Q. Should I vote in the up-coming election even though none of the candidates are good?

A. We live in a great apostasy which includes civil society (which is former Christendom) rejecting its King, Who is Christ, and rejecting His laws.

Before considering the obligation to vote, let us first note that there are many errors and flaws related to the election systems of former Christendom.

All Power is from God; the People Can Merely Choose the Ruler to Exercise this Power

For example, elections give the appearance that authority comes from the people, whereas all authority really comes from God, regardless of the method by which a ruler is chosen to wield civil or religious power. Here is how St. Paul teaches this truth:

[T]here is no power but from God: and those [powers] that are, are ordained of God. Therefore, he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. … For [the ruler] is God’s minister. … Wherefore, be subject of necessity, not only for [the ruler’s] wrath, but also for conscience’s sake.

Romans, ch.13, vv. 1-2 & 4-5 (emphasis added).

God also declares: “By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things; by Me princes rule, and the mighty decree justice.” Proverbs, 8:15-16.

We Live in a Republic; It is our Duty to Vote

The enemies of Christ pretend that “democracy” and the right to vote are unalienable rights and are a matter of justice. This is false. In fact, kingship is the best form of government¹ and kingship is the form of government that God chose for His Church. In fact, universal suffrage is a very bad idea.²

However, in the world we live in, as Pope Pius XII noted, “The people are called on to take an always larger part in the public life of the nation”.³ Thus, because we have this delegation of responsibility to select our nation’s rulers, and as Pope Pius XII also noted, “the exercise of the right to vote is an act of grave moral responsibility”⁴, it is our moral obligation to vote as part of doing the best we are able to cause the least-bad candidate to get into office.

Voting Requires Preparation and Deliberation, because Almost Never are There “Perfect Candidates” Available.

Some of us on the Catholic Candle Team have been voting-age for many decades. We have always voted because it is our duty. But we hold that none of the candidates in any of the elections in which we voted have ever been excellent and correct on every important issue. The candidates have usually been very far from excellent.

In fact, we think it is highly likely that even in Pope Pius XII’s time, there were no candidates for major, national offices whose positions across the board matched Catholic teachings. In other words, it has probably been the case for many decades that most Catholics worldwide have been in the position of choosing between the greater and the lesser evil.

Here in the United States, none of us at Catholic Candle have ever seen a candidate who was fully good in every important way. But on the other hand, we also have never seen a major, national election in which all of the candidates were “equally bad”. Every candidate is a different mixture of good and bad.

This is true in the 2024 elections. For example, Kamala Harris is clearly more evil in countless ways, than is Donald Trump. Whereas Trump has weakened greatly on abortion and now favors permitting abortion in various circumstances, nonetheless Harris is far more pro-abortion than Trump is.

Similarly, Trump promotes unnatural vices against the holy virtue of purity. But Harris not only does this but also promotes compelling the rest of us to cooperate with these evils (such as compelling a wedding cake decorator in Colorado to promote that type of vice).

Patriotism and the Fourth Commandment Apply

Patriotism is a moral virtue which is a “sub-virtue” falling under the virtue of piety.⁵ Further, patriotism is a duty falling under the Fourth Commandment.⁶ Obviously, patriotism and our duty to love our country does not mean that we must love the evil committed by our country’s rulers. This is like our duty to love our parents does not mean that we should love any sins they commit.

The General Principle: Do Good and Prevent Evil

The most basic principle of the Natural Law, which God has implanted in the heart of every man, is to do good and to avoid evil. We must live by this in our hearts, in our dealings with our neighbor, and especially with the Church and our nation. Therefore, we must do what we can to make our country better (or less-bad) just like we have a duty to make our parents better (or less-bad) when we have the opportunity. How can we have piety and suppose that we love our country or our parents if we don’t do what we can for their improvement?

Further, we belong to our parents and our family, in a way. Similarly, we belong to our country, in a way, as our big national family. Would it not be a sin of imprudence to not do what we can to prevent greater harm to ourselves and others through our allowing a more-evil candidate to be elected because of our own indolence and weakness in failing to do what we can to prevent this?

The Above General Principle as Applied to Voting: What do Church Authorities say?

