The proverbial elephant in the room for Catholics as general elections roll around is the challenging question: But, what about abortion…? The teaching of the Catholic Church is unwavering as to the intrinsic evil and moral gravity of this act. However, in the pluralistic society in which we live, where legal abortion is protected under the law flowing from the Supreme Court precedent in Roe v. Wade, this presents an ongoing dilemma for what a good Catholic should do when confronted with selecting candidates for public office. Must a Catholic always vote against a candidate who might otherwise reflect the broad spectrum of Catholic social teaching but is committed to uphold the law of the land regarding abortion rights? Must a Catholic foreswear a political party that reflects in their judgment the broad spectrum of Catholic pro-life issues but maintains a ‘pro-choice’ stand in its party platform?
First of all, contrary to the many talking (screaming) heads on social media, it is important to note that no political party perfectly reflects Catholic moral teaching. All of them are flawed and compromised. While the Republican party may be anti-abortion, many of its candidates are pro-death penalty. While the Democratic party may be committed to medical care for all as a right, they are also pro-choice.
Second, the Catholic Church does not endorse any political party or candidates for office. Now, individual bishops and priests may indeed voice their strong convictions, even thru YouTube videos, and may even state that a Catholic ‘is sinning’ by belonging to a particular political party or voting for a particular candidate and even, should refrain from communion if they vote for a particular candidate that belongs to a ‘forbidden’ party! As vociferous and insistent as these individuals may be, this is merely their strongly held opinion and in no way represents the official position of the Catholic Church.
As an active priest and pastor, I avoided assiduously voicing partisan political comments. It is improper for the Church pulpit to be commandeered as a bully pulpit by clergy to voice partisan political positions. That is not to say, as our Church rightly encourages her ministerial leaders, that we are to avoid the ethical issues that undergird so much of the political debates today. As proclaimers of the Good News, it is incumbent on all Christians, including the ordained, to voice and give witness to the values that flow from the Christian ethic to shape the common good. Ministers of the Word are especially called to assist in the formation of an informed conscience for those whom they serve.
Now that I’m retired and do not hold public office as a minister of the Church, I am free to engage in a more pointed and candid manner in the dialogue that is an important part of citizenship in a country where free speech is a valued hallmark of our Republic. A priest does not give up this right but understandably channels it carefully depending on whether he remains a public leader of a community or is now a private though engaged citizen in retirement.
These reflections were prompted by comments by some who have taken exception to what were perceived to be intemperate and highly critical comments by me of a partisan nature regarding the President and others in the present administration. These individuals strongly felt it was unbecoming of me to voice such criticism especially since the President is ‘anti-abortion.’ The implication in this criticism is, quite simply, that a politician should be given a ‘pass’ on all other critical life issues, e.g., care for the poor, immigration, refugees, capital punishment, gun control, universal health care, global warming and environmental issues, not to mention a lack of character and integrity, etc., if he or she voiced support for anti-abortion legislation.
Fortunately, the Bishops of our Country in their very wise and measured statement, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, are careful to avoid canonizing one political party based upon the sole criterion of their position on abortion. It places great moral responsibility on the conscience of the individual citizen to weigh the proportionate life values that reflect a Catholic ethic as those values touch the full spectrum of life issues engaging voters. While the ethical inviolability and sanctity of life in the womb undergirds the unwavering Catholic position that sees the intrinsic evil of this act, should this position supersede all other life-issues?
In 2004, to assist in the proper discernment in regard to an informed response to that critical question, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, at the time, under the leadership of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, issued a document entitled, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles.” An important note to that document referencing voting for political candidates states in the classical language of moral theology:
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.
Now, much ink has been spilled over the phrase proportionate reasons by Catholic writers. There are some who even posit that there can never be any proportionate reasons! Skilled theologian that he is, Cardinal Ratzinger, of course would never have placed the phrase in this document if, indeed, this were the case.
It is important to note, however, that nowhere in the document does it spell-out what those “proportionate reasons” are. Hence, the Church leaves it to the individual’s own prudential judgement and conscience before God to determine.
Some examples might prove helpful at this point:
Suppose that a good practicing Catholic has pondered seriously the positions of the candidates in the upcoming presidential election. While she strongly accepts the intrinsic evil of abortion, she feels that providing a comprehensive health care coverage especially for the poor would decrease the need for elective abortions. This might count as a proportionate reason.
Or suppose that one strongly objects to the stated positions of one candidate in favor of capital punishment, the use of torture for enemy combatants, the treatment of immigrants and the separation of their children from parents while in custody, the denial of climate change that in time could lead to the death of millions, actions contrary to Catholic Social Teaching, though that candidate is anti-abortion. This might count as a proportionate reason to vote against the candidate.
Or suppose a particular candidate who while he opposes abortion demonstrates such a serious lack of character and competence in carrying out the responsibilities of the office he seeks that it threatens to harm the already born in a manner that outweighs the good that his anti-abortion position promises to accomplish for those in the womb. This might count as a proportionate reason to vote against the candidate.
A voter could very well be wrong in these personal judgments. But that does not of itself mean that they vote Democrat to advance pro-abortion policies.
And finally, a word about the phrase ‘nonnegotiable’ that appears in many ‘Catholic’ Voter Guides that are, for the most part, of a partisan and ideologically driven nature. Often, they state that abortion is a ‘non-negotiable’ moral issue when it comes to voting. While sponsors of these Voter Guides are motivated by their laudable passion to safeguard the life of the unborn, it is important to note that they represent the strongly held convictions and opinions of their authors and not the official position of the Catholic Church. Using the term ‘nonnegotiable,’ the Bishops’ document, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, states: When there is a truly grave moral reason for the choice, the voter’s intent, not the “nonnegotiable” character of the policy topic, is determinative (No. 35).
And so, the dialogue, often heated and passionate, continues – and often plays out in social media! However, it is utterly shameful that a Catholic, be that a layperson, priest or bishop, should prejudge the conscience of another in these matters. As Pope Francis has said, the church is called to form consciences, not replace them. This is one reason why the church doesn't endorse any one candidate or party.
To the extent that this dialogue generates more light than heat, so that we might see our way a bit more clearly through the talking heads that surround and assault us, is, in my humble opinion, a good thing. Hence, my continued engagement in the dialogue.
An extremely helpful and carefully crafted reflection on this whole issue can be found in an address given by San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy delivered on Feb. 6, 2020 at the Harpst Center for Catholic Thought and Culture at the University of San Diego. Entitled, "Conscience, Candidates and Discipleship in Voting," McElroy's talk looks at the moral act of voting in original and incisive ways and lays the groundwork for development of "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," the U.S. bishops' quadrennial document on voting.
In the end, however, fruitful dialogue on this critical moral issue demands prudence, civility, humility, compassion and empathy. Undoubtedly, that makes such dialogue all the more challenging these days since these virtues are substantially lacking in our President who models his own unique combative style for his supporters.
Responsible free speech is a hallmark of what has made our country truly great. I glory in that foundational freedom in this country I dearly love. History has witnessed the consequences when freedom of speech withers by fear and intimidation. The following quote by the German Lutheran pastor, Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) should be a sobering warning to us all:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.