Catholic Candle note: Below, a reader asks about paying income taxes.

A reader sent to Catholic Candle the cluster of comments and questions in the following four indented paragraphs (quoted immediately below):

Q. In terms of specifics what can you say about our current situation regarding the payment of annual personal income taxes to the IRS?  There is strong evidence brought out in actual legal cases that the tax is illegal and even unconstitutional.

Aside from that, there is the question as to whether it is just in terms of the exorbitance of it in many cases, not to mention the extreme evil that so much of the money goes towards funding. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but if Caesar is an outright thief operating under the cover of the law, however unjust it may be in its actual exercise thereof, is it really fair to say it is Caesar’s in the first place?  (The evil “powers that be” already rob the public unjustly in the form of inflation!)

And then comes the crunch on the 1040 that actually calls for our signature to affirm that what we have put down on the form is all truthful!   [Would this be] a time for a legitimate use of mental reservation? Ugh!

Just a few thoughts of my own to which I hope you can shed some concrete light on too.

A. Good questions! In substance, these are perennial questions probably asked by people for millennia concerning the taxes levied by their own governments.

We understand that you are asking six questions, which we take to be as follows:

1. Is it immoral, in principle, for a government to require payment of income taxes?

   
   

2. Is it illegal or unconstitutional for the U.S. government to require payment of income taxes because income taxes were never authorized by the laws, due to a failure or deficiency in the U.S. Constitution or laws?

   
   

3. If income taxes are not evil in principle, is the current level of taxation immoral because it is excessive?

   
   

4. If the taxes are excessive, is it moral for us to refuse to pay them?

5. Even if income taxes are not evil in principle, nonetheless, should we not pay them because the government uses the revenue from those taxes to pay for evil things?

6. Is it moral for a person to use “mental reservation” or put falsehoods on his tax return to avoid paying unjust amounts of taxes?

We will answer these questions in order.

1. Is it Immoral, in Principle, for a Government to Require its People to Pay Income Taxes?

Short answer: No.

Explanation:

a. Government is a Good Institution which is Willed by God.

Various modern thinkers teach that government is a “necessary evil”. For example, Thomas Paine, the American Revolutionary, falsely asserted that government is always bad. Here are his words:

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.¹

But that position is false. Government is a natural institution, created by God through the way He created human nature. This means that God wills for there to be government and He created man to be a social and political animal.

God made man a social animal – that is, to congregate and live together like bees, ants, and deer. But much more than that! God also made man a political animal – to use his reason to coordinate and to cooperate on projects which are for the Common Good and in their common interests.

The Great Philosopher Aristotle explains:

A city is a natural production, and … man is naturally a political animal. … The gift of speech also evidently proves that man is a more social animal than the bees, or any of the herding cattle: for nature, as we say, does nothing in vain, and man is the only animal who enjoys it [viz., speech].²

St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church and greatest of all thinkers, teaches the same thing, following Aristotle:

It is evident … that the political community exists by nature, and that human beings are by nature political animals. And those who live outside a political community because of their nature and not by misfortune are either wicked or superhuman, the wicked like those condemned by Homer as unsocial, lawless, and criminal. For such persons are by their nature also bent on war, being free of restraint like birds in flight.

And human beings are clearly political animals more than bees and other animals living in groups are. For nature does nothing in vain, as people say, and only human beings, in contrast with other animals, use speech. Therefore, expressions of sadness and pleasure are signs and so also belong to other animals. For the nature of other animals is such as to have sense experiences of sadness and pleasure and to signify these experiences to one another. But speech indicates what is useful or harmful, and so also what is just or unjust. For, strictly speaking, it belongs to human beings alone, in contrast with other animals, to perceive good and evil, just and unjust, and the like. And communicating these perceptions produces households and political communities.³

So government is natural and is willed by God. Therefore, government, as such, is a good thing (even though it can be abused). Government is not a “necessary evil”, as Thomas Paine and some other modern thinkers wrongly held.⁴

b. Governments are Entitled to Collect Taxes.

Because government is a good institution and has operations it must perform (for example, defending the nation or kingdom from invasion), therefore government is entitled to charge taxes – i.e., to collect money to use to do its job. For this reason, Our Lord taught:

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s.

St. Matthew’s Gospel, 22:21.

c. Well, What About Government Collecting Income Taxes in
Particular?

Income tax is one way that reasonable taxes can be levied, although it is not the only possible way.

Catholic Candle is not aware of any argument based on reason or based on Catholic teaching which shows that it is unjust, in principle, for the government to tax its people on this basis (viz., levy income taxes).