The above general principle applies directly to voting. We have a grave duty to do all that we can via our voting power to make our country better, or at least to prevent more damage from occurring – on the federal, state, and local levels. The sin of omission becomes graver when we fail to vote in elections for higher offices, because the damage done affects more people.

Here is how Pope Pius XII taught that we have a duty to vote for the candidates who give us sufficient assurances which cause us to think that they will be better or less-bad than the alternative candidates:

In the present circumstances, it is a strict obligation for all those who have the right to vote, men and women, to take part in the elections. Whoever abstains from doing so, in particular by indolence or weakness, commits a sin grave in itself, a mortal fault. Each one must follow the dictate of his own conscience. However, it is obvious that the voice of conscience imposes on every Catholic to give his vote to the candidates who offer truly sufficient guarantees for the protection of the rights of God and of souls, for the true good of individuals, families and of society, according to the love of God and Catholic moral teaching.⁷

Objection: “I cannot in good conscience vote because all the candidates support at least some serious evils. I will not take any part in their evil.”

This objection is, unfortunately, very common amongst Catholics, especially those who consider themselves “Traditional Catholics” – who are striving to live with a clean conscience – that one cannot vote except for a candidate whose positions on all major issues – especially moral issues – are in line with Church teachings. This is a sufficiently common opinion that the remainder of this article will deal with this scruple.

Cardinal Griffin of Westminster England stated that some people excuse themselves from voting on the grounds that all of the politicians are corrupt. He calls this excuse a “boast” because these persons are boasting that their standards are so high that their standards do not allow them to vote for one of the available candidates. Cardinal Griffin condemned this position as follows:

There are some who boast that because of the corruption of politicians they refuse to vote. It is my duty to tell you that the Catholic citizen has an obligation to vote. The Holy Father himself recently declared that when grave issues are at stake to neglect to vote may be a serious sin of omission.⁸

Notice Cardinal Griffin does deny that the politicians are corrupt, but rather, he tells us that we have a duty to vote regardless. So, obviously, this vote must be for the best alternative among the available candidates, even if they are all corrupt in one way or another.

Archbishop John McNicholas of Cincinnati, wrote at least three pastoral letters on the obligation of using the franchise [i.e., the right to vote]. In 1929, 1935, and 1939 he sent out messages to be read in all the churches on the importance of voting and the obligation binding upon us all. He asked that both men and women “vote in all elections” and “to make a sacrifice to discharge this important civic duty.”⁹

Cardinal Ruffini, Archbishop of Palermo, and the hierarchy of Sicily declared that: “No one should abstain from voting for any reason whatsoever”.¹⁰

In his 1952 book on the duty to vote, Fr. Titus Cranny explicitly sets forth our obligation to vote even in the situation where it is necessary to choose between candidates who are both bad. Fr. Cranny explains,

It might even be necessary to vote for such an unworthy candidate (if the voting were limited to such personalities) and even for one who would render harm to the Church, provided the election were only a choice from among unworthy men and the voting for the less unworthy would prevent the election of another more unworthy.¹¹

Two Further Objections

Certain Catholics might make one of the following objections to the clear teaching of Pope Pius XII. These two objections focus on the pope’s use of the phrase “In the present circumstances” (where we quote him above).

Objection #1:

If there arises an election in which every candidate available is wrong on at least one very grave moral issue such as murder (abortion, euthanasia, etc.) or an issue involving the 6^th / 9^th Commandments (unnatural vice, etc.) then one is no longer obligated to vote. In fact – according to this objection – this is why Pope Pius XII, in the above quote, qualified his assertion that Catholics are obligated to vote, with the words, “In the present circumstances …” By those words – according to this objection – the pope was referencing the state of things in his time, which were nowhere near as bad, morally speaking, as our times. But if – according to this objection – Pope Pius XII lived in 2024, seeing that every candidate in the U.S. presidential election takes at least one great evil position on morals, he would advise Catholics that they are no longer obligated to vote.

