The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Four principles for Catholics during election season

Among the various values mentioned, a priority must be given to the defense of human life, since life is the most fundamental good of all, the one without which the other goods wouldn’t obtain.

(Image: us.fotolia.com)

Every four years, Catholics face an intense dilemma in regard to the vote. There are ardently Catholic Democrats who wonder how their co-religionists could possibly choose a Republican candidate, and there are ardently Catholic Republicans who express precisely the opposite opinion. And both sides, typically, look with eagerness to their bishops and priests to resolve the tension. Each presidential election cycle, the Church endeavors to clarify the issue, usually to the satisfaction of very few. However, under the rubric of “once more unto the breach, dear friends,” let me try to provide some direction by articulating four basic principles.

First, Catholic social teaching clearly goes beyond the split between Republican and Democrat, between liberal and conservative, and therefore corresponds perfectly with neither political camp. Anyone who says that either of our political parties perfectly, or even adequately, represents Catholic social thought is simply misinformed. Broadly speaking, the Democratic Party advocates a number of themes and principles reverenced by the Catholic tradition: concern for the underprivileged, for the migrant and refugee, and for the environment, as well as opposition to capital punishment and to all forms of racism. And again, broadly speaking, the Republican Party sides with Catholic teaching in a number of ways: opposition to abortion and euthanasia, defense of the traditional family, advocacy for conscience protection and freedom of religion.

Which of the two parties is more “Catholic?” It seems to me impossible to adjudicate the question in the abstract.

Are we left, therefore, simply in a lurch? Not quite, and this leads to the second principle I would like to explicate: among the various values mentioned, a priority must be given to the defense of human life, since life is the most fundamental good of all, the one without which the other goods wouldn’t obtain. Therefore, in the political calculus of a Catholic, opposition to abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment should take pride of place.

Now, just to keep things complicated, Republicans are relatively right in regard to the first two and Democrats in regard to the last one, though, to be sure, the number of those threatened by abortion and euthanasia is far greater than the number of those under threat of capital punishment. Sometimes people will say that all lives are equally sacred, but in this context, that observation is something of a red herring. For the relevant question is not which lives are more sacred—those of the unborn, the elderly, the poor, the migrant—but which lives are more direly and directly threatened.

And this leads to a third principle: a Catholic may never vote for a candidate because that candidate supports a morally repugnant position, only despite that support and only because of balancing considerations. Thus, for example, a Catholic in good conscience could never say that she will vote for Joe Biden because the Democrat is pro-choice, and by the same token, a Catholic in good conscience could never say that he will vote for Donald Trump because the Republican is for capital punishment. Each would have to say some version of “despite his unacceptable position, I will vote for him because, in prudence, I have determined that other commitments of his and/or his own character counter-balances his objectionable opinion.” Does this lead us into somewhat murky waters? Frankly, yes, but that’s necessarily the case when we’re dealing not with matters of principle but matters of prudence.

And this last statement conduces to my fourth and final proposition: Catholics ought never to disagree in regard to moral principles, but they can indeed legitimately disagree about the best means to instantiate those principles. So, for example, I think that every Catholic in America ought to embrace the political ideals that I identified above, some more characteristic of the left and others of the right. Every Catholic ought to be for protecting the environment, serving the poor, defending the traditional family, battling social injustice, advocating for religious liberty and freedom of conscience, etc.

But not every Catholic is obliged to subscribe to the same means of attaining those ends. Liberal and conservative Catholics can disagree about the Paris Climate Accords, the legitimacy of off-shore drilling, the advisability of reforming our health-care system, changes to our tax laws, the level of the minimum wage, the best policy in regard to Wall Street regulation, etc., etc. Those latter issues are open to legitimate debate and are matters for prudential judgment.

Perhaps I might, in closing, not so much propose a fifth principle, as deliver myself of a cri de coeur: Vote! Some Catholics are tempted—and I will admit to feeling the tug of this temptation—that because things are so complicated politically for those who advocate Catholic social teaching, it is best to say, “a plague on both your houses,” and keep to the sidelines. But this is not a tenable position. In the Lord’s Prayer, we petition, “Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” The Gospel message does indeed draw us ultimately to eternal life on high with the Lord, but it also has real-world implications here below. If we Catholics don’t involve ourselves in the political process, as messy as that often is, we permit Catholic social teaching to remain a set of harmless abstractions.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Bishop Robert Barron 187 Articles
Bishop Robert Barron is an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the founder of Word on Fire Catholic Ministries. He is the creator of the award winning documentary series, "Catholicism" and "Catholicism:The New Evangelization." Learn more at www.WordonFire.org.

