards one candidate or the other. To me, that means that for the time being we may have to make our best moral judgement based on other issues, and work to find other ways (other than voting for President) to end abortion in this country.

  • Ginnyfree

    Well, first time here and glad a I found you. Thank you for knowing your stuff. And thank you for this little bit of common sense Catholicism: “Catholics have the option to simply not vote.” I just went a few rounds trying to explain this to a silly woman who was told by her priest that to not vote is a big sin, etc. I will refer her here to read your excellent article. God bless. Ginnyfree.

    PS. Come to Church Militant for a fun once in a while.

  • Brian

    The article fails to mention the two best alternatives for Catholics that aren’t comfortable with the 2 major party candidates. The biggest signal would be sent by voting for a 3rd party candidate, or even organizing a nationwide write-in campaign that would not need to have a chance to win, but to send a message. At the least, before staying home, the voter should go to the polls and vote for all the other offices on the ballot which SHOULD be more important than the presidency anyway, and just leave the presidential vote blank. People studying the vote totals will surely notice if the Senate race in a certain state garners 2 million votes, and only 1.5 million votes are cast for president.

    • Jim

      Fully aware that he will not win , I am voting for a 100 percent, no-doubt-about-it, unequivocally, never varied in his life in his stance, pro-life candidate for President. And then voting for every other office up for grabs on the ballot.

      By the way, anybody who thinks that the best way to curtail abortions in this country is making it illegal is deluded. There is no correlation between anti-abortion laws and lower abortion totals anywhere in the world.

      The sexual revolution/free love lifestyle/hook up culture (whatever you want to call it) is the #1 reason why abortions are so high in number. A married couple who wants to raise children, and conceives, will NEVER be forced to have an abortion, whether Hillary wins, whether Trump wins, or whether the Jolly Green Giant wins. Abortion is just a convenient way to erase an unwanted pregnancy. Changing our sexual morals to make fornication and adultery shameful (and cause for excommunication from the Catholic Church) will cut down the number of unwanted pregnancies to virtually zero.

  • “This is often presented with the claim that if Catholics don’t vote for Trump, they are helping elect Clinton. That is false”.

    Actually it is not. If you abstain from voting, you cast a half vote for each of them. If you vote for Trump, you are casting a full vote for Trump and a full vote against Clinton.

    To take it to it’s obvious conclusion: If all good people sit this one out, our next president will be elected by evil people.

  • David W

    I think the argument is weak because you commit the begging the question fallacy on there being no difference between Trump and Clinton. That’s the point to be proven. As I see it, we know the evil Clinton will do. We fear Trump might do likewise.

    Now that he effectively has things locked up, he may prove the charge that he will be as bad as Hillary. If so, he will make the decision not to vote for him easy. But for now, it’s known evil vs. possibly equal evil.

  • Brigid Lynch

    the reason why the eugenicist/pragmatist Obama got into power was because SO many Christians did not vote…sometimes not voting IS promoting evil …

  • Jim M.

    If I am offered a choice between two objectionable candidates then I believe I must first look at each individually. Does candidate “A” offer more positives than negatives, and will we have good opportunity to mitigate any likely harm done by that candidate? On that individual discernment of either Clinton or Trump, they both fail miserably. Both have more negatives than positives. It’s only if one or both pass that first test that I can compare them to one another and choose one.

  • Pamela Samash

    Write in your candidate.

  • Piotrek Gilgotek

    I find this point of view very interesting, because I am a German Catholic and didn’t know anything about the fact Trump once supported abortion.
    In Europe we have a lot of problems with Muslims - especially Turkish and Arabic people stress us - and that’s why I liked Trump’s sentence about Muslims. Here we are afraid of going to church while they have Ramadan, but the German Media shows nothing about the aggressive Muslims, who now come from all over the world to us.
    On the other hand side I couldn’t support a man, who now is against abortion to fish Christians for his career. If he is not 100%ly against abortion, I think he is not better than Clinton and the other guys, who belong to Freemasonry.

  • Rebecca Goll

    All of us Catholics should find a third party candidate that fits the Catholic standard and all vote for them. They might have a chance then, and even if they don’t it sends a message to the R’s and D’s to change or they might lose to a third party in the future, and this way we aren’t voting for someone against our beleifs.

  • Randy Duke

    You cannot be pro-choice and Catholic. This is completely inconsistent with the teachings of the church.

  • Randy Duke

    You make some very good points. I think we must all step back and look beyond the election. We should ask this question - what will the Supreme Court look like under President Clinton or under President Trump?
    Two terrible choices from the outset yet I cannot allow Hillary Clinton to win the presidency. She will select the most liberal and extreme people for justices - she already said she thought the idea of Obama as a Supreme Court justice sounded good to her.
    This for me has been my key question in this election.

  • Prolifedem6M

    Not to decide is to decide. Not to vote is to leave our major decision as citizens to others. I still think it’s a cop-out, a refusal to take responsibility for the decision that is ultimately made. When we sit out elections, we open the door to mob rule and rule by whichever elite that can assemble the bigger mob. We leave our own voices unheard.
    That still leaves us in a quandary. This year’s election is a conundrum. On the one hand in the major parties we have a rabid pro-abort who will effectively elevate Planned Parenthood to a de facto cabinet position. On the other, a demogogue with little comprehension of what it takes to run a country, especially the world’s leading superpower. In the two minor parties, we have two pro-aborts with extreme platforms (though surely no more extreme this year than the two major party platforms).
    I’m wondering how much of our conundrum is a direct result of our failure to vote in the primaries. If all those former Democrats who left the Party over abortion and now call themselves “independents” had stayed in the fight, we pro-lifers would make up well over half the Party and could put up and elect candidates of our choosing. By opting out of participation in Party decisions, they handed the Party over to the radical left.
    There is another pro-life candidate emerging. Evan McMullin is a mainstream Republican, a former head of the CIA. It will be interesting to see if he can attract the support of those Republicans who refuse to endorse Trump. If he can, he will surely attract the needed money even at this late date. You may have to write in his name in your state, but he seems to be the only alternative for us pro-lifers who see Trump as unfit and Hillary as totally unacceptable.