Response to Objection #1:

The first problem with this objection is its overly-rosy view of history. Again, historically speaking, it is highly unlikely that even in Pope Pius XII’s time, there existed any candidates for major offices who took the correct Catholic position “across the board” on all serious moral issues.¹² Pope Pius XII’s phrase, “In the present time” should not be interpreted as if he were saying:

In my time, there is still always available at least one candidate in every major election who takes all the Catholic positions on every major moral issue, although I recognize that such candidate might well have wrong positions on less-serious matters. Thus, Catholics are obliged to vote.

Rather, the pope meant this:

In my time [just as in 2024], there exists no candidates who are correct on all serious moral positions, but there are some candidates who have more such positions correct than other candidates.

His words “In the present circumstances…” allude to the fact that, in his time just as in our time, things had not yet become so bad that all candidates were virtually indistinguishable because they were all equally evil. Rather, there were still candidates who were better than others.

The second problem with this objection is that it is a “perfectionist” position, and sacrifices the good which can be done, for the sake of the hypothetical and always fleeting “best”. Such a position fails to take into account a man’s grave duty to do what he can to help his nation in whatever circumstances he finds himself.

The third problem with this objection is that, at the bottom of this position is also a misunderstanding of material vs. formal cooperation in evil. When we vote for less-evil candidates, we are not saying, “I think it is a good thing absolutely speaking that this lesser-evil candidate gets into office, and I wish for the evil that he will do alongside of the good he will do.” Rather, our intention in voting is (and should be), “I think it is a good thing relatively speaking that this candidate gets into office. His winning the election is good only relative to the greater evil which would come about if I did not vote and the worse candidate is elected. I do not will the evil things he does, but I will only the good things and also the prevention of evil that would otherwise occur.”¹³

Also, notice that no Church authority ever says “don’t vote for the least bad candidate.” Instead, they say “vote for the candidate who gives assurances he will do good”. In fact, less-bad candidates do this too. For example, Trump assures us that he will fight to criminalize “gender transitioning” which occurs without parental consent.¹⁴ Although this position certainly does not make him a perfect candidate, it does make him better than Harris on this important issue.

Direct vs. Indirect Control over the Issues at Stake

Here is another way to see the error in this objection to voting: During an election in which all candidates hold at least some evil positions, we cannot directly control whether those evils happen. That is, we are not voting on whether that candidate should hold those evil ideas and goals, whether those positions are good or evil, or whether we support those positions.

Rather, when voting we are merely choosing between two (or more) candidates. We are voting on candidates, not issues. We are not answering the question, “Do you approve in any way, and desire in any way, these evil positions of the candidate you are voting for?”

Instead, we are merely saying this: “I have done the best I can to judge which candidate is better (or less-bad) for my nation, and I am choosing that candidate over the others.” As with most elections, including this 2024 presidential election, we have little or no control over the candidates’ ideas and goals; we can merely do our best to limit the damage and do whatever good that we can.

This is very different from a direct-control situation. For example, sometimes in state or local elections, there are referenda issues in which we voters can directly control an outcome, via a “yes/no” type answer to a proposed question. In fact, sometimes these questions are very important such as, “Do you approve an amendment to your state’s constitution which says [such-and-such] about abortion?”

These referenda situations are very different from choosing between candidates who hold some evil positions, because whether or not we cast a vote for one of the candidates, we cannot prevent a candidate from being elected to the office anyway. The evil he will do is out of our control; we can only try to limit the damage. By contrast, in a referendum, we bear some direct responsibility for a particular evil (or good) coming about by our choice. Because of this, additional moral principles are involved in our choice there – principles such as that of material cooperation with evil, the principle of double-effect, and so on. (Perhaps a future Catholic Candle article will address such situations.)

Objection #2: A variation on the above objection is even more extreme and more evil:

If there arises an election in which every candidate available is wrong on at least one very grave moral issue such as murder (abortion, euthanasia, etc.) or a 6^th / 9^th issues (unnatural vice, etc.), then not only is one no longer obligated to vote, but it is actually a sin for a Catholic to vote in such elections, since to vote would mean we are formally cooperating with evil.

