The Catholic Vote

Moral Duties Concerning Voting

We encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace their citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an opportunity meaningfully to participate in building the culture of life. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power. We must exercise that power in ways that defend human life, especially those of God's children who are unborn, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. We get the public officials we deserve. Their virtue–or lack thereof–is a judgment not only on them, but on us. Because of this we urge our fellow citizens to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest.

[Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics 34, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 1998]

Our Duty to Vote

With the development of popular government comes the duty of citizens to participate in their own government for the sake of the common good. Not to do so is to abandon the political process to those who do not have the common good in mind. Given the nature of democracies this inevitably leads to unjust laws and an unjust society. These may come about anyway, but they should not come about through the negligence of Christians, who would then share in the guilt.

This duty is chiefly exercised by voting, through which citizens elect their representatives and even determine by referendum the laws which will govern them. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.
2240 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 [Rom 13:7]:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. [Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners.... They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws.... So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it. [Ad Diognetum 5: 5, 10]

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way." [1 Tim 2:2]

In their November 1998 pastoral letter Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics the Bishops of the United States speak of a false pluralism which undermines the moral convictions of Catholics and their obligation to be "leaven in society" through participation in the democratic process.

25. Today, Catholics risk cooperating in a false pluralism. Secular society will allow believers to have whatever moral convictions they please - as long as they keep them on the private preserves of their consciences, in their homes and in their churches, and out of the public arena. Democracy is not a substitute for morality. Its value stands - or falls - with the values which it embodies and promotes. Only tireless promotion of the truth about the human person can infuse democracy with the right values. This is what Jesus meant when he asked us to be a leaven in society. American Catholics have long sought to assimilate into U.S. cultural life. But in assimilating, we have too often been digested. We have been changed by our culture too much, and we have changed it not enough. If we are leaven, we must bring to our culture the whole Gospel, which is a Gospel of life and joy. That is our vocation as believers. And there is no better place to start than promoting the beauty and sanctity of human life. Those who would claim to promote the cause of life through violence or the threat of violence contradict this Gospel at its core.

Who We May Not Vote For

The question arises naturally, therefore, if among a slate of candidates there are those for whom we may not vote, without sinning gravely. Catholic moral theology recognizes, in the writings of approved authors who faithfully represent the theological tradition of the Church, sound guides for forming a Catholic conscience. Two such authors are Fathers Heribert Jone, OFM Cap. and Henry Davis, SJ. Speaking of the duty to vote and when it could be sinful not to, Fr. Jone writes:

205. Voting is a civic duty which would seem to bind at least under venial sin whenever a good candidate has an unworthy opponent. It might even be a mortal sin if one's refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate. [Moral Theology (Dublin: Mercier Press, 1929, 1955)]

Similarly, Fr. Davis writes,

It is the duty of all citizens who have the right to vote, to exercise that right when the common good of the State or the good of religion and morals require their votes, and when their voting is useful. It is sinful to vote for the enemies of religion or liberty... [Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 2, Chapter V, 4^th Commandment, p. 90 (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1935, 1959)]

Who, then, are the enemies of religion or liberty for whom it would be sinful to vote? Reasonably, it would be those who attack the most basic rights in a society, since all rights depend on those which are logically or actually prior. Among the enumerated inalienable rights recognized by the Declaration of Independence is the right to life. The right to life is both logically and actual prior to all other rights since liberty is meaningless to those who have been unjustly killed. The protection of innocent human life is thus the first obligation of society. This is why protection against foreign enemies is the first duty of the federal government and protection against domestic enemies (criminals) is the first obligation of local government.

They are also enemies of religion and liberty who attack the most basic cell of society, marriage and family. A society that doesn't foster the life-long commitment of a man and a woman to each other and their children is self-destructing. Granting that we have already reaped the fruit of easy divorce laws, the most pernicious attacks against the family today are by those who favor homosexual unions and the granting of marital status to homosexual unions. It is also undermined by an unjust tax system which penalizes marriage in favor of fornication.

