Michael Brooks
Every election cycle, Catholics face a moral dilemma: how to vote in a way that aligns with their values when no candidate fully embodies them. The common response is to vote for the lesser of two evils, but is this truly a Catholic approach? While Pope Francis has urged Catholics to vote no matter what, some argue that voting for a lesser evil candidate is permissible and prudent, but not obligatory. The key consideration is the candidate's stance on non-negotiable issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and religious liberty. A Catholic must never formally cooperate with intrinsic evils, but voting for a candidate who is not wholly aligned with Catholic teaching on non-negotiables may be justified if it prevents a greater evil.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Voting for the lesser of two evils | Permissible, but not obligatory |
| Voting for a pro-abortion candidate | Not justified |
| Voting for a Freemason | Permissible, if they maintain an important principle of natural law |
| Voting for a pro-choice candidate | Morally licit |
| Voting for a candidate who promotes an unjust war | Permissible and prudent |
| Voting for a candidate who promotes intrinsically evil laws | Sinful |
| Voting for a candidate who promotes gender ideology | Sinful |
| Voting for a candidate who promotes religious persecution | Sinful |
| Voting for a candidate who promotes structural injustice | Sinful |
| Voting for a third-party candidate | Not helpful |
| Voting for a candidate who promotes Catholic values | Obligatory |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Abortion
Given this, Catholics are faced with a dilemma when choosing between candidates who hold differing views on abortion. On the one hand, they may feel that they cannot vote for a candidate who supports abortion, as this would be considered formal cooperation with evil. On the other hand, they may also feel that they have a responsibility to vote and to choose the candidate who will do the least harm overall.
Some Catholic sources suggest that it is permissible to vote for the 'lesser of two evils', even if that candidate holds views contrary to Church teaching. This is based on the idea that the primary intention of voting for this candidate is to prevent the greater evil of the other candidate from being elected. Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have both suggested that voting for the lesser of two evils can be justified in certain circumstances. Pope John Paul II also taught that it is legitimate for a legislator to vote for a more restrictive law regarding abortion over a less restrictive one.
However, other sources emphasise that Catholics should not vote for a candidate who supports abortion, even if they are considered the lesser of two evils. Cardinal Ratzinger, for example, stated that this would only be considered permissible if there were proportionate reasons, such as preventing a greater evil. It is also emphasised that Catholics should make it clear that they do not support the evil positions of the candidate they vote for, and that their intention is to prevent a greater evil.
In summary, while there is no clear consensus, many Catholic sources suggest that it is justifiable for Catholics to vote for the lesser of two evils when it comes to abortion, as long as their intention is to prevent the greater evil and they do not support the candidate's position on abortion. However, others maintain that Catholics should not vote for any candidate who supports abortion, even if they are considered the lesser evil. Ultimately, the decision is left to the individual Catholic voter, who must use their conscience to guide their decision.
Covid Vaccine: Catholic Church's Stance and Member Sentiment
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Euthanasia
The Catholic Church teaches that it is sinful for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who claims to be Catholic but is not "Pro-Life" (anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-homosexual unions). However, Catholics are not morally obliged to vote for the opponent of such a candidate. Instead, they are encouraged to vote for solidly Catholic candidates.
When deciding whom to vote for, Catholics are advised to consider the following five "non-negotiables":
- Abortion
- Euthanasia
- Embryonic stem cell research
- Assisted suicide
- Homosexual unions
If a candidate fails on any of these non-negotiables, they should be eliminated from consideration. However, if both candidates support abortion, euthanasia, or other non-negotiables, Catholics may vote for the lesser of two evils—the candidate who is less likely to advance the evil causes at hand. This is because, by voting for a candidate who endorses moral evils, one becomes an accomplice to those evils.
In some cases, Catholics may choose to vote for a third-party candidate who aligns better with their values, even if they have no chance of winning. However, Catholics are not morally obligated to vote for third-party candidates.
It is important to note that the Church does not require Catholics to vote for specific candidates. Catholics can vote for candidates who endorse evil acts if they have ""morally grave reasons" to justify their vote. For example, it may be justifiable to vote for a candidate who opposes euthanasia, even if they endorse abortion, to prevent a worse candidate from getting elected.
In summary, when deciding whom to vote for, Catholics should prioritize the five non-negotiables and, if necessary, vote for the lesser of two evils to prevent the greater evil from being elected.
Catholics Abstain from Meat on Christmas Eve: Why?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Same-sex marriage
The Catholic Church has consistently opposed the recognition and celebration of same-sex marriage. Despite this, Catholic laity has increasingly voiced their support for same-sex marriage, and some Catholic organizations have played a role in advocating for marriage equality.
In 2012, the Catholic Church spent nearly $2 million on campaigns against gay marriage in four states, and Catholic leaders have criticized attempts to legalize same-sex marriage in Europe and the United States. In 2013, Catholic bishops in Poland were publicly thanked by the church for voting down a bill that would have permitted same-sex civil partnerships. Similarly, in 2017, the president of the Austrian Bishop's Conference denounced the legalization of gay marriage in Austria.