37 Comments

  1. Thank you for the thought provoking article. It is one of the few I have read that reintroduce civility into the political discussion.
    We need to end up voting for the party with the most palatable positions and defending life from conception to natural death outweighs all the other issues when we consider who is most vulnerable in our society.

    • Bishop Baron I love you and Jesus loves you. But in this voter guide you have only simplified the party position and left out the progressive movement towards socialism and its inherent evil that would destroy all freedom to worship Christ and protect the unborn. Though you are a bishop, recent encounters with The Christ tell me we are in dangerous times and the great parallels of demonizing a group or groups of people much like Nazi Germany are materializing once again.
      Jesus alone is King and Lord of all. Living in the beautiful land of California has clouded your judgement. By not clearly stating to voters the clear path to heaven,you err greatly and put your soul in grave danger. Yes, even Bishops must come to the throne of our God when we are called home. Stop trying to please all, only Jesus matters. Creating vague lines in the sand at this critical juncture of our nations history, not knowing that the left will go on to immortalize abortion in our laws is an unforgivable sin. One that will lead to great evil, sadness and death to the United States, a move further away from God’saving love and graces.
      All those years of study and you don’t know how to lead your flock? Jesus would never waffle, nor did Daniel when thrown to the lions, What are Catholic priests afraid of? You are the Lord’s anointed, act that way. There is only one candidate whom supports life, Donald Trump and the Republican party.
      I will pray that God will make our Catholic Bishops and Pope Francis to be courageous in their defense of the unborn, as this sin and the reparations that will follow will exceed slavery in our time.

  2. “…we permit Catholic social teaching to remain a set of harmless abstractions”. Alas, that is exactly what the Catholic vote is — harmless. Catholics are politically powerless because they vote in a manner indistinguishable from the rest of the society.

  3. I agree with your assessments on what issues Catholics need to consider when choosing a candidate. That starts with looking at what their policies and no one hides from their record on the internet have been in the past because that is a record. This means some serious digging beyond what the media will tell you. Their past policies will tell you what their future policies will entail.

    • Most Americans will no do “some serious digging,” or any, we add. Why not just rely on their openly declared intentions are regarding “future policies”? Both Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris and her now-best friend, Lunch Bucket Joe “Scranton” Biden, have stated, and very clearly that they will fight any attemmpts to limit abortion, much less reverse the Blackmun-family-decided Roe v Wade, and in fact will push to make Roe v Wade national law.

  4. I think this article could be summed up this way that I heard on Catholic Radio; we aren’t single issue voters but rather foundational issue voters.

  5. “Therefore, in the political calculus of a Catholic, opposition to abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment should take pride of place. ”

    Abortion and euthanasia are intrinsically wrong, as the Church has made abundantly clear for centuries upon centuries upon centuries upon centuries.

    Capital punishment is not intrinsically wrong, in fact it can be good, and the Church has made that abundantly clear for centuries upon centuries upon centuries, too.

    Lumping them together as if they all three should take “pride of place” is wrong.

  6. Once again, a bishop provides cover for Catholics who vote for pro-abortion Democrats by equating capital punishment with abortion. Barron falsely claims that a Catholic may not vote FOR a candidate specifically because he favors the death penalty. I am voting for President Trump because he is pro-life, which includes the protection of innocent life by opposing abortion AND supporting the death penalty.

