Voting Catholic: A Religious Duty Or Choice?

Catholics are faced with a moral dilemma when it comes to voting. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that it is morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country (CCC 2240). However, voting for a candidate who endorses intrinsic evils, such as abortion or euthanasia, is considered a sin. So, what should Catholics do when both major candidates endorse such evils?

Some Catholics choose to vote for minor candidates who do not endorse intrinsic evils, even if they are unlikely to win. Others abstain from voting altogether, seeing it as a form of protest against the political process or unworthy candidates. According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, it is not a sin to abstain from voting or to vote for a minor candidate. However, voting for a flawed candidate can be justified if there are proportionate reasons, such as choosing the lesser of two evils.

The question of whether it is a sin for Catholics not to vote is complex and depends on various factors, including the candidates, the political system, and the individual's conscience. While there is a general obligation to vote, it is not always mandatory, and Catholics must use their best judgment to decide how to act in accordance with their beliefs.

Voting for a pro-abortion candidate

However, others argue that it is permissible to vote for a pro-abortion candidate in certain rare circumstances. This is known as material cooperation with evil, which can be permitted if the cooperation is remote and there are proportionately good reasons for doing so. For example, if the alternative candidate endorsed even worse evils than abortion, or if the pro-abortion candidate is more likely to pursue other authentic human goods, then some Catholics believe that it could be justifiable to vote for them.

In general, Catholics are encouraged to form their consciences and make informed decisions when voting. They should consider the teachings of the Church and weigh the various issues and values at stake. Ultimately, the decision of whether to vote for a pro-abortion candidate is a matter of individual conscience and discernment for Catholics.

Voting for a pro-IVF candidate

Firstly, the Church upholds that human dignity is best respected when a child is conceived through the sexual union of two people. This natural process is considered sacred, as it represents an act of love and intimacy between a husband and wife, with the potential to create life. In contrast, IVF involves a technical process in a laboratory setting, where doctors and technicians manipulate the egg and sperm outside of the body. This separation of the conjugal act from procreation is seen as a form of "domination of technology" over the origin and destiny of a human person, which is deemed contrary to the dignity and equality that should exist between parents and children.

Secondly, the Church believes that human life begins at conception, and modern genetics has confirmed that a unique human identity is formed when the sperm fertilises the egg. In the IVF process, multiple embryos are created, and the majority are discarded or used for scientific experiments, resulting in the destruction of human life. This is considered a "terrible offence against human life" by the Church.

However, it is important to note that the Church does not condemn those who have undergone IVF treatments or those who were conceived through IVF. The Church recognises that infertility can be a challenging cross to bear and encourages infertile couples to explore other options, such as adoption or medical treatments that respect the dignity of human life and the sanctity of the marital act.

When it comes to voting, Catholics may find themselves in a dilemma when both major candidates endorse intrinsic evils, such as IVF. In such cases, Catholics have a few options. They can choose to vote for a minor candidate who does not endorse intrinsic evils, even if their chances of winning are slim. Alternatively, they can decide to withhold their vote as a form of protest, sending a message that they demand better candidates who align with their values. Another option is to vote for a major candidate who endorses an intrinsic evil, but only if there are proportionate or truly good reasons to justify this decision. This is known as "remote material cooperation" and is permissible according to Cardinal Ratzinger, provided that the voter does not agree with the candidate's stance on issues like abortion or IVF.

Ultimately, the decision of whether to vote for a pro-IVF candidate is a matter of individual conscience for Catholics. While the Church's teachings provide guidance, each person must weigh the options and make a choice that they can defend as aligning with their values and beliefs.

Voting for a pro-euthanasia candidate

Voting is a civic obligation for Catholics, and not voting is considered a sin, albeit a venial one. However, this gets complicated when all the candidates hold positions that go against Catholic teachings.

In the case of voting for a pro-euthanasia candidate, the Church's position is that Catholics may never formally cooperate with evil. Formal cooperation is when one intends to promote an evil act, such as giving money to an organisation that performs abortions. However, Catholics may, in certain circumstances, materially cooperate with evil. Material cooperation occurs when one provides some means for an evil act but does not intend for the evil to occur. For example, buying goods from a store that donates to an organisation that supports contraception distribution.

For material cooperation to be permissible, two conditions must be met. Firstly, the cooperation must be remote, meaning far removed from the evil act. Secondly, there must be a proportionately good reason for the cooperation. The good being sought must outweigh the potential harm caused by the cooperation.