What then of other important issues, such as social policy? If a party or a candidate has a better vision from the perspective of Catholic teaching, is it not possible to overlook his views on life and marriage? First of all, most political policies represent a multitude of choices, budgetary, practical, and as well as principled. The two major parties approach these issues differently, but it would be wrong to infer that one or the other is THE Catholic position. However, when a policy touches a principle itself, as it does in the abortion and homosexual debates, then a clear moral choice exists, devoid of the policy debate of how we accomplish the common good in a particular case. The common good can never involve killing the unborn or the approval of homosexuality. These issues touch directly on the most basic goods of all (life and family) - and thus are of unique and paramount importance. It is not possible, therefore, to claim an equal weigh between a candidate's position on these principles and policy positions on how to achieve certain good ends. Sadly, many have inverted the priority of principle over means. The Holy Father, speaking of the inversion of priorities with respect to life, has stated,

All this is causing a profound change in the way in which life and relationships between people are considered. The fact that legislation in many countries, perhaps even departing from basic principles of their Constitutions, has determined not to punish these practices against life, and even to make them altogether legal, is both a disturbing symptom and a significant cause of grave moral decline. Choices once unanimously considered criminal and rejected by the common moral sense are gradually
becoming socially acceptable. ... The end result of this is tragic: not only is the fact of the destruction of so many human lives still to be born or in their final stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no less grave and disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life. [Gospel of Life 3]

To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (John 8:34). [Gospel of Life 20]

Those who are anti-life and anti-family manifest this darkening of conscience, a darkening which makes their other political decisions inherently untrustworthy. No Catholic can reasonable say "this candidate is anti-life and anti-family, but his social policies are in keeping with Catholic principles." Catholics should look carefully to discover what in his policy views manifests the same will to power over others manifested by his anti-life principles. More than one tyrant in history has used pani et circi (bread and circuses) to mollify the masses. The mere appearance of social justice is not the same as social justice, which can only occur when everything in society is properly ordered, beginning with the most basic realities - life and the family.

Who We Must Vote For

As noted by Fathers Jone and Davis, a Catholic can have an obligation to vote so as to prevent an unworthy candidate, an enemy of religion, liberty and morals, from coming into office.

205. Voting is a civic duty which would seem to bind at least under venial sin whenever a good candidate has an unworthy opponent. It might even be a mortal sin if one's refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate. [Jone, Moral Theology (Dublin: Mercier Press, 1929, 1955)]

Davis states it differently, but with the same implications, one may even vote for an enemy of religion or liberty in order to exclude an even greater enemy of religion, liberty and morals. Indeed, one can be obliged to in certain circumstances.

It is sinful to vote for the enemies of religion or liberty, except to exclude a worse candidate, or unless compelled by fear of great personal harm, relatively greater than the public harm at stake. [Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 2, p. 90 ]

Thus, both authors are suggesting the strong obligation (even until the pain of mortal sin) to vote so as to exclude the electing of the candidate who would injure religion, liberty and morals the most. For such a purpose one may vote even for someone who is an enemy of religion and liberty, as long as he is less of any enemy than the candidate one is voting to preclude being elected.

The Holy Father enunciated this principle of the lesser evil with respect to legislation, which while not obtaining the goals which Catholic principles would demand, nonetheless, excludes even worse legislation, or corrects, in part, legislation already in force that is even more opposed to Catholic principles.

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. ... In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. [Gospel of Life 73]

This same principle has immediate bearing on choosing among candidates, some or even all of whom may be anti-life and anti-family. Voters should try to minimize the damage done to society by the outcome of an election, even if that outcome is not wholly satisfactory by Catholic principles.

Formal versus Material Cooperation in Evil

Voters are rightly concerned about the degree to which their vote represents cooperation in the evil which a candidate embraces. Obviously, voting for a candidate whose principles exactly coincide with Catholic teaching would eliminate that worry. However, that is a rare, if not non-existent, situation. Even those who embrace Catholic principles may not always apply them correctly. The fact is that most candidates will imperfectly embrace Catholic principles and voting for ANY candidate contains many unknowns about what that candidate believes and will do.

