The other day we came across a pamphlet titled: "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics." The pamphlet itself is only 10 pages long, fitting into a small 4x7" frame, and it only takes about 5 minutes to read. Hereafter we can only refer to it as "the pamphlet" because the publisher, Catholic Answers, decided the author should remain anonymous. We were curious about its content since a few weeks earlier the USCCB was negatively disposed toward it. We had assumed the bishops' adverse reaction was simply due to the fact that their collective liberal sensibilities were offended by a more conservative viewpoint.

 

After we reviewed the pamphlet, although most of it was rather informative and well-written, we were deeply concerned about some of its final conclusions. We believe some of these conclusions to be not only dubious in and of themselves, but an assault on the individual Catholic's conscience and the Church's collective power to reform society as a whole.

First, under the title "Your Role as a Catholic Voter," the pamphlet quotes the Catholic Catechism to set the foundation for a series of arguments. The pamphlet states: "Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good through the exercise of their voting privileges" and cites the Catechism's paragraph 2240 as support. It then states: "It is not just civil authorities who have responsibility for a country. ‘Service of the common good requires citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community,'" and it cites Catechism paragraph 2239. Then the pamphlet adds information about one's conscience, citing the CDF's teaching contained in "Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life," which states, "A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals."

The pamphlet then chooses five issues that Catholics must regard as "non-negotiables" when voting for a particular candidate: 1) abortion; 2) euthanasia; 3) fetal stem cell research; 4) human cloning; 5) homosexual "marriage." For each of these five areas the pamphlet cites either a papal encyclical or a CDF statement to show the reader that the highest levels of Church authority have condemned each of the above immoral actions.

In these instructions the pamphlet teaches: "Candidates need to learn that being wrong on even one of the non-negotiable issues is enough to exclude them from consideration." Two paragraphs later, the pamphlet again instructs the reader that he should:

"Eliminate from consideration candidates who are wrong on any of the non-negotiable issues. No matter how right they may be on other issues, they should be considered disqualified if they are wrong on even one of the non-negotiables" (p. 8).

The pamphlet goes on to offer some advice about how to determine a candidate's position and what not to base one's vote upon (e.g., party affiliation, appearance, personality, etc). For eight pages, the pamphlet provides evidence from both logic and the teachings of the Church about how a Catholic ought to vote.

The pamphlet implicitly acknowledges, however, that the previous rules it cited may be inadequate to deal with all possible circumstances. This section is titled: "When There is No ‘Acceptable' Candidate." The following comprises the pamphlet's entire explanation:

"In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more of the five non-negotiables. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one."

At first blush, this appears to be a simple and straight-forward directive. Apparently, Catholic Answers thought so too, because in stark contrast to the rest of the pamphlet, they did not offer a single authoritative reference for support. As such, we have only the authority of Catholic Answers on which to rely, and, of course, Catholic Answers has no authority.

The sad fact is, at least in the brevity with which Catholic Answers expressed it, the above directive is adequate neither in substance nor breadth to be of reliable use to the average Catholic. Surely, Catholic Answers knows that a major reason such a "guide" was necessary in the first place is that in many instances the "exception" has become the "norm." That is, there are very few candidates who are entirely correct on all of the "non-negotiables." Although the pamphlet offers the option "to vote for no one," that option lost its fail-safe intention when the Catholic was told in the preceding clause that he could "vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such [non-negotiable] positions."

One of the more accepted and recognized books on moral theology, which is now in its eighteenth edition, is Fr. Heribert Jone's Moral Theology. On this general topic, Fr. Jone writes:

Chapter II, Civic Duties: 1) Section II, Subsection 3: Co-operation in evil legislation is sinful. The only exception admitted is the case in which such representatives might avoid a greater evil by their co-operation (Cf 144, 147) in such cases; however, they must make clear their position.

2) Section III, subsection 3: Election of good representatives. 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. One may vote for an unworthy candidate only when this is necessary to prevent a still less worthy candidate from obtaining office; but in such a case one should explain the reason for his action if this is possible…

From this we understand the general rule: It is permissible to choose something evil (or "someone" who sanctions the evil) if the alternative is an even greater evil. On this facet of the general rule the Catholic Answers pamphlet seems to be on solid ground. However, Jone adds something crucial that the pamphlet omits: One who votes for something evil or someone who sanctions evil has a moral responsibility to express his objection to the evil itself and explain to those who witness such a vote that his support is only in order to avoid an even more serious evil. Why is this caveat so crucial? Because the vote for the lesser of two evils is prone to misunderstanding. Many people, good Catholics in particular, may be scandalized by what appears to be public support for evil, even if it the lesser of two evils. Moreover, the amoral advocate of the evil may well interpret the Catholic vote as sanctioning the evil, and consider it a feather in his cap.

