Many Catholics, on both sides of the political spectrum, continue to struggle with how to cast their votes in November. Some conservative Catholics struggle with the Republican Party’s changed platform and wonder if they can still vote for a Party that’s no longer pro-life. Some liberal Catholics struggle with the impact of excessive immigration on the urban poor and wonder if they can still vote for a Democratic Party that ignores it.
Several highly respected Catholic authors have written on the subject, and walking through their various perspectives provides us an opportunity to sort out and clarify the issues. In this article, I look at some of these perspectives, specifically ones by philosopher Edward Feser, theologian R.R. Reno, and commentator Kennedy Hall.
Breaking Away: The Cas...
Best Price: $11.49
Buy New $11.50
(as of 06:07 UTC - Details)
Let’s start with Dr. Feser. In his Catholic World Report piece titled “Donald Trump has put social conservatives in a dilemma,” he argues that the changes Trump made to the Republican Party’s platform constitute a complete betrayal of the pro-life cause and have turned it into what is now a moderate pro-choice Party. This creates a dilemma for social conservatives.
If they vote for Trump and he wins, they send the message that the Party’s position on abortion is secondary to other issues and that the Party can take their votes for granted even without a commitment to life, something Feser argues “would likely do positive harm, indeed grave and lasting damage, to the pro-life cause going forward and to social conservatism in general.” But if they don’t vote for Trump, they make it easier for the far more extreme Democrats to win, thereby consciously contributing to a greater evil. So, what’s a Catholic to do?
Feser answers the question by first outlining the gravity of the betrayal by Trump, arguing against the theory that it’s nothing more than political expediency. Trump went far beyond what Feser believes was necessary to win the election, not just toning down the right to life of the unborn but positively embracing their murder by supporting the abortion pill and IVF.
He also argues against the idea that Catholics can, in good conscience, vote for him based on his position on other issues. There is a hierarchy of issues in Catholic teaching: the sanctity of life and marriage take priority over issues like the economy and foreign policy. One cannot ignore the former because he approves of the latter.
Having demonstrated that, he then presents in the second half of his article teachings from then-Cardinal Ratzinger and then-Bishop Burke on what we must do when facing such a choice. In short, where our vote will make a difference in the outcome, we must vote for the lesser of two evils, but we must not do so without loudly voicing our opposition to the evil the Party stands for. Otherwise, we are complicit in that evil. Feser is adamant that voting for the lesser of two evils does not satisfy our moral duty: we must also make our protest of the evil known. To not do so would give scandal.
What does that mean then regarding how we should vote? It means, he concludes, that if you live in a swing state where your vote will affect the outcome of the election, you have a moral duty to vote for Donald Trump as the lesser of two evils, but if you live in a blue state where your vote doesn’t matter, your moral duty is to vote for a third-party candidate who is pro-life. This not only supports the pro-life cause, but it sends a message to the Republican Party.
For Feser, the key issue in the election is abortion and doing all we can to limit it, while also protecting the long-term political influence of the pro-life movement. Retaining this political power is essential, Feser argues; if it’s lost, social conservatives will “lose their ability to fight against the moral and cultural rot accelerating all around us.”
Reno, in his First Things article titled “The Republican Party Sidelines the Pro-Life Cause,” argues, as Feser does, that the Republican Party did not have to go as far as it did in the platform. He argues they failed to do the job of properly assessing what is possible. He gives a list of how the Party could have indicated continued support for the right to life of the unborn yet still defuse the Democrats’ ability to paint them as extreme on the abortion issue.
But unlike Feser, Reno argues that we need to be realistic in our demands from politicians. We are free to focus on principle and have an obligation to witness to the sanctity of human life, but they must deal with reality and have a duty to pursue realistic objectives. They must balance their principles with prudence.
Healing the Prostate: ...
Best Price: $9.46
Buy New $12.52
(as of 06:52 UTC - Details)
He argues that it is “counterproductive moralizing to denounce politicians who refuse to promise what cannot be done.” For example, he argues that “for pro-life advocates to denounce politicians who are otherwise supportive of the cause of life, because they refuse to commit to banning mifepristone [to which a supermajority of Americans support legal access], is simply unrealistic.” We, too, must learn to balance principle with prudence.
He notes that “this is a confusing moment for pro-life politics. For decades, overturning Roe received most of the attention.” But now the issue moves to the states and the movement faces a new danger: “that our politicians will abandon us if we are not prudent and/or that we in our outrage, will abandon them.” He calls everyone to instead “meet this challenging moment with clarity and wisdom.”
Thus, for both Feser and Reno, the focus is on preserving and protecting the future of the pro-life cause and of retaining the movement’s influence in the Republican Party. We should not abandon them when political realities require them to compromise to win elections. Rather, we must be prudent, giving them our support but being vocal in our continued defense of the unborn and opposition to the evil of abortion.
Assumed by both authors is the belief that the way we bring about an end to abortion in America is through political action, especially through political action designed ultimately to affect public policy at the national level to make abortion illegal.