The moral distinction between formal and material cooperation allows Catholics to choose imperfect candidates as the means of limiting evil or preventing the election of a worse candidate. The justification of doing that is described above. Formal cooperation is that degree of cooperation in which my will embraces the evil object of another 's will. Thus, to vote for a candidate because he favors abortion is formal cooperation in his evil political acts. However, to vote for someone in order to limit a greater evil, that is, to restrict in so far as possible the evil that another candidate might do if elected, is to have a good purpose in voting. The voter's will has as its object this limitation of evil and not the evil which the imperfect politician might do in his less than perfect adherence to Catholic moral principles. Such cooperation is called material, and is permitted for a serious reason, such as preventing the election of a worse candidate. [cf. Gospel of Life 74]

The Conscience Vote

Many Catholics are troubled by the idea of a lesser of two evils or material cooperation with evil. They conclude that they can only vote for a person whose position on the gravest issues, such as abortion, coincides exactly with Catholic teaching. To do otherwise is to betray their conscience and God.

Sometimes this view is based on ignorance of Catholic teaching, a sincere doubt that it is morally permissible to vote for someone who would allow abortion in some circumstances, even if otherwise generally pro-life. It is also perhaps the confusing expression "lesser of two evils," which suggests the choice of evil. As I have explained above, the motive is really the choice of a good, the limitation of evil by a worse candidate.

Sometimes this view is motivated by scrupulosity - bad judgment on moral matters as to what is sin or not sin. The resulting fear of moral complicity in the defective pro-life position of a politician makes voting for him morally impossible. This situation is different than ignorance, however, in that the person simply can't get past the fear of sinning, even when they know the truth.

However, I think it is most frequently motivated by a sincere desire to elect someone whose views they believe coincide best with Church teaching. This is certainly praiseworthy. Yet, human judgments in order to be prudent must take into account all the circumstances. Voting, like politics, involves a practical judgment about how to achieve the desired ends - in this case the end of abortion as soon as possible, the end of partial-birth abortion immediately if possible, and other pro-life political objectives. A conscience vote of this type could be justified if the voter reasonably felt that it could achieve the ends of voting. The question must be asked and answered, however, whether it will bring about the opposite of the goal of voting (the common good) through the election of the worst candidate. That, too, is part of the prudential judgment. In the end every voter must weigh all the factors and vote according to their well-informed conscience, their knowledge of the candidates and the foreseeable consequences of the election of each.

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

Back to Voting

A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters

Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD

1. Isn’t conscience the same as my own opinions and feelings? And doesn’t everyone have the right to his or her own conscience?

Conscience is NOT the same as your opinions or feelings. Conscience cannot be identical with your feelings because conscience is the activity of your intellect in judging the rightness or wrongness of your actions or omissions, past, present, or future, while your feelings come from another part of your soul and should be governed by your intellect and will. Conscience is not identical with your opinions because your intellect bases its judgment upon the natural moral law, which is inherent in your human nature and is identical with the Ten Commandments. Unlike the civil laws made by legislators, or the opinions that you hold, the natural moral law is not anything that you invent, but rather discover within yourself and is the governing norm of your conscience. In short, Conscience is the voice of truth within you, and your opinions need to be in harmony with that truth. As a Catholic, you have the benefit of the Church’s teaching authority or Magisterium endowed upon her by Christ. The Magisterium assists you and all people of good will in understanding the natural moral law as it relates to specific issues. As a Catholic, you have the obligation to be correctly informed and normed by the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium. As for your feelings, they need to be educated by virtue so as to be in harmony with conscience’s voice of truth. In this way, you will have a sound conscience, according to which we you will feel guilty when you are guilty, and feel morally upright when you are morally upright. We should strive to avoid the two opposite extremes of a lax conscience and a scrupulous conscience. Meeting the obligation of continually attending to this formation of conscience will increase the likelihood that, in the actual operation or activity of conscience, you will act with a certain conscience, which clearly perceives that a given concrete action is a good action that was rightly done or should be done. Being correctly informed and certain in the actual operation of conscience is the goal of the continuing formation of conscience. Otherwise put, you should strive to avoid being incorrectly informed and doubtful in the actual judgment of conscience about a particular action or omission. You should never act on a doubtful conscience.