  7. How does a layman take issue with such a well known Bishop? Well, let me jump into it. “And both sides (republican and democrat), typically look with eagerness to their bishops and priests to resolve the tension.” A lot of wishful thinking there. I am afraid that ship sailed a long time ago.
    That a bishop would equate abortion and euthanasia (intrinsically evil) with the death penalty (which is not) is appalling.
    I will give only two examples of the Church’s nineteen hundred year teaching on the death penalty. The catechism of the Council of Trent states that capital punishment is and act “of paramount obedience” to the fifth commandment. This was our official catechism for over four hundred years. in 2004, then Cardinal Ratzinger stated that unlike abortion and euthanasia, disagreeing with the Vatican on the issue of capital punishment and just war would not prevent someone from receiving the Eucharist.
    Bishop Barron also lists the concern for underprivileged, for the migrant and the refugee, for the environment and opposition to racism as qualities that only the democrats have. This is blatantly false.
    Bishop Barron states that, “Which of the two parties is more ‘Catholic’? It seems to me impossible to adjudicate the question in the abstract.” Well, fortunately we do not have to adjudicate it in the abstract, we can do it in the concrete. Both parties have platforms laying out their principles and intentions. We have a party of death and a party of life. The candidates, both for president and vice president, have stated their beliefs and intentions – death and life.
    As to looking to bishops for guidance, a majority of bishops in my state are registered members of the party of death. I can’t look there.
    As for claims that we need more civility, I say we need more outrage. If we can’t get outraged over the murder of thousands of babies every week, then we are in a pitiful state.
    It is no wonder that Father James Altman’s videos are so popular. He states the truth straight forward and truthfully.
    I recently reread Gordon Zahn’s book “German Catholics and Hitler’s Wars.” I believe a more accurate title would have been, “German Bishops and Hitler’s Wars.” I did not see a lot of outrage on the German bishops part.
    In conclusion, I guess I could say, along with Bishop Barron, if “we all have a reasonable hope of going to heaven”, none of this is a really big deal.

    • Perfect!! No one any longer looks to Bishops to inform them about anything, least of all politics. As usual the Bishop sits on the fence when the true position is staring him in the face. The Democrats have in the past forced Catholics to pay for other peoples abortions and will do so again, only next time the abortion laws will be much more draconian. The Bishop would do better to stir up some outrage among his fellow Bishops!!!

    • I recently reread Gordon Zahn’s book “German Catholics and Hitler’s Wars.” I believe a more accurate title would have been, “German Bishops and Hitler’s Wars.”

      The bishops’ teaching in matters of faith and morals is one thing, their political astuteness is quite another. The German bishops just didn’t see what was coming as Hitler rose to power. When it came they were intimidated, except for heroes like Cardinal Clemens von Galen.

      The U.S. bishops are, for the most part, clueless. A statement from the U.S. bishops that would be commensurate with the urgency of our present situation would make the following points:

      The Democrat party, the party that ferociously defends the “legal” murder of wiggling, kicking babies right up to the moment of birth — and afterwards — has no ethical boundaries whatsoever that constrain them in their lust for power.

      Note that in the last century, militantly atheistic, leftist, anti-Christian regimes have murdered well over 100 million of their unarmed political opponents. (Lenin’s Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917.)

      The godless, leftist Democrat party has been using the tactics of Hitler’s Brown Shirts and Lenin’s Bolsheviks, inciting insurrection, arson and anarchy all across America.

      A party that propagates Nazi-like “Big Lies” and uses Nazi/Commie tactics is going to establish a Nazi/Commie-like regime if they manage to seize power.

      You have been warned. Get politcal like your life and liberty, and that of your loved ones depended on it. Because it does.

  8. Taking the life of the innocent child in the womb is intrinsically evil. The death penalty is not intrinsically evil:

    The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. […] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it‘” …

    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.
    – Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the CDF (future Benedict XVI), Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles

    Benedict XVI’s words are worth reading in their entirety. See:
    Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles

    Consider also the words of Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former head of the CDF:

    On the domestic level, what is most at stake in the upcoming election is the lives of the unborn, as well as of the elderly and sick, in the fight against those who would promote abortion and euthanasia …

    Certain issues can be legitimately debated, like the border wall with Mexico, but not the lives of unborn children, without being complicit in their murder.
    Exclusive: Former Vatican Chief Says ‘Future of Democracy’ at Stake in U.S. Elections

    Finally consider the remarks of Archbishop Emeritus of La Plata, Argentina, Hector Aguer:

    Opting for a pro-abortion candidate or for a party that includes abortion in its platform is a mortal sin. …

    We become accomplices if we vote for people who are going to pass a law that facilitates abortion or that legalizes this abominable crime …

    We cannot vote for those parties or candidates who have declared themselves in favor of abortion …

    It is a mortal sin to vote for a party or a candidate who supports abortion, and I will argue this with anyone, because if not, what will become of us? This is about the life of a defenseless human being, innocent, the poorest of the poor, in this we cannot compromise.
    Archbishop: Voting for a Pro-Abortion Candidate Is ‘Mortal Sin’

    The stark contrast in emphasis between Bishop Barron’s remarks and those of the prelates cited here is very telling.

  9. It would be refreshing and instructive for a bishop, any bishop, to say, “I’m casting my vote for so-and-so, and here’s why. I’m not casting my vote for so-and-so, and here’s why not.” He wouldn’t be telling anyone who to vote for, wouldn’t be endorsing a candidate; merely explaining his own vote. Would give valuable insight into the thinking and moral discernment of bishops. Do any have the courage to do that?

