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 government
and kingship is the form of government that God chose for His Church.
In fact, universal suffrage is a very bad idea.
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”.
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”,
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.
Further, patriotism is a duty falling under the Fourth Commandment.
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.
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.
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.”
Cardinal
Ruffini, Archbishop of Palermo, and the hierarchy of Sicily declared
that: “No
one should abstain from voting for any reason whatsoever”.
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.
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 6th
/ 9th
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.
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.”
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.
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 6th
/ 9th
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.