2. Is it morally permissible to vote for all candidates of a single party?

This would depend on the positions held by the candidates of a single party. If any one or more of them held positions that were opposed to the natural moral law, then it would not be morally permissible to vote for all candidates of this one party. Your correctly informed conscience transcends the bounds of any one political party.

3. If I think that a pro-abortion candidate will, on balance, do much more for the culture of life than a pro-life candidate, why may I not vote for the pro-abortion candidate?

If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a “disqualifying issue.” A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters. You must sacrifice your feelings on other issues because you know that you cannot participate in any way in an approval of a violent and evil violation of basic human rights. A candidate for office who supports abortion rights or any other moral evil has disqualified himself as a person that you can vote for. You do not have to vote for a person because he is pro-life. But you may not vote for any candidate who supports abortion rights. Key to understanding the point above about “disqualifying issues” is the distinction between policy and moral principle. On the one hand, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches to accomplishing a morally acceptable goal. For example, in a society’s effort to distribute the goods of health care to its citizens, there can be legitimate disagreement among citizens and political candidates alike as to whether this or that health care plan would most effectively accomplish society’s goal. In the pursuit of the best possible policy or strategy, technical as distinct (although not separate) from moral reason is operative. Technical reason is the kind of reasoning involved in arriving at the most efficient or effective result. On the other hand, no policy or strategy that is opposed to the moral principles of the natural law is morally acceptable. Thus, technical reason should always be subordinate to and normed by moral reason, the kind of reasoning that is the activity of conscience and that is based on the natural moral law.

4. If I have strong feelings or opinions in favor of a particular candidate, even if he is pro-abortion, why may I not vote for him?

As explained in question 1 above, neither your feelings nor your opinions are identical with your conscience. Neither your feelings nor your opinions can take the place of your conscience. Your feelings and opinions should be governed by your conscience. If the candidate about whom you have strong feelings or opinions is pro-abortion, then your feelings and opinions need to be corrected by your correctly informed conscience, which would tell you that it is wrong for you to allow your feelings and opinions to give lesser weight to the fact that the candidate supports a moral evil.

5. If I may not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, then should it not also be true that I can’t vote for a pro-capital punishment candidate?

It is not correct to think of abortion and capital punishment as the very same kind of moral issue. On the one hand, direct abortion is an intrinsic evil, and cannot be justified for any purpose or in any circumstances. On the other hand, the Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor may resort to the death penalty if no other means of defense is sufficient. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is “rare, if not virtually nonexistent.” Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a “rare” case arises that warrants the death penalty. Moreover, if such a rare case does arise and requires resorting to capital punishment, this societal act of self-defense would be a *morally good action* even if it does have the unintended and unavoidable evil effect of the death of the aggressor. Thus, unlike the case of abortion, it would be morally irresponsible to rule out all such “rare” possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately.

6. If I think that a candidate who is pro-abortion has better ideas to serve the poor, and the pro-life candidate has bad ideas that will hurt the poor, why may I not vote for the candidate that has the better ideas for serving the poor?

Serving the poor is not only admirable, but also obligatory for Catholics as an exercise of solidarity. Solidarity has to do with the sharing of both spiritual and material goods, and with what the Church calls the preferential option for the poor. This preference means that we have the duty to give priority to helping those most needful, both materially and spiritually. Beginning in the family, solidarity extends to every human association, even to the international moral order. Based on the response to question 3 above, two important points must be made. First, when it comes to the matter of determining how social and economic policy can best serve the poor, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches proposed, and therefore legitimate disagreement among voters and candidates for office. Secondly, solidarity can never be at the price of embracing a “disqualifying issue.” Besides, when it comes to the unborn, abortion is a most grievous offense against solidarity, for the unborn are surely among society’s most needful. The right to life is a paramount issue because as Pope John Paul II says it is “the first right, on which all the others are based, and which cannot be recuperated once it is lost.” If a candidate for office refuses solidarity with the unborn, he has laid the ground for refusing solidarity with anyone.