Many a well-meaning Catholic organization has frequently crossed this line. For example, they tout a particular candidate as "pro-life" when in reality the candidate is only partially committed to such virtue. The psychological reasons for painting such a rosy picture are obvious enough, and on a human level one can empathize with the intent. "Vote for George, he'll only allow the killing of SOME babies" isn’t a very inspiring slogan for a political campaign. Yet, isn't our first duty to be good, faithful Catholics rather than effective political marketers? We must acknowledge that moral compromises can eventually carry a cost that is too great for us to bear.

Another serious concern involves an additional unsupported assertion in this section of the pamphlet: the purportedly Catholic principle allowing one to vote for a candidate who supports one or more of the non-negotiables if that candidate "seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation." Frankly, this category of compromise seems even more problematic than the first, since it is so fundamentally subjective. By what rational criteria are Catholics to make such a prognostication? The pamphlet neither gives a suggestion nor another place to which we may turn for clarification. Could one theoretically vote for a candidate who was objectively worse with respect to the "non-negotiables" if he was perceived to be more legislatively incompetent than his less objectively evil adversary? In the pamphlet's wording, it would appear so. This particular loophole looks a bit too much like a black hole that could potentially justify voting for just about anybody. If Catholic Answers intends to prevent anything from passing through this opening, they need to tighten this up considerably or possibly even delete it entirely. We know of no real evidence of this specific principle in Catholic moral theology.

We believe a final inadequacy of this particular section of the pamphlet is that no mention is made of a possible "exception to the exception." Since in our modern society the exception to the norm has become the rule (that is, the overwhelming majority of political candidates sanction at least one of the “five non-negotiables”), it is necessary to review the new "norm" to see if it has limitations of its own. Perhaps a couple of examples will help elucidate:

Example #1: Society has further degenerated into widespread acceptance of all the "non-negotiables." Candidate "A" sanctions abortion on demand, fetal stem cell research, and homosexual marriage and but defers on cloning and euthanasia while candidate "B" sanctions all of the above.

Example #2: A Catholic is told by a tyrant, "I am going to execute these 5 infants or these other 10 infants depending on whom you tell me to execute. You must decide or I will decide myself."

If we apply the principles as expressed in the pamphlet, in example #1 a Catholic may always legitimately vote for candidate "A," and in example #2 he may always validly choose the execution of the 5 children. In the second to last section, titled, "The Role of Your Conscience," the pamphlet states: "Conscience is like an alarm. It warns you when you are about to do something wrong"; "For your conscience to work properly, it must be properly formed"; and "A well-formed conscience will never contradict Catholic moral teaching." We completely agree, and our alarms are sounding off, loud and clear. Clearly, this disturbing conclusion sufficiently establishes that the principle of "compromise" has limits. Thus, the Catholic needs more information, and unfortunately, the pamphlet has failed to provide it.

What should a Catholic do in such cases? In either example cited above, in our opinion a Catholic should refuse to participate in the process entirely, regardless of the consequences. In such thoroughly evil circumstances, the "inoculation" Fr. Jone expressed (publicly disavowing the evil itself in order to negate the damaging consequences of appearing to support evil) eventually becomes insufficient. There comes a time when things are so corrupt, so evil, that to actively choose either option is to implicitly acknowledge the legitimacy of the immoral demand, as well as cooperating in the injustice, helping to perpetuate the evil circumstances under which it arose. The consequences of actively and continually participating in such manifest and pervasive evils are disastrous to the individual's own conscience and society as a whole. The Catholic bears no responsibility for refusing to obey an illegitimate ultimatum that is forced upon him. No one can be morally forced to make such a heinous choice, ever.

It may be trite, but today many people carry around a "What Would Jesus Do" bracelet to remind them of their responsibilities. What is not so trite, however, is picturing Jesus in our situation. Can we imagine Jesus telling the Jews that they can vote for the Pharisees because they merely sanction the Corban custom, but we shouldn't vote for the Sadducees because they say there is no resurrection? Now let's put the full weight of our dilemma upon Jesus. Let's say the Pharisees sanction abortion, euthanasia and cloning whereas in addition to those the Sadducees sanction homosexual marriage? At this point our WWJD bracelet is experiencing tremors. Would Jesus instruct his followers on the finer points of moral compromise? No, I think we all agree that Jesus would give the same voter-training tirade He gave in Matthew 23, relegating the whole kit and caboodle of Pharisees and Sadducees to the flames of hell, telling us to never to be like them, let alone vote for them. He would then tell us to call out to God for help, trusting in Him to lead us out of the dilemma.

As a result, we are now left with the logical difficulty of determining when the situation is sufficiently bad to warrant a refusal to play the "compromise game." Undoubtedly, there will be some who argue that abstaining from voting is self-defeating. Perhaps, but not necessarily. In light of the gravity of the evil surrounding us, we would suggest the time is at hand that Catholic Answers may better use its influence by encouraging the Holy Father and all the bishops of America to insist that Catholics not vote for any candidate who condones the non-negotiables, period. We have reached the point when we must ask the haunting question: when does the damage done to our ultimate temporal and eternal goals caused by compromise outweigh the possible benefits?