However, there have been some signs of a shift in attitude within the church. In 2013, all Roman Catholic bishops in Belgium allowed blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples, and in 2021 and 2022, over a hundred Roman Catholic churches in Germany celebrated blessings of same-sex marriages. Additionally, Pope Francis's famous "Who am I to judge?" comment, made in response to a question about the acceptability of gay men as priests, has been interpreted as a neutralization of the church's previous stance on homosexuality. While his statement is not official church teaching, it has influenced the decisions of some religious orders and bishops regarding gay men as candidates for the seminary and priesthood.
When considering voting for the lesser of two evils, Catholics are faced with a complex moral decision, especially when neither candidate holds the "social goods" articulated by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 as the central tenets of their political views. In such cases, Pope Benedict noted that Catholics should choose the candidate who would do the least evil to prevent the greater evil of the other candidate. Pope Francis echoed this sentiment, stating that voters must make a choice between the "lesser of two evils."
When it comes to same-sex marriage, Catholics are taught that they cannot formally cooperate with or support candidates who endorse intrinsic evils, such as the legalization of abortion or same-sex marriage. However, it is important to note that voting for a candidate who holds some opposing views on lower-priority issues may be permissible if they uphold more critical principles of the natural law. Ultimately, Catholics must use their votes to prevent the worse of two viable candidates from being elected while also prioritizing moral issues over personal or economic ones.
The Holocaust's Catholic Martyrs: A Dark Chapter
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Voting for the 'lesser evil' is sinful
Voting for the lesser evil is sinful
Voting for the lesser of two evils is a common dilemma for Catholics during election seasons. While some people within the Church advocate for voting for the "lesser evil", this approach may not truly reflect Catholic teaching.
Firstly, it is important to understand that voting is not merely a civic act for Catholics, but a moral act. As such, voting for a candidate who promotes intrinsically evil laws or actions (such as abortion, euthanasia, gender ideology, religious persecution, or structural injustice) is a grave sin if a morally acceptable alternative exists. Catholics cannot actively support or cooperate with such evils, even if the candidate in question is the "lesser evil".
Secondly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that citizens have a duty to "submit to legitimate authorities and serve the common good" through their participation in the political community. This means that Catholics should prioritize moral issues over personal or economic ones when voting. The Church identifies five "non-negotiables" when deciding on a candidate: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human life, and marriage and family.
Thirdly, while it is permissible to tolerate a lesser evil for a proportionate reason, this does not mean that Catholics should vote for a candidate who embodies any evil. Instead, they should make their decision based on a hierarchy of values and issues, with moral issues taking the highest priority.
In conclusion, while the choice between two imperfect candidates may be difficult, Catholics should not compromise their values and vote for the lesser of two evils. Instead, they should prioritize moral issues and seek to support the common good without betraying the truth of the Gospel. If no morally acceptable candidate exists, it is better to abstain from voting than to become complicit in injustice.
Jesus' Nature: Adamic or Divine?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Voting for a non-viable third-party candidate
Voting for a third-party candidate who aligns with the Church's moral and social teachings is an option for Catholics. However, some argue that not voting or voting for a non-viable third-party candidate helps the worse of the two viable candidates. Catholics are morally obligated to use their votes to prevent this from happening. The Church provides moral principles to guide the decision-making process, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing moral issues over personal or economic ones.
The Church identifies five "non-negotiables" when considering a candidate to endorse: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage, and religious freedom. Catholics cannot support a candidate who endorses intrinsic evils, such as legal abortion, simply because they prefer that candidate's party or find the opposing candidate morally reprehensible. Voting for a pro-abortion candidate cannot be justified solely based on disagreements with the opposing candidate's views.
Catholics must carefully consider their options and prioritize preventing the greater evil while also recognizing that their vote is not an endorsement of all the evils the chosen candidate may support. Pope Benedict XVI's statement on the principle of social goods is relevant here; the public political character of a candidate should be judged by how closely their governance history, current policy views, and objectives align with the common good.
While voting for a non-viable third-party candidate may not directly influence the election's outcome, it can be a way for Catholics to uphold their values and principles without compromising their conscience. However, it is essential to consider the potential impact on the overall election result and whether abstaining from voting for a major candidate could inadvertently contribute to the success of a worse candidate.
In conclusion, while voting for a non-viable third-party candidate may be an option for Catholics, it is a decision that requires careful consideration of the potential consequences and a clear understanding of the Church's teachings on moral obligations during elections.
Exploring the Diversity of Catholic Congregations
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
"Voting for the lesser of two evils" refers to the act of choosing a candidate who does not fully align with Catholic values or teachings, but whose position is less extreme than their opponent's.
While some argue that Catholics should abstain from voting if no candidate fully embodies Catholic values, others suggest that voting for the lesser of two evils is permissible and prudent. Ultimately, the Church leaves the decision to the individual, providing moral principles to guide their choice.
Catholics should consider the candidates' positions on non-negotiable issues such as abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human life, marriage and family, and religious liberty. They should also examine the candidates' governance history, current policy views, and objectives to determine how closely they align with the common good.
Catholics can justify their vote by making clear their absolute personal opposition to the evil embraced by the candidate. They should ensure their true motive is understood, and any scandal caused by the appearance of voting for evil is corrected.
If both candidates promote intrinsically evil laws or actions, Catholics should prioritize preventing the greater evil. They may vote for a candidate who promotes a lesser evil to avoid the greater evil of the alternative, but they must not formally cooperate with or support intrinsic evils.