7. If a candidate says that he is personally opposed to abortion but feels the need to vote for it under the circumstances, doesn’t this candidate’s personal opposition to abortion make it morally permissible for me to vote for him, especially if I think that his other views are the best for people, especially the poor?

A candidate for office who says that he is personally opposed to abortion but actually votes in favor of it is either fooling himself or trying to fool you. Outside of the rare case in which a hostage is forced against his will to perform evil actions with his captors, a person who carries out an evil action  such as voting for abortion  performs an immoral act, and his statement of personal opposition to the moral evil of abortion is either self-delusion or a lie. If you vote for such a candidate, you would be an accomplice in advancing the moral evil of abortion. Therefore, it is not morally permissible to vote for such a candidate for office, even, as explained in questions 3 and 6 above, you think that the candidate’s other views are best for the poor.

8. What if none of the candidates are completely pro-life?

As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), “…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.

9. What if one leading candidate is anti-abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, another leading candidate is completely pro-abortion, and a trailing candidate, not likely to win, is completely anti-abortion. Would I be obliged to vote for the candidate not likely to win?

In such a case, the Catholic voter may clearly choose to vote for the candidate not likely to win. In addition, the Catholic voter may assess that voting for that candidate might only benefit the completely pro-abortion candidate, and, precisely for the purpose of curtailing the evil of abortion, decide to vote for the leading candidate that is anti-abortion but not perfectly so. This decision would be in keeping with the words of the Pope quoted in question 8 above.

10. What if all the candidates from whom I have to choose are pro-abortion? Do I have to abstain from voting at all? What do I do?

Obviously, one of these candidates is going to win the election. Thus, in this dilemma, you should do your best to judge which candidate would do the least moral harm. However, as explained in question 5 above, you should not place a candidate who is pro-capital punishment (and anti-abortion) in the same moral category as a candidate who is pro-abortion. Faced with such a set of candidates, there would be no moral dilemma, and the clear moral obligation would be to vote for the candidate who is pro-capital punishment, not necessarily because he is pro-capital punishment, but because he is anti-abortion.

11. Is not the Church’s stand that abortion must be illegal a bit of an exception? Does not the Church generally hold that government should restrict its legislation of morality significantly?

The Church’s teaching that abortion should be illegal is not an exception. St. Thomas Aquinas put it this way: “Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.” [ emphasis added]. Abortion qualifies as a grievous vice that hurts others, and the lack of prohibition of this evil by society is something by which human society cannot be maintained. As Pope John Paul II has emphasized, the denial of the right to life, in principle, sets the stage, in principle, for the denial of all other rights.

12. What about elected officials who happen to be of the same party affiliation? Are they committing a sin by being in the same party, even if they don’t advocate pro-choice views? Are they guilty by association?

Being of the same political party as those who advocate pro-abortion is indeed a serious evil IF I belong to this political party IN ORDER TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF with that party’s advocacy of pro-abortion policies. However, it can also be true that being of such a political party has as its purpose to change the policies of the party. Of course, if this is the purpose, one would have to consider whether it is reasonable to think the political party’s policies can be changed. Assuming that it is reasonable to think so, then it would be morally justifiable to remain in that political party. Remaining in that political party cannot be instrumental in the advancing of pro-abortion policies (especially if I am busily striving to change the party’s policies) as can my VOTING for candidates or for a political party with a pro-abortion policy.

13. What about voting for a pro-abortion person for something like state treasurer, in which case the candidate would have no say on matters of life in the capacity of her duties, it just happens to be her personal position. This would not be a sin, right?

If someone were running for state treasurer and that candidate made it a point to state publicly that he was in favor of exterminating people over the age of 70, would you vote for him? The fact that the candidate has that evil in his mind tells you that there are easily other evils in his mind; and the fact that he would publicly state it is a danger signal. If personal character matters in a political candidate, and personal character involves the kind of thoughts a person harbors, then such a candidate who publicly states that he is in favor of the evil of exterminating people over the age of 70 - or children who are unborn - has also disqualified himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. I would go further and say that such a candidate, in principle - in the light of the natural law - disqualifies himself from public office.

14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate's other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.