Response to Objection #2:

This position suffers from all the deficiencies of the immediately-preceding objection. But it is even more evil because it masquerades under the false character of virtue and righteousness. It is based on the scruple that helping a man to get into office even though he holds some evil positions, is effectively equal to formally cooperating with that candidate’s sins when in office. But again, if our intentions when voting do not include any desires for objectively evil things, and if we desire only the good which results from the candidate being a lesser evil, then we are doing the most good that we can by choosing the better (least-bad) candidate.¹⁵

Further, convincing other Catholics to take such an unreasonably extreme and dangerous position not only prevents otherwise good Catholics from doing their best to prevent evil in the current election, but also instills in them false principles which will, practically speaking, prevent them from probably ever voting again. This is because doing nothing to prevent a very-evil candidate from taking power (as is clearly the case with Kamala Harris), allows the foothold of evil to become stronger, making it more likely there will never be a good candidate in an honest (non-fraudulent) future election.

Confused Catholics who take such false and scrupulous positions would do well to remember Pope St. Felix’s maxim:

Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.¹⁶

Another way to see that such a “perfectionist” and scrupulous position is mistaken is to merely look back through history. There has never been a presidential election in the United States in which there was a major candidate who took “all the right positions” on all serious moral issues. Catholics who claim it is moral to refuse to vote when all the candidates have at least one serious moral issue, would have been forced to not vote in any U.S. presidential election in our history because all of the candidates in every one of those elections took bad positions on important moral issues.

We suspect confused Catholics take this dangerous position because Trump has lately weakened on his stance on abortion. But abortion has never been the only serious moral evil he promoted. For example, even back in 2016 when Trump campaigning for president, he was already soft on, and supportive of, unnatural vice.¹⁷ What did those Catholics do in 2016 who now hold the position that Catholics cannot vote in 2024?

A Few Scenarios

Finally, here are a few scenarios which might make it easier for a Catholic to discern the right thing to do in various political circumstances.

Scenario 1:

Suppose that, in an election, there is one candidate who has all the correct positions on major moral issues. Then all Catholics would be clearly bound to vote for that candidate, even if he were wrong on lesser issues, such as economic issues.

Scenario 2: [Our situation in 2024]

Suppose that in a major election both candidates have some serious moral issues wrong, but there is one candidate who has more-correct (less bad) positions than the other. Then all Catholics would be bound to vote for that candidate, even if he were wrong on lesser issues, such as economic issues as long as the country/state would be better (or less-bad) with such candidate in office, compared to the worse candidate.

Scenario 3: [As the world becomes darker – the future]

Suppose (for the sake of a hypothetical example) that in a major election there are 100 extremely serious moral issues at stake – issues on par with abortion and other forms of murder, unnatural vice, and so on.¹⁸ Suppose one candidate is wrong on all 100, and the other is wrong on 99, but has the correct position on one important moral issue. Then all Catholics would be bound to vote for that candidate, even if he were also wrong on the other 99 important moral issues and on lesser matters, as long as the country/state would be better (or less-bad) with such candidate in office, compared to the worse candidate. This is because we have the duty to do what we can to help our country be better (or less bad).

Scenario 4: [Near the end of time?]

Suppose (for the sake of a hypothetical example) that in a major election there are 100 extremely serious moral issues at stake – issues on par in importance with abortion and other forms of murder, unnatural vice, and so on.¹⁹ Suppose both candidates are wrong on all 100, but one candidate takes some correct positions on significant, although lesser-important issues (such as fighting corruption in government). Then all Catholics would be bound to vote for that candidate who is the lesser of two evils as long as the country/state would be better (or less-bad) with such candidate in office, compared to the worse candidate.

Conclusion

Given that:

• Issues of morality in society have the most weight; 
  

• But other issues (e.g., fighting corruption in government) have some but lesser weight than those moral issues in society; and 

• After careful comparison of the candidate, if there is any basis, large or small, because of which one candidate would be better (less bad) for the nation,  

Then, we are bound to vote because we are bound to help our nation become better or less bad. 

The only time we would not be bound to vote is the extremely unlikely scenario in which there is no discernible greater good or lesser-evil between the candidates.  We at Catholic Candle have never seen anything even remotely close to that situation in our many years of voting, and this is why we have always held that we have a duty to vote in all federal, state, and local elections.