What does the Catholic Church teach about voting? A CNA explainer

CNA Staff   By CNA Staff

 

Credit: vesperstock/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Sep 20, 2024 / 07:00 am (CNA).

Catholics in the U.S. don’t vote as a bloc, and this election cycle there has been considerable debate about whom Catholics should vote for. Even Pope Francis has weighed in, quipping that Americans in November must choose “the lesser evil” when deciding between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

The Catholic Church has long supported voting as part of participation in public life — as a contribution to a nation’s common good and to the flourishing of its people.

What the Church does not do is dictate to Catholics whom exactly they should vote for or exactly which policies to support. However, Catholics have been given numerous guiding principles for making decisions about voting.

Here is an explanation of some of these principles.

What does the Church teach about voting?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that it is “the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom.”

“The love and service of one’s country follows from the duty of gratitude and belongs to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.”

It also states that “submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country.”

In 2007, the U.S. bishops’ conference issued “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” a guide to participation in public life, which includes a section on voting. The bishops have periodically updated it since, with the latest edition approved in late 2023.

In the document, the bishops wrote that “responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation.” Quoting Pope Francis in Evangelii Gaudium, the bishops also note that public service, when it seeks the common good, is a “lofty vocation.”

The bishops envision voters who are guided by their moral convictions and not their attachment to any one party or interest group. A Catholic’s engagement in politics ought to be “shaped by the moral convictions of well-formed consciences and focused on the dignity of every human being, the pursuit of the common good, and the protection of the weak and the vulnerable.”

Catholics should vote for candidates to the extent that they will promote the common good, a concept defined in the catechism as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.”

“Catholics have a serious and lifelong obligation to form their consciences in accord with human reason and the teaching of the Church,” the document continues.

“Conscience is not something that allows us to justify doing whatever we want, nor is it a mere ‘feeling’ about what we should or should not do. Rather, conscience is the voice of God resounding in the human heart, revealing the truth to us and calling us to do what is good while shunning what is evil. Conscience always requires serious attempts to make sound moral judgments based on the truths of our faith.”

Reasons not to vote for a candidate

“Forming Consciences” states in paragraph 34: “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position.”

“As Catholics we are not single-issue voters,” the bishops note, and “a candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support.” At the same time, Catholics should not vote for a candidate if his or her “position on a single issue promotes an intrinsically evil act.”

However, the bishops say it could be possible to vote for someone who supports something intrinsically immoral, but only for “other morally grave reasons.” Before he became Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger described those as “proportionate reasons.”

In a 2004 letter to U.S. bishops, Ratzinger wrote: ”When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor 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.”

The idea of “proportionate reasoning” recognizes that there are no perfect candidates. The job of Catholic voters is to weigh the positions of all candidates and to avoid choosing a candidate who supports something immoral, unless something good outweighs that immorality.

Nonnegotiable issues

In a 2006 address to a European parliamentary group, Pope Benedict XVI laid out several issues related to the public good that are “not negotiable” for Catholics.

Those issues as laid out by Pope Benedict are as follows:

  • Protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death.
  • Recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage, and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union that in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role.
  • The protection of the right of parents to educate their children.

The U.S. bishops further say that abortion and euthanasia — in their words, “preeminent threats to human life and dignity” — weigh heavily when deciding whether it is morally acceptable to vote for a candidate.

In 2019, the bishops said: “The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself, because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives destroyed.”

In acknowledging the importance of voting against abortion, the Church and Church leaders do not say that abortion is the only issue but that it is “preeminent” — a foundational consideration about the moral acceptability of a candidate.

Pope Francis asks in Laudato Si’: “How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?”

In Christifidelis Laici, St. John Paul II taught that “the right to health, to home, to work, 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.”

In 2008, Bishop (now Cardinal) Kevin Farrell released a joint statement with Bishop Kevin Vann, saying that in their view, “there are no ‘truly grave moral’ or ‘proportionate’ reasons, singularly or combined that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by abortion each year.”

In 2008, Archbishop Charles Chaput said that Catholics who support pro-abortion candidates “need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it.”

“What is a ‘proportionate’ reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life — which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed,” Chaput said.

So… whom to vote for?

The bishops say that well-formed Catholic voters could reach different conclusions about whom to support. The bishops also do not rule out the possibility of not voting, or of voting for third party candidates.

“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” (“Forming Consciences,” paragraph 36).

In 2016, Bishop James Conley offered this summary of the “Faithful Citizenship” guide’s voting advice:

“In good conscience, some Catholics might choose to vote for a candidate who, with some degree of probability, would be most likely to do some good, and the least amount of harm, on the foundational issues: life, family, conscience rights and religious liberty. Or, in good conscience, some might choose the candidate who best represents a Christian vision of society, regardless of the probability of winning. Or, in good conscience, some might choose not to vote for any candidate at all in a particular office.”

This story was first published Sept. 18, 2020, and has been updated. Jonah McKeown contributed to the update.