Back to Voting

1 posted on 10/31/2002 10:50:00 AM PST by patent

THANKSGIVING PROCLAMATION

George Washington
President of the United States of America

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and

Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness":

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26^th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the Beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we many then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have enabled do establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for the great and various favors which He has been please to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our national government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York,

the 3d day of October, AD 1789

- George Washington

2 posted on 10/31/2002 10:50:52 AM PST by patent

An Election Prayer to Mary

O most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Mercy, at this most critical time, we entrust the United States of America to your loving care. Most Holy Mother, we beg you to reclaim this land for the glory of your Son. Overwhelmed with the burden of the sins of our nation, we cry to you from the depths of our hearts and seek refuge in your motherly protection. Look down with mercy upon us and touch the hearts of our people. Open our minds to the great worth of human life and to the responsibilities that accompany human freedom. Free us from the falsehoods that lead to the evil of abortion. Grant our country the wisdom to proclaim that God's law is the foundation on which this nation was founded, and that He alone is the True Source of our cherished rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. O Merciful Mother, give us the courage to reject the "culture of death" and lead us into a new Millennium of Life. Trusting in your most powerful intercession, we pray,

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thy intercession was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence, we fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, our Mother. To thee do we come, before thee we stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not our petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer us. Amen

Back

3 posted on 10/31/2002 10:51:57 AM PST by patent

From Sunday 27 October to Monday 4 November, please join other Catholics in offering the daily rosary, followed by the novena prayer to Our Lady of Pompei, for the outcome of the U.S. elections on Tuesday 5 November 2002.

Intention: That our choices reflect the Gospel of Life. For our families. For peace in our country and in the world.

"O Blessed Rosary of Mary, sweet chain which unites us to God, bond of love which unites us to the angels, tower of salvation against the assaults of Hell, safe port in our universal shipwreck, we will never abandon you. You will be our comfort in the hour of death: yours our final kiss as life ebbs away. And the last word from our lips will be your sweet name, O Queen of the Rosary of Pompei, O dearest Mother, O Refuge of Sinners, O Sovereign Consoler of the Afflicted. May you be everywhere blessed, today and always, on earth and in heaven".

4 posted on 10/31/2002 10:52:22 AM PST by patent

To: ArrogantBustard; Ronaldus Magnus; onedoug; sitetest; sinkspur; Desdemona; american colleen; ...

Bumping. Let me know if you want on or off the list. Click my screen name for a description.

patent +AMDG

5 posted on 10/31/2002 10:53:06 AM PST by patent

To: patent; *Catholic_list; .45MAN; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Angelus Errare; Antoninus; ...

Well done, thanks patent! Bumping

6 posted on 10/31/2002 10:57:39 AM PST by Polycarp

To: patent; Polycarp

Thank you very much.

And yes I will be voting against Ma Carnahan and Mr. Lacey Clay. Sorry I can't vote against Gephardt. His district is two blocks away.

7 posted on 10/31/2002 11:02:10 AM PST by Desdemona

Isn't that last paragraph of the election prayer the Memorare?

8 posted on 10/31/2002 11:04:08 AM PST by Malacoda

Excellent work! I have posted it to the Catholic message board I frequent. I already have a thread going there on the elections.

Let's spread this around, people!

9 posted on 10/31/2002 11:10:02 AM PST by Antoninus

Voting is a civic duty which would seem to bind at least under venial sin whenever a good candidate has an unworthy opponent. It might even be a mortal sin if one's refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate.

A mortal sin not to vote? An eternity in hell because one didn't go to the polls?

Moral theologians prior to Vatican II had lots of time to sit around and dream up mortally sinful acts. This is one of them.

I'd like to see the underlying theology behind this prepostery. I'm not in favor of encouraging people to vote who don't have a great desire to, as they usually vote on emotion.

As for me, I would not vote for a Democrat under any circumstances, even if a pro-life Democrat were running against a pro-choice Republican. Kay Bailey Hutchison is pro-choice, and I've never failed to vote for her for Senate; I don't even recall what her opponents' positions on abortion were.

Republicans in power will do more to promote life than Democrats in power will, period.

10 posted on 10/31/2002 11:11:33 AM PST by sinkspur

Bump for later reading. Thanks.

11 posted on 10/31/2002 11:18:02 AM PST by ELS

You have to remember that Christianity dates back 2,000 years, while "modern democracy" isn't even 150 years old.

The Catholic Church has always had a difficult time dealing with democratic forms of government because it knows better than anyone else that most human beings are dumber than bags of rocks and therefore have no business participating in the affairs of government. This is why the Church has to lay out a series of strict guidelines like these -- if left to their own devices, people will often support a morally bankrupt form of government over a morally legitimate one.

Remember, it was the crowds of people who wanted Pontius Pilate to release Barabbas.

12 posted on 10/31/2002 11:18:57 AM PST by Alberta's Child

BUMPed and bookmarked.

Excellent work; thank you for putting this together!

13 posted on 10/31/2002 11:24:13 AM PST by B Knotts

Formal cooperationis that degree of cooperation in which my will embraces the evil object of another 's will. Thus, to vote for a candidate because he favors abortion is formal cooperation in his evil political acts. However, to vote for someone in order to limit a greater evil, that is, to restrict in so far as possible the evil that another candidate might do if elected, is to have a good purpose in voting. The voter's will has as its object this limitation of evil and not the evil which the imperfect politician might do in his less than perfect adherence to Catholic moral principles. Such cooperation is called material, and is permitted for a serious reason, such as preventing the election of a worse candidate.
Thanks for a post I can wrap my brain around.

14 posted on 10/31/2002 11:25:07 AM PST by eastsider

To: xsmommy; Siobhan; pax_et_bonum

15 posted on 10/31/2002 11:25:58 AM PST by TxBec

To: Alberta's Child

You're right, of course. Most countries require voting, by law, whereas it is a right in the United States and we don't horse-whip citizens into polling places. But, threatening with eternal damnation those dummies who don't care about voting is odd.

I don't understand people who don't vote. My dad never voted after voting for JFK in 1960, and my wife is the only person in her family who votes. I'm glad; they'd vote Democrat if they did.

16 posted on 10/31/2002 11:28:52 AM PST by sinkspur

Yes, the last paragraph in #3.

17 posted on 10/31/2002 11:38:17 AM PST by patent

To: patent; Nubbin; ejo; maryz; perform_to_strangers; WaveThatFlag; catherine of alexandria; livius; ...

patent, you have outdone yourself with this thread. Thank you very much indeed.

Pings to the faithful and bidding the prayers of the faithful for the Divine Mercy of the Lord to be manifested through this election...

18 posted on 10/31/2002 11:39:36 AM PST by Siobhan

But, threatening with eternal damnation those dummies who don't care about voting is odd.

There is nothing odd about it. It is the duty of the Church to prepare its members for the day they will stand and be judged before God. I would not want to be the person who lived in America post-Roe v. Wade and has to explain why getting a haircut on the first Tuesday in November was so important in light of the 40+ million human beings who were being killed with the full approval of my democratically-elected government.

I've always found the conversations between Christ and Pontius Pilate to be the most fascinating parts of the New Testament. Christ often shows open anger toward the Pharisees, but his attitude when dealing with Pilate is almost nonchalant. As if to make everyone understand that Pilate has a legitimate role in the eyes of God.

19 posted on 10/31/2002 11:43:09 AM PST by Alberta's Child

I read the Fr. Torraco article in the primary and posted it somewhere here on FR, and it is even more relevant today.

ALL Catholics need to search their consciences and vote pro-life. This is the single more imporant matter we can vote on.

I'm in California, and I'm voting for Bill Simon who is pro-life AND Catholic. For those in California, the other pro-life statewide candidates are:

Dick Ackerman for Attorney General
Tom McClintock for Controller
Keith Olberg for Secretary of State

The other statewide Republican candidates are pro-abortion running against pro-abortion Democrats.

Get out and vote ... and talk to people in your parish about the necessity of voting pro-life. Maybe a special prayer tomorrow to all the Saints would be in order!

God bless.

20 posted on 10/31/2002 11:43:19 AM PST by Gophack

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794