  10. Here is an Interesting piece of information. Here in the UK, votes on abortion are officially a matter of personal conscience for MPs, not political party (for which I am very grateful). However, I think the general perception would be – and it is certainly my perception – is that the Labour Party is more pro-abortion than the Conservative (and I was a Labour Party member in the 90’s). Despite that, the evidence is that abortion rates tend to fall during periods when the Labour Party is in power, and rise when the Conservatives are in power. Why? Because mothers recieve more support from a Labour government. I would be interested to know if there is a similar pattern in the US.

  11. We as good Catholics KNOW what party we must vote. It need not be a difficult decision and if it is, we are NOT being truthful with ourselves or God. We must protect the unborn, period. Does that statement tell you anything. If not you are making the process too difficult!

  12. For Catholics, responsible citizenship, which includes voting, is very important. However, certain critical issues have not been addressed or explained very well to Catholic voters in this election season. I am tired of articles that muddy the waters, get in the weeds, and make things unclear that really are quite simple.
    Although many Catholics are not single issue voters, a political candidate’s position on a single issue may disqualify that candidate from receiving a vote from a faithful Catholic. A “disqualifying issue” pertains to actions of intrinsic moral evil: actions which can never at any time or under any circumstances be promoted, committed, or enabled by a faithful Catholic. A disqualifying issue is of such gravity and importance that it is non-negotiable and renders a candidate unacceptable for public office at the national, state, and local level.
    For example, a candidate who supports abortion or any other intrinsic moral evil disqualifies himself or herself as a person a Catholic can vote for. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ position states that the Catholic must always oppose policies that violate human life or weaken its protection. Human life is sacred, and direct attacks on innocent life are never morally acceptable. Therefore, intrinsic evils such as abortion and euthanasia must be vigorously opposed. A political candidate who supports these policies disqualifies himself or herself as a person a Catholic may vote for.
    The USCCB has stated that “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.” (USCCB, Nos. 25, 26 – 2019). In other words, other rights mean nothing if the person is DEAD. Simple, no? You got it? Good.
    Neither of the presidential candidates is perfectly aligned with Catholic teaching on every issue. What if, for example, neither of the presidential candidates is completely pro-life? Then Catholics must make an attempt to limit the evil aspects of abortion, by determining which candidate would cause the less damage. It follows from Saint John Paul’s encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” that if neither candidate is completely pro-life, then a voter must cast his ballot for the candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion.
    Clearly, that candidate is Donald Trump.

  13. JMJ
    This theologically-unsophisticated, practically-motivated, active, sincere, orthodox Catholic respond’s to Barron’s attempt to justify voting for Biden with the following.
    Biden, Harris, and the Democrat Party have stated clearly, as a matter of platform policy, that they intend to fight any pro life attempts to reverse the putrid, Blackmun-family-decided, constitutionally-defective, Roe v Wade, or any attempts to place any limits on the heretofore murder-the-baby-in-the-mother’s womb practice, commonly called abortion, and what is more to nationalize the sick, ugly, Roe v Wade, while Trump has shown great contempt for the far-fetched and immoral Roe v Wade and has indicated interest in finding a way to nullify it. In his second term he will not be as restricted in this as he has been in this first term.
    So, this “Catholic in good conscience” says “that he will vote for Donald Trump because the Republican is” clearly opposed to abortion and has proven that he delivers results, while Biden/Harris/Democrat Party are eagerly for abortion–maybe because of $$$$$$$$$.

  14. As a lifelong practicing Catholic, I tried to justify in my younger years voting for Democrats “in spite of” their pro abortion stance. I was WRONG. I have not voted for any pro baby killing candidate in 28 years. Growing up in a very Irish Catholic House, we were Democrats because JFK was a Democrat. When my husband pointed out to me that a lot of what JFK stood for in the 1960’s was no longer what Democrats stood for I was finally able to see the light. I will NEVER vote for a pro baby killer candidate. Most of the time I vote Republican because they are my ONLY CHOICE AS A GOOD CATHOLIC.

  15. I am encouraged by the responses to Bishop Barron’s remarks posted here. What concerns me is Catholics whose only contact with what the Church teaches is on Sunday morning. That’s it for millions of Catholics who don’t pay attention to Catholic media. They aren’t hearing blunt truth like that found in Fr. Altman’s homilies.