One argument in favor of income tax (as a proper source of government taxation) is based on government’s duty to protect its citizens’ property. Because it seems plausible that a person who has more income would tend to have more need for the protection of his property (because he has more property or its value is greater), it does not seem unreasonable for the government to use a person’s income level as a rough approximation of a particular person’s need of government services. Looked at this way, a citizen would pay more taxes because he needs more protective services.

d. Conclusion:

It does not seem that it is unjust or immoral in principle, for a government to charge reasonable income taxes and for citizens to be obliged to pay reasonable income taxes.

2. Is it Illegal or Unconstitutional for the U.S. Government to Require Payment of Income Taxes Because Income Taxes Were Never Authorized by the Laws, Due to a Failure or Deficiency in the U.S. Constitution?

As far as the legality of income taxes, one could ask whether the U.S. Constitution’s 16^th Amendment (authorizing income taxes) was ever legally ratified. (The U.S. government declared that this Amendment’s was ratified in 1913.) Rightly or wrongly, for many decades, various people have asserted this lack of valid ratification.

For over 40 years, some members of the Catholic Candle Team have been hearing the assertion from various people that Americans have no obligation to pay income taxes because this amendment to the Constitution was not validly or correctly ratified. But these Catholic Candle Team members have never received convincing evidence which supports such assertions, despite encountering many persons who attempted to provide such evidence.

a. Practical Reality Interposes Itself

However, even if a person were to suppose that the 16^th Amendment was never ratified, look at the practical reality of the situation. What is perfectly clear is that the claim (viz., that the 16^th Amendment is void) would never win in court. This non-ratification argument has lost so often in court that the judges summarily reject it without any fresh examination, whenever the argument is again presented to the courts. For example, in the 2009 federal appellate case, U.S. v. Benson, the court stated:

[W]e have repeatedly rejected the claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was improperly ratified.  One would think this repeated rejection of [the substance of the taxpayer’s] Sixteenth Amendment argument would put the matter to rest. …

We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment generally, and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced [by the defendant], have not persuaded [him] and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure [viz., seeking to overturn the tax laws through the legislative branch of government].⁵

Further, the court’s opinion in the Benson case characterized as a “nutty opinion” that the 16^th Amendment has not been properly ratified.⁶

Clearly, a citizen would never win in court in today’s legal milieu. Therefore, at the time of the government’s choosing, he will be hauled into court for the punishment that the government chooses to inflict upon him.

b. Be a Martyr for Christ, Not a “Martyr” for Money or Politics

So this non-ratification argument would not protect a person in a practical way from the strong arm of the government enforcing its asserted tax laws (regardless of whatever technically-correct arguments we might suppose there to be).

But we are on earth to save our souls. Even if the government were beyond its rights and authority to collect income taxes, nonetheless, if you are going to be arrested for something, make sure that it is because you are a faithful and informed Catholic rather than because of money.

As the Book of Wisdom declares:

I preferred her [viz., wisdom] before kingdoms and thrones, and esteemed riches nothing in comparison to her. Neither did I compare unto her any precious stone: for all gold in comparison to her, is as a little sand; and silver in respect to her shall be counted as clay.⁷

Consider this: Suppose a man is walking in a dark alley and is confronted by an armed robber demanding his wallet. Although that robber is acting unjustly, a man’s right to keep his wallet is not the principle for which he should die. At issue is merely money. The robber is sinning. But the victim of the robbery is not sinning by handing over his wallet rather than being murdered.

Similarly, even if it were true that the government is unjust in the taxes it collects, nonetheless, it is not a sin for a person to hand over the money compulsorily demanded of him in order that he avoids incarceration (however unjust). Remaining out of jail would provide a man many advantages for serving God and saving his soul.

So if a Catholic goes to jail for the Holy Catholic Faith, blessed is he! But if he goes to jail to avoid paying money (taxes), that seems imprudent and seems to show his misplaced priorities in life.

c. Regardless of Technicalities, Citizens Have a Duty to Pay
Taxes

Further, let us recall what we saw above – viz., that government has a right to collect a reasonable amount of taxes – in fairness (equity). This is because God wills that there be government and He wills that this government receive reasonable revenue to use to perform its proper work (e.g., defending the country).

Therefore, even if there were a technical mistake that effectively nullifies all tax laws (so that there is no tax law validly “on the books”), nonetheless, we have a duty to support the government by paying reasonable taxes. This is our duty in conscience regardless of a detail missing which nullifies the law.

To illustrate this equitable principle, suppose the following fact scenario:

Suppose your neighbor hired professional painters to paint his home. Suppose you looked out your window and noticed those painters had parked their vehicles near your home. They set up for work at your home and then began painting your house – (which, suppose, was truly in great need of paint). You could have stopped the painters but delightedly watched while they painted your house – which they did because they mistook your home for your neighbor’s home. Although you do not have a painting contract with them, you still have a duty in fairness to pay them for the benefit you received.

d. Applicability of This Explanation to Readers in Other
Countries

Although this discussion has been about a claim regarding the U.S. Constitution in particular, readers in other countries would have the equivalent issue if there were any kind of technical, legalistic argument for not paying taxes in their own countries, assuming that the governments of those countries enforced their tax codes as the U.S. does. The physical force of government would still compel them to pay taxes and their equitable duty would require payment of reasonable taxes also.