In the context of voting for a pro-euthanasia candidate, this would mean that a Catholic could only vote for such a candidate if their support for euthanasia was indirect or minimal, and if there were other proportionately good reasons for voting for them. For example, if the candidate's policies would result in saving many more lives than would be lost due to their position on euthanasia, or if their election would prevent an even worse candidate from being elected.

Even then, it is important to note that the Church teaches that euthanasia and abortion are among the most serious sins in society. Therefore, the bar for what constitutes a proportionately good reason to vote for a candidate who endorses these evils is extremely high.

In summary, a Catholic could vote for a pro-euthanasia candidate if their support for euthanasia is remote and there are other proportionately good reasons for voting for them. However, given the gravity of euthanasia as a moral issue, such cases would be very rare.

Not voting at all

The Catechism of the Catholic Church 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" (CCC 2240). However, this does not mean that a Catholic is obliged to vote in every election.

If a Catholic has studied the candidates on the ballot and cannot in good conscience vote for any of them, it is their prerogative to refrain from voting. In such cases, they should still vote in other races where there are acceptable candidates and on various measures and propositions. However, if a Catholic refuses to vote at all because they do not believe in voting in general, their conscience may be improperly formed.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) recognises a Catholic's right not to vote when every viable candidate in a race endorses an intrinsic evil. It states that "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" (Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, 36).

Not voting can be seen as a form of protest against the political process or a way to send a message about the quality of candidates. In some cases, massive abstention from voting can even lead to the invalidation of an election if it is deemed that the process is corrupted.

However, it is important to note that not voting out of laziness or indifference can be considered a sin, as it neglects one's civic duty and responsibility to contribute to the common good.

Voting for the 'lesser of two evils'

Voting for the lesser of two evils is a common dilemma faced by voters, especially in a two-party system. In such situations, voters are often faced with a choice between two candidates, neither of whom they fully agree with or find ideal. This dilemma is sometimes referred to as the "lesser evil principle" or "lesser-evilism". The principle states that when faced with two immoral options, the least immoral one should be chosen.

This concept is not new and has been explored by philosophers and thinkers throughout history. For example, in Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle writes, "For the lesser evil can be seen in comparison with the greater evil as a good, since this lesser evil is preferable to the greater one, and whatever preferable is good." Similarly, in his Ethics, Spinoza states, "According to the guidance of reason, of two things which are good, we shall follow the greater good, and of two evils, follow the less."

The idea of choosing the lesser of two evils in an election is often rebuked or mocked, especially by idealists who desire a perfect candidate or solution to complex problems. However, it is important to recognize that political choices are often not binary, and the two-party system can limit voters' ability to express their sincere preferences. In such cases, voters may feel that they are forced to choose the "lesser evil" among the front-runners, knowing that their preferred candidate has no chance of winning.

This dilemma is particularly pertinent when one of the candidates is considered a "greater evil" who poses a significant threat to democracy, stability, or specific vulnerable groups. In such cases, voting for the lesser of two evils can be seen as a pragmatic choice to prevent the greater evil from gaining power and causing greater harm. For example, in the 2016 United States presidential election, some voters chose to vote for Hillary Clinton, despite her controversial policies, to prevent the "greater evil" of a Donald Trump presidency.

However, it is worth noting that voting for the lesser of two evils does not always sit well with voters' consciences, especially when both candidates support or promote intrinsically evil acts, such as abortion or IVF. In such cases, some voters may choose to vote for a minor candidate who does not endorse such evils, even if they know the candidate has no chance of winning. Others may choose to withhold their vote entirely as a form of protest or to avoid cooperating with evil.

From a Catholic perspective, the question of whether to vote for the lesser of two evils is complex. On the one hand, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states that it is morally obligatory to exercise the right to vote (CCC 2240). However, it does not specify whether this obligation is serious, implying that not voting is a minor or venial sin. Additionally, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) recognizes the right of Catholics not to vote when all viable candidates endorse an intrinsic evil. In such cases, voting for a minor candidate or withholding one's vote can be permissible.

Ultimately, the decision to vote for the lesser of two evils depends on various factors, including the specific candidates, the political context, and the voter's personal beliefs and values. While it may be pragmatic to choose the lesser evil to prevent greater harm, it can also be a difficult choice that goes against one's conscience.

Frequently asked questions