    Going by the usual “God is nice. You be nice, too” homilies they continuously hear they have no idea that the state claiming for itself the authority to legalize the murder of innocent humanity as a matter of social policy — by the thousands every day in our midst — is even an issue.

    It seems the Church’s bishops have been as blinded as the world is by the lethal bigotry of our times. When the Apostles don’t have the light of Christ — which dispels bigotry — the flock is on its own.

    At least I hope the U.S. bishops’ refusal to exhort the flock to deal with the daily mass murder of babies in a manner commensurate with its urgency is simply a matter of their bigotry, and not a matter of their belief that Caesar actually has the god-like authority to legalize murder.

  16. Racism – in itself – isn’t wrong. Capital punishment certainly isn’t. God prescribed capital punishment for some crimes in theocratic Israel. Concern for human beings always comes over that of the environment. Obviously, this includes laws against pollution which typically affects both humans and other living creatures. An illegal migrant shouldn’t be an object of great concern other than providing basic necessities and swift deportation proceedings.

  17. Barron says, “…both sides, typically, look with eagerness to their bishops and priests to resolve the tension.”
    We disagree vehemently: I am very probably the sole parishioner at San Martín de Porres who has, not looked to the bishop or parish priest to “resolve the tension,” but rather to insist to the parish priest (forget the bishop here) why he inform parishioners, openly and forcefully, that Biden and Harris are crass politicians, people who could not possible earn a living outside of the swamp of politicians and bureaucrats, and who modify and adapt their positions according to which way the wind is blowing, meaning what Planned Parenthood and NARAL want from them and in that way assure that the PP and NARAL $$$$ keeps flowing.
    No, “both sides” vote without regard to this all-importnt situation, LIFE, and as the intro to the article says, “Among the various values mentioned, a priority must be given to the defense of human life, since life is the most fundamental good of all, the one without which the other goods wouldn’t obtain.”

  18. In the third from the last paragraph Barron says, “Every Catholic ought to be for protecting the environment, serving the poor, defending the traditional family, battling social injustice, advocating for religious liberty and freedom of conscience, etc.”
    But why has Barron left out PROTECTING THE UNBORN, something he touted before as the most fundamental consideration, ” a priority must be given to the defense of human life, since life is the most fundamental good of all, the one without which the other goods wouldn’t obtain.”
    All in all, this is a terrible attempt by Barron to justify any Catholic Democrat to vote for the pathetic Biden.

  19. Bishop Barron is certainly telegenic, sophisticated, media-savvy, and well-connected. But he is, at heart, just a slicker version of Cupich and his crowd of money-driven bureaucrats. Almost every time he opens his mouth, Barron leads Catholics astray on questions of faith and morals. I am baffled why orthodox Catholic publications continue to give him editorial space and Catholic universities give him honorary degrees. It is appalling.

  20. I agree with the comments made by Leslie and Tom (From Florida). But in addition would add that however one classifies things it is simply an absurd exercise of moral equivalence to compare the killing of millions of innocent children to the killing of a relative handful of convicted murderers. That is just rationalization cover for voting for evil. Also, I find it difficult to reconcile such an almost flippant article which seems to say there is no difference between voting Democrat or voting Republican, with Bishop’s excellent recent address to the Knights of Malta in which he clearly outlined the influence of Marx, Nietzsche, Sarte and Focault on modern thought. All atheists. All antithetical to church teaching. All hugely influencial on modern thought. Does the Bishop believe the disciples of these men are equally distributed on both sides of the political aisle ? In other words, one party will wage war on Christianity rest assured. Even if one could find a pro-life Democrat, that party’s movement to outright Marxism/Nihilism in the past few years precludes the Catholic vote. It is a vote for your own destruction. Church leaders should stand up and recognize this fact before it is too late. Love some of Bishop’s work. His videos played a role in my conversion. Thank you Bishop. Disagree on this one.

  21. I ma getting to tis late, but was following a tweet from Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, TX, who I follow closely because of his courage and faithfulness to Catholic dogma and Tradition. After reading Bishop Barron’s article:

    This is one reason I distrust Bishop Barron…..mealymouthness, just like other bishops who wish to sit on the fence between real Catholic teaching and “save the world ” social justice.