3. If Income Taxes are Not Evil in Principle, is the Current Level of Taxation Immoral Because it is Excessive?

And:

4. If the Taxes are Excessive, Is It Moral for Us to Refuse to Pay Them?

As we saw above, a citizen has the duty to pay reasonable taxes.

However, it is prudent for a citizen to pay even more than a reasonable amount of taxes if the alternative is to be sentenced to a long jail term.

But how much is reasonable to pay in taxes? That is a question requiring considerable prudence and is a determination very heavily dependent upon the particular facts of the situation.

For example, when the Muslim horde surrounded Vienna in 1683 and laid siege to the city, the government would seem to have had a reasonable claim to levy very high taxes upon its citizens in order to defend the city in that crisis, as compared to the taxes which would be levied in a time of peace.

Further, it would be unreasonable for every citizen to be allowed to act upon his own judgment regarding the correct level of taxes because:

• He does not have all necessary information and has less information than the government does on the issue of the level of taxes that are appropriate, considering:

1. The level of government services needed throughout the entire realm;

2. The cost of these services under expected conditions;

3. Alternative government payment sources;

4. Competing government expenditure needs; and

5. The expected foreseeable timeframe for the services.

   
   

• Besides an individual citizen’s lack of information, he is also usually less skilled than government personnel in making such a judgment because they are professionals who are usually more experienced in making such determinations;

  
  

• The individual citizen would be “judging his own case” and would be self-interested in making this judgment because he personally benefits depending upon the assumptions he uses and the determinations he makes; and

  
  

• If every citizen made his own judgment, this would result in chaos and lack of uniformity.

Thus, the taxes levied by the government must be reasonable but citizens should consider the range of reasonable taxes to be a broad range and not be quick to substitute their own evaluation in place of the government’s determination.

This is like the fact that the government has the duty to be reasonable in setting speed limits on the roads. But citizens should consider the range of reasonable speed limits to be a broad range. Drivers should not be quick to ignore the speed limit on the assertion that their own judgment on the matter is more reasonable than the government’s determination.⁸

5. If Income Taxes Are Not Evil in Principle, Should We Not Pay Them Because the Government Wastes Tax Money or Uses It to Pay for Evil Things?

It takes great prudence to determine if (or when) a government is wasting so much money or is spending so much on causes that are evil, that a citizen should refuse to pay his reasonable share of the tax burden.

Let us look at the Roman Empire during the time at which Our Lord told us to “render unto Caesar”. The Roman Empire was not clearly less wasteful or spending less for evil purposes, as compared to our modern governments. In Our Lord’s time, the Romans spent large amounts of money:

• On foreign wars that were not plainly necessary. (Does this sound familiar?)

  
  

• On grain subsidies and other handouts and freebies to the people. (Does this sound familiar?)

  
  

• On public games and entertainment for the people. (Does this sound familiar?)

• On building and maintaining pagan temples and in other ways promoting false gods.

Yet, in this context, Our Lord teaches us that we should render taxes unto Caesar.

So, we should at least not be quicker than Our Lord was to jump to the determination that the government wastes so much money or spends it on so many things that are evil, that Caesar should not be paid.

6. Is it Moral for a Person to Use “Mental Reservation” or Put Falsehoods on His Tax Return to Avoid Paying Unjust Amounts of Taxes?

The phrase “mental reservation” can have multiple meanings. Here is one of them from Encyclopedia.com:

Mental Reservation, … in the strict sense it means giving utterance to only part of one’s judgment while retaining in mind or whispering inaudibly another part necessary to make the statement objectively truthful. In the classical example, Titius privately said to a woman that he would take her for his wife, although he had no intention of marrying her. Later, when asked by a judge whether he had said he would take the woman for his wife, he replied that he had not, understanding that he had not spoken the words with the intention of marrying the woman.⁹

But whatever definition a person uses for so-called “mental reservation”, he should never lie.

To tell a lie is always evil and sinful. No end ever justifies a sinful means. Even if we were to suppose that a person had the very highest of all motives – which is to promote the glory of God – that would still never justify a lie.

Here is the very striking way in which St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, teaches this truth:

A lie must be shunned to such an extent that, even if it seemed that the lie would increase the glory of God, we should still not tell a lie.¹⁰

Let us consider an example: Suppose a pagan were on his deathbed with only minutes to live. Suppose also that we happen to know that he would convert to the Catholic Faith and agree to baptism if we were to tell him a small (so-called) “harmless” lie, such as that the dog he loved would go to heaven. We can never justify even such a (so-called) “white” lie even to save his soul.

