Catholic Voters: Be Guided By Christian Compassion

American voters have it hard this election season and Catholic voters may seem to have it the worst of all.  In addition to both parties screaming at them that the world will end if the other party’s candidate wins, Catholics have more than twelve PACs specifically targeting them and clergy of all levels trying to tell them how to vote and in certain cases enjoining them with eternal damnation if they do not vote the right way.  So what is a good Catholic to do?

In this raging cauldron of political rhetoric, polemics and hyperbole, the leadership in the US and in Rome have provided a relative island of calm.  Pope Francis and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (the “USCCB”) have in effect given American Catholics permission to tune out the noise.  They have also stated in different ways and at different times that neither candidate for the presidency is truly pro-life in any meaningful sense of the term and that Catholics must vote their consciences.  But how is a Catholic to come to a conscientious decision in terms of which candidates to support in November?

One of the best and most practical ways would be to follow the guidance that the USCCB provided in its 2023 publication, “Forming Consciences for a Faithful Citizenship.”  Far from endorsing one party or candidate, as individual bishops are often accused, this document represents their collective position which is almost soaring in its goals and asks Catholics to go above and beyond any political party or platform.  At the same time, the bishops’ guidance is entirely practical and realistic in its application and appreciation of the difficult choices that Catholic voters must make.

The bishops frame the issue of political participation by gently and lovingly calling the faithful to transcend the judgement and hypocrisy into which good religious people have so easily fallen since Christ chastised the teachers of the law for just such behavior.  As its model, the bishops ask Catholics to bear in mind and emulate the Good Samaritan who could go beyond the hatred between groups and seeing his mortal enemy not as an opponent, but as another person made in God’s image.  The Samaritan could have compassion on his enemy and bind up his wounds.   Were every Catholic voter to read and take to heart the bishops’ guidance, the nation would undoubtedly be in a much happier state.

So what exactly does the bishops’ guide say?  First and foremost, it asks Catholics to take a step back.  It asks them to turn off their phones and TVs, log off of social media and connect with God and people around them.  But not just people who think the same way.  Catholics are asked to reach out in compassion to the other, as did Christ and the Good Samaritan.  The bishops suggest volunteering at a soup kitchen or doing something else to help bind up the wounds of society.  Their view is that these practices will assist Catholics in reconnecting so that they can see and realize the dignity in others.

The specific suggestions made by the bishops are meant to help American Catholics to start to get a better perspective on the Christian ideal that should guide and form their consciences.  Their point is that vitriolic anger and fear that often deny the basic dignity of others cannot form the basis of a genuine Christian conscience.  Further, beyond recognizing the inherent dignity of every person, the bishops state that Catholics must recognize that the Holy Spirit is at work in every person.  This is quite a statement, in that it enjoins Catholics against judgement.  If God is at work in another person, then the inference is that Catholics cannot rightly call them evil.

Undergirding the bishops guidance for the faithful is a reminder of the core of the faith, namely that Catholics must first know and feel the unearned compassion of their God.  Having received the embrace of Christ, they are called to share this love with the world through word and action.  Effectively it is this love that should form their consciences as it pertains to the issues at hand and to compel Catholics to see the dignity in all life and to heed a call to protect and maintain it.

In upholding the dignity of all life, the bishops state that Catholics are called to oppose all evils that denigrate or destroy life in any way.  This includes racism, discrimination, terrorism, euthanasia, abortion, capital punishment, genocide, terrorism, violence and wanton greed and indifference.  While the bishops state that abortion is the preeminent concern, they make clear that a commitment to fight this scourge in no way alleviates them of their obligation to combat any other evil that plagues humanity.  But the bishops guidance for the faithful is not just a list of negative enjoinders.  It also calls on the faithful to seek ways to positively impact the world by welcoming the stranger, caring for the poor and seeing that every person has a chance at the dignified life.

In evaluating the candidates and their platforms, Catholics are asked to take into account their positions on these issues, as well as their character and the underlying reality of the situation.  By taking a holistic view, the bishops are very practical in that they state that a flawed solution is better than none at all, and that often times, change is incremental.  In weighing complex issues, imperfect candidates and partial solutions to pressing problems, the bishops fully acknowledge that faithful Catholics may come to different conclusions and support different platforms.  So long as they genuinely weigh the issues in light of true conscience and God’s guidance and not party politics, the bishops guidance makes clear that the decision will be the correct one.

In light of this guidance, what about the issue of abortion, which has divided the nation and the Church in America more than almost any other?  The bishops guidance makes clear that no issue can be addressed in a vacuum and that as stated, the faithful can weigh the same factors and come to different conclusions about which candidate to support.  So long as their decision is reached through a true conscience that seeks to oppose an intrinsic evil and stand for the dignity of humanity, it is the right one.  With this in mind, there appears to be a faithful Catholic case for each candidate and party, flawed as they may be.

On the one hand, there is a party that opposes abortion access, but that seems to encourage hatred of the stranger and is unwilling to make much effort to alleviate the suffering of the poor in the United States or elsewhere in the world.  Thus the compassion of the Samaritan that is to be the example for Catholics is somewhat hard to find, yet on the issue of preeminent concern, this party is steadfast.