    Take just his first point:

    “First, Catholic social teaching clearly goes beyond the split between Republican and Democrat, between liberal and conservative, and therefore corresponds perfectly with neither political camp. Anyone who says that either of our political parties perfectly, or even adequately, represents Catholic social thought is simply misinformed. Broadly speaking, the Democratic Party advocates a number of themes and principles reverenced by the Catholic tradition: concern for the underprivileged, for the migrant and refugee, and for the environment, as well as opposition to capital punishment and to all forms of racism. And again, broadly speaking, the Republican Party sides with Catholic teaching in a number of ways: opposition to abortion and euthanasia, defense of the traditional family, advocacy for conscience protection and freedom of religion. Which of the two parties is more “Catholic?” It seems to me impossible to adjudicate the question in the abstract.”

    It truly is impossible for someone with his head in the sand to to understand simple comparisons; every item he mentions “for” the Repubs is NON-NEGOTIABLE for the Demos. Every single one of the five is ACTIVELY OPPOSED by the Demos.

    Now take the supposed “reverenced by the Catholic tradition (small “t”, since they are actively opposed to Catholic Tradition:(capital “T”)”. Let’s go item by item:

    1. Concern for the underprivileged: Is is better to keep the underprivileged on the dole, or to produce jobs so they can lift themselves up? Is it better to keep the blacks on the plantation, or to improve their employment opportunities? Is it better to keep the poor in poor public schools, or to offer school choice? And, one last thing, is it better to let rioters and thugs burn down the poorer areas of cities, or to enforce the law, lock up criminals and judge them well? The only apparent concern for the underprivigled that I can determine for the Demos is to snare their continuing uninformed votes, so the politicians can stay in power (and make lots of money).

    2. For the migrant and refugee: It would seem that a measured, common-sense approach to both situations would be best for our country and, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, for the migrant/refugee AND the favored country, according to timeless Church teaching. We have immigration and refugee laws; which party supports those laws? Demos, and unfortunately, Catholic bishops support overturning those laws, or simply as Obama did, ignoring them. That is neither to the benefit of the ghettoed refugees (like the Somalis in suburban Minneapolis) nor to the country. That is neither to the benefit of illegal aliens who have flooded the Southern border and been returned or placed in camps (Obama, too) nor to the nation that has to pay to tend these non-citizens.

    3. For the environment: To quote a Demo: “C’mon, man!” Which party has signed up to pay for the rest of the world to clean up their act? What country, after four years of deregulation, still is one of the cleanest environments in the world? What party has unattainable goals (all electric cars in CA), and a “green energy” plan that is not only impossible to provide, but will bankrupt the country? Which party is completely opposed to the logical answer for non-polluting energy: nuclear power? What party is pushing wind power that decimates bird populations, or requires thousands and thousands of acres for solar generation (except for cloudy days and nightimes). Who pushes these efforts that cause children to mine products to make batteries and rip up the earth for the needed minerals and ore that makes solar panels, wind generators and batteries?. Who dispose of the massive wind turbines at the end of their 15-20 year life span (they are not “recyclable”). Environmentalists? Hardly. Demos are opportunists and see big bucks flowing from the never empty US Treasury.

    4. Opposition to the death penalty: The good bishop does not know what he is talking about. The death penalty provides a duly-judged criminal with an early opportunity to meet God, and, with that knowledge, to make his peace with God before he dies. What is the alternative? Does anyone really think that (1) “life imprisonment” is BETTER than death? Please tell me the reasons. Or (2) that there really IS a “life imprisonment” sentence that is not dispensed with after a short (?) period of time for the most vile crimes, or the prisoner released because he might get COVID-19? What happens when he murders, rapes or kidnaps again? There is an excellent two-part article I have saved by two excellent authors on the subject:
    https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/07/18/why-the-death-penalty-is-still-necessary/
    and here is a story of death row conversion that is timeless:
    https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-amazing-conversion-of-death-row-inmate-claude-newman

    5. And finally (you perhaps thought I would never finish), opposition to all forms of racism. Perhaps the good bishop failed American history in grade school, and never heard of the KKK (Democrats), the Jim Crow laws (passed by Democrats), Orval Faubus or Lester Maddox or George Wallace (Democrats), or strident opposition to the Civil Rights Act (Demos against), the Michael Brown and Tawana Brawley and Trayvon Martin fiascos. There is only one “racist” party: the Demo’s. Even MLK was a Repub.

    • At least migrants, refugees, and those discriminated against get a chance at a better life.
      Infants destroyed in the womb never do. No social welfare program can ever benefit those denied birth.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Four principles for Catholics during election season - Catholic Mass Search

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*