Further the Book of Ecclesiasticus infallibly teaches us:

Be not willing to make any manner of lie: for the custom thereof is not good.¹¹

St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, teaches:

Since every man withdraws from eternity in so far as he withdraws from truth, it is most absurd to say that by so withdrawing one is able to arrive at any good. Or, if there appears to be an eternal good which truth does not embrace, it will not be true; therefore, because it is false, it will not be good.

Besides, as the mind must be preferred to the body, so truth must be preferred by the mind, so that not only does the mind seek truth more than it seeks the body, but even more than it seeks itself.¹²

Lastly, Pope Innocent XI, in the bull Sanctissimus Dominus, condemned the following propositions:

25. If a man has cause for it, whether it be small or great, he may lawfully swear without an intention of swearing. Condemned.

26. A man either alone or before others, may either when he is asked, or of his own accord, or for his diversion, or any other end swear that he did not do a thing which he really did; having a secret meaning, either of some other thing which he did not do, or of another way of doing it, or of any other truth which he adds to it; in which case he is in truth neither a liar, nor is he perjured. Condemned.

27. A just cause of using those secret meanings is as oft as it is necessary or profitable for the preservation of life, or honor, or saving one’s goods, or for any other act of virtue; so that the concealment of truth seems in that case expedient or desirable.¹³ Condemned.

Conclusions

• We have a duty to pay reasonable taxes to our government.

  
  

• It is difficult to determine the amount of tax which is reasonable. This determination requires great prudence and a careful knowledge of many circumstances which are often known better to the government than to an individual citizen.

  
  

• Our Lord taught people that they should pay taxes to the Roman Empire despite a rather high level of government waste and also spending for evil purposes. Our modern governments are not clearly worse than the Roman Empire and we should not be quick to refuse to pay taxes based on government waste and evil expenditures.

  
  

• Even if the government demands taxes which are higher than are reasonable, we should pay them rather than suffer significant punishment (e.g., incarceration) if that punishment would be a serious obstacle to our serving God and saving our souls. If we are martyred, let it be for Christ rather than “martyred” for money or for politics.

  
  

• We must never tell a lie for any reason. If we tell a lie, it is still a sin even if we label our words as “mental reservation”.

There are many false assertions in the media about many aspects of current events. The mainstream media slants and lies about many things. Also, much of the so-called “conservative” media slants, lies and/or is not objective about at least some things. So for example, Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire are supposed to be conservative but they so strongly and uncritically support Israel that they would predictably support whatever Israel does, including Israel’s attacks on Iran.

But based on our best information, it seems clear that Trump’s Iran war is unjust on two grounds:

1. The U.S. and Israel Attacked Preemptively: Trump tried to defend his starting the war based on the questionable supposition that Iran was about to attack the U.S. Here are Trump’s words:

If we didn’t do it, they [Iran] were going to attack first.¹

This is unjust because it is a mortal sin and is unjust to attack a country because of the supposition that that other country plans to attack (although has not begun actually doing so).

2. The U.S. and Israel Unreasonably Kill Innocent Non-Combatants, especially women and children. Very many non-combatants have been killed in the Iran war. This is like Israel inexcusably butchering women and children in Gaza.

   It does not seem correct that Trump is taking sufficient measures to avoid killing innocent non-combatants. One proof of this fact is that he has even openly threatened the mass murder of innocent non-combatants. Here are Trump’s words at the time of one of his threatened deadlines:

A whole civilization will die tonight, never to ​be brought back ​again.² 

It is true that Iran similarly kills innocent non-combatants but two wrongs do not make a right.

It is a mortal sin to fail to make all reasonable efforts in a war to spare the lives of innocent non-combatants. Trump’s Iran war seems to fail to spare and protect such non-combatants.

Because the U.S. war is unjust (based on the best information we have), Trump and those others who are responsible appear to be guilty of thousands of murders in cold blood.

One Further Question about the Iran War:

If the U.S. is Not the “Good Side” of the War,
Does that Make Iran the “Good Side”?

Although the U.S. certainly appears unjust in starting and conducting this war, this does not mean that Iran is the “good side” in this war. Iran’s government and populace are largely against Christ, the Son of God, against His Church and against the Natural Law and justice.

So Iran is not the “good side”, even though the U.S. is not either.

Just as there is no good side in the Iran war, we see that some other wars do not have a “good side” either. However, it would often be that one side is less-bad than the other side. This is like the situation where two rival drug gangs are killing each other’s members while engaged in a “turf war” in a city. It need not be that one of those drug gangs must be the “good side” – although one side could be less-bad than the other.

Bottomline: The U.S. war against Iran is unjust, inexcusable, and is the occasion of thousands of murders in cold blood – which are grave mortal sins.

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.