The other party would seek to alleviate the plight of the poor and welcome the stranger, but is opposed to most abortion restrictions.  So while this party would seem to be much more in the mold of the Samaritan in terms of its overall approach to the issues that are of concern to the bishops and therefore to Catholics, on the issue of preeminent concern, it will not oppose an abhorrent evil.

For many Catholics, when looking at the parties and their platforms, the decision, made in good conscience is a straightforward one, and for them, this is the correct choice.  One party opposes abortion and as this is the preeminent concern, it supersedes the other issues and the decision as to which party to support is clear.  In keeping with the bishops guidance these Catholics have an obligation to agitate for a movement in this party’s platform and policies to be more caring for the poor and to do more to alleviate suffering at home and around the world.

But is there a case to really be made for the other party in good and clear conscience?  A more nuanced and possibly broader look at the evidence, in keeping with the bishops guidance, would suggest that one can be made.  It requires the bishops’ and indeed the Church’s pragmatic and bigger, more patient vision, but with this perspective in mind, it bears exploring.

In any examination of abortion, it must be stated that the data in the US and around the world are at best incomplete and therefore any conclusions must be based on certain assumptions and extrapolations drawn from the numbers.

First, abortion is a global scourge.  From the available data, it is clear that the vast majority of abortions occur in the developing world – almost 90% of them.  So to look at abortion from an exclusively US perspective is to focus on only a very small portion of the problem.  What can be drawn from the available information on terminated pregnancies in the developing world is that abortions seem most likely to happen because expectant mothers cannot pay for another child and that anti-abortion laws do little to stop abortions from being performed.

For example, the abortion rate is almost three times as high in predominantly Catholic South America as it is in western Europe, and abortions are 50% more common in Mexico and Central America than they are in the US despite much more restrictive aboirtion laws in these regions.  The data and available information appear to indicate that women have abortions in developing nations because the cost of another child will push a family on the edge into poverty – developing world poverty, not US poverty.

In the US, abortion rates US have been falling, more-or-less, for the past thirty years, likely because of rising incomes, falling poverty rates and access to contraception.  But on the whole, the data seem to indicate that abortions largely happen in the US for the same reasons as they do in the developing world – lack of money.

Most abortions in the US are performed on women who already have one or more children (61%).  The majority of women who have abortions never had one before (57%).  Most of the women who have abortions are in their 20s (57%).  42% or women who have abortions are black.  The abortion rate for Hispanic women is 2x more than for white women and 4.5x higher for black women than for white women.  Finally, the abortion rate is 6x higher for women living in poverty than for women above the poverty line.

While what can be drawn from the available data in the US is limited and speculative, it would seem that it is young women of color, who are probably unmarried and trying to support one or more children on a low income, are the most likely to have an abortion and probably because they cannot afford another child.  At the very least, the statistics blow a big hole in the common stereotype of promiscuous career women or irresponsible teenagers cannot be bothered with an inconvenience baby as the principal recipients of abortions.

Further supporting this assumption about the underlying cause of abortions in the US is the fact that as stated, after dropping fairly steadily for thirty years, abortion rates began to tick up in 2020, concurrent with the pandemic, and have been on an upward trend for the past three years.  This has been a period of economic uncertainty for many Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder and of high inflation and rising living costs.  The fact that abortions are much harder to access since the Dobbs decision in 2022 has not done anything to slow the upward trend in abortion rates.

Taken together the available data points from the US and elsewhere around the globe seem to indicate that regulations don’t necessarily curtail abortions, but the economic ability to keep a child does.  So in keeping with the bishops guidance, if Catholics truly want to end abortion in the US, voting for measures that will reduce poverty and hunger will likely do much more to achieve this goal than more restrictive abortion laws.

How much would it cost to end poverty in the US?  The Census Bureau put the number at about $175 billion per year, or less than 1% of GDP.   So given the apparent correlation between economic hardship and abortion rates, it seems that for a little more than the federal government spends each year on personnel management, a big dent could be put into the abortion rate in the US.   $175 billion may still sound like a lot, but by comparison, Senator Rand Paul figures that the government wastes $900 billion per year, so for less than 20% of what is apparently mis-spent each year by Washington, there is a good chance that majority of abortions in the US could be prevented.

The Church in the US is part of a global whole that is the mystical body of Christ on earth, so a purely domestic focus on abortion seems very myopic, especially when the US is in a position to affect the state of affairs in many developing countries and therefore to reduce their abortion rates.  So it should be equally unacceptable to Catholics in the US that a woman in Chicago or Lagos has to consider an abortion because either one cannot afford another child.

The cost to end extreme poverty around the globe is even less than the outlay to stop want in the US, clocking in at $70 billion per year according to the UN.  This is equivalent to 0.2% of US GDP, or less than Americans spend each year on beer.   This is not to state that ending extreme poverty alone would stop all abortions in the developing world, but for less than 10% of what the US government will pay in interest on the national debt this year, abortions around the globe could probably be greatly reduced.  It is also likely that the number of abortions prevented in the developing world would dwarf the number that could be stopped in the US.  That is a sobering thought.

At its base, the numbers from the US and other parts of the world make pretty clear that the real, very stark question is – how much is a life worth?  The numbers indicate that abortions happen far more often because of lack of resources to raise a child than because a child is not wanted.  So ending abortion is as much an economic issue as it is a legislative one.

Where are the parties and candidates in terms of policies that will potentially reduce or eliminate the economic causes of abortion?  