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 Catholic News Agency 11967 Articles
Catholic News Agency (www.catholicnewsagency.com)

10 Comments

  1. This is a VERY sticky situation. I am lost as to vote or forget it. A yes for a man who has sold out the pro life lobby or not to and, perhaps, in doing so assist the awful alternative?? I have received various thoughts from different priests.

  2. I’m so well informed about our in-your-face 2024 presidential politicians that I am ready to throw up. We have a candiidate that supports abortion, (a single issue), and a convicted felon with no morals and who flips daily on his abortion position.

    I am pro-life, ALL life, that includes the threat to the mothers life. The recent tragic deaths of Georgia mothers Amber Thurman who waited in a hospital room for 20 hours before she died and Candi Miller both caused by the state’s strict 6 week abortion “law” and the fear of doctors who were faced with jail time and loss of their licences and who could have saved them.

    When Trump was interviewed during his campaign he was asked if there should be a penalty for a woman having an abortion. He paused and stumbled, “yes I think there should be some penalty”.

    God save all lives.

    • “We have a candiidate that supports abortion, (a single issue),…”

      By any fair account, she supports abortion up to (and perhaps even after) birth, trans-mutilation/transgenderism, open borders, radical limits on free speech, etc., etc.

      You need to evict Trump from your head and start using it to think a bit.

      • CARL. I will try to EVICT Trump and hatred from my mind. Seems you have Harris on your mind.

        I have made my position on abortion very clear. What is your position?
        I haven’t got Trump on my mind, just in my face. He is a loser who can’t lose. He and his lawyers have totally gamed the judicial and medical systems. He has hoodwinked the Catholic hierarchy with his ploy as the poor soul and his having been the only one to overturn Roe. Now they assail him on his latest flip on abortion. His latest hateful rants of wildly off the topic is further evidence that his mental state makes him unqualified for the Oval Office. However, if he loses, we could expect another federal building invasion.

        NO! Harris does not support abortion until and after birth.

        Factcheck: Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at the University of California, Davis and the author of six books on the abortion debate and the law, told us. “Republicans view those health exceptions as sort of like a blanket permission to have an abortion whenever you want.” Democrats say “it’s an exception for life or health.”

        I don’t know who to trust. I am very concerned with abortion on demand. I see my GOP failing to continue as the party of Lincoln. They are the MAGA cult.

        Pope Francis says “vote for the least of two evils”. I ask “how evil”?

        God bless.

    • Mr. Morgan, those two mothers were killed by medical negligence & because of the feticide meds they consumed. Not by GA’s laws.
      Doctor’s have to provide at least the very minimum standard of care & sadly that was lacking for Miss Thurman. Hopefully her family will file suit so that doesn’t happen to another sepsis patient in the future.

  3. CARL. I will try to EVICT Trump and his hatred from my mind. However, I can’t ignore the danger he poses to our constitution and the effect his vial rhetoric has on our innocent children.

    I have made my position on abortion very clear. What is your position? Seems you have Harris on your mind.

    I haven’t got Trump always on my mind, but he is always in my face. He is a loser who can’t lose. He and his lawyers have totally gamed the judicial and medical systems. He has hoodwinked the Catholic hierarchy with his ploy as the poor soul. Now they assail him on his latest flip on abortion. I am no fan of Harris. But I am having difficulty finding where the Dems call for an abortion after birth. Name one doctor whould do so?

    NO! My search finds that Harris does not support abortion after birth. I have always been concerned with SCOTUS tossing the abortion decisions to the states. Red and blue, radicall, sanctuary cities, making the problem worse.

    World Population Review: Abortion Laws in the United States. Abortion laws permit, prohibit, restrict, or regulate the availability of abortion. The politicians, not the medical experts, get to decide the degree of the threat to the mother’s health. That patchwork has caused utter confusion and havoc. Evidence…

    Texas is viewed as a state that restricts all abortions. That is untrue. AG Paxton, ignorant to the exception the state constitution “allows” medically determined abortion threat to the mother’s life. He acted to jail Lauren Miller’s doctor.

    I have had a response on abortion exceptions. “There is never a situation where the mother’s life is in danger”.

    I hope our church does not agree.

    God bless.

    • There are no exceptions Mr. Morgan. Directly & intentionally taking the life of an innocent child in its mother’s womb is never, ever justified. Nor is it justified medically. Sadly there can be occasions of medical negligence/incompetence where a physician waits too long to intervene or to conduct a caesarian section. I know of a tragic case like that & the doctor was asked by the hospital to not perform future deliveries. The child’s life could easily have been saved through a timely C-section.

      You may be confusing situations like toxemia when a premature delivery is justified to save the mother’s life & hopefully the child’s. Or an ectopic pregnancy where the affected fallopian tube is surgically removed. In virtually every case both mother & child would die without that intervention. But the child is not directly targeted. It’s sad demise is a secondary result.
      Very, very rarely ectopic pregnancies do come to term if the child develops in the abdominal cavity, outside of the fallopian tube.
      Please don’t listen to the Planned Parenthood propaganda circulating in an election year. It’s meant to deceive, divide, & confuse us.
      God bless.

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.


*