To demonstrate the severity of our times, stop and think about this for a moment: How did Catholic Answers arrive at the “five non-negotiables”? Obviously, they selected the most heinous sins they could think of, most of them centering on some form of murder (abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem-cells research) while the other two deal with genetics and sex, respectively (cloning and homosexual marriage). But in choosing five non-negotiables, Catholic Answers is implicitly telling us that some of the issues we formerly considered non-negotiable are now negotiable (e.g., homosexuality lifestyle, homosexual adoptions, contraception, divorce and remarriage, pre-marital sex, cohabitation, artificial insemination, surrogate motherhood, eugenics, pornography, etc). In fact, two of these could be considered a form of murder (contraception, in-vitro fertilization), whereas the rest could be considered forms of sexual sin. The fact that Catholic Answers was forced to limit their selection only to five shows just how far the Christian community has been backed into the proverbial corner by the permissive society in which we live.

Be that as it may, if the bishops of America did ever band together and enforce a moratorium against voting for candidates who sanction any of the non-negotiables, can you imagine what kind of impact that would have on our poll-worshiping politicians? Ray Flynn, former Democratic mayor of Boston, recently stated: "Until Catholics put themselves together again as a legitimate voting bloc...nothing will change." We enthusiastically agree, and add that sheep need a shepherd who will lead decisively in order to move together as a flock (or bloc). The Catholic Church is the largest church in America, having more members than the top ten Protestant denominations combined. America’s population is more than one-quarter Catholic. Politicians would be modifying their platforms quicker than you can say "Heinz Fortune" if America's bishops would stand up as a united moral force against them. Back in the 1940s and 1950s that was standard fare for America's bishops. We need Catholics to become a light to dispel the darkness, rather than trimming their light by one compromise after another.

Our faith is a corporate faith, meant to be lived in union as the people of God. When unified in Christ we are powerful witnesses and agents of change. If not, then as Scripture says, "When the shepherd is struck, the sheep are scattered." The sheep are left to fend for themselves, and they will invariably make questionable choices if they do not have the guidance they desperately need. We must never be deceived by the Adversary. We are still the Church Militant. And our God is more than able to bring about miraculous reversals of fortune if we but have the faith of a mustard seed.

It is a dangerous mistake to embrace the principle of compromise so easily. It must remain at most a distasteful, last resort for a Catholic. If not it can become a deadly poison to the spirit. Unfortunately, it seems a defeatist, impotent spirit of compromise has so infected the Church that we have in turn adopted the very attitude that will ensure defeat. Our hierarchy has willingly compromised away its greatest power: the God-given power to teach and lead. And for what? Our suspicion is that money is the root of this evil. Yes, the old 501(c)3 tax-exempt status.

But this is not just the bishop’s problem. In situations this serious, it would be a tremendous blessing to hear clear, unequivocal direction from Christ's vicar. What a source of strength and encouragement that would be! Unfortunately, it appears that we are going to be forced to suffer and stumble for now; and well-intentioned organizations, like Catholic Answers and others, will feel compelled to fill a void for which they are simply not equipped. It would have been better if Catholic Answers had left out the paragraph in question rather than give misleading and incomplete information. As small as the pamphlet is, it is well to remind ourselves that the quest for brevity can become the error of inadequacy.

Interestingly enough, Reuters News Service reports the following words from Catholic Bishop Lawrence Brandt of Greensburg, Pa., concerning Catholic politicians who dissent from church teaching and support abortion rights:

"The Catholic Church alone determines what it means to be Catholic, what the church's core doctrinal holdings are, and what is required to be a Catholic in good standing. No institution of higher education, no political party, no board of trustees, no think tank, no group of theologians, no newspaper, no individual, no one, no matter how well intentioned does this except the Catholic Church itself through its official teaching authority."

We hope Catholic Answers heeds this strong statement. But as strong as this bishop's voice is, unfortunately, he has effectively impugned the prelature in the process. While it is of course true that it is the "Catholic Church who alone determines" authentic Catholic teaching, what good is this awesome power if the current shepherds refuse to exercise it? We need courage, power and clarity, but we receive timidity, impotence and ambiguity.

These are hard questions, indeed, questions that are beyond the wisdom of us all. In the Old Testament the priest could call upon the ephod to obtain God's direct answer to a question of extreme difficulty (Ex 28:4f; 1Sam 23:9f). We don't have the ephod any longer but we do have the papal office, and it holds within its realm infallible prerogatives that no one else on earth possesses. That is what we need in these perilous times – the firm, loving discipline and unwavering guidance of a determined father. In the final analysis, we believe it is time for the pope to write a clear, decisive encyclical on how (or if) a Catholic should vote when all of the candidates sanction one or more of the "non-negotiables."

We must all pray that the Lord delivers us from this evil and provides us with a clear, unfaltering voice to follow. May we all once again remember who we are and the Power Who works and lives within us. St. Peter, pray for us. St. Michael, protect us.

Robert Sungenis (Pennsylvania)
and
Michael Forrest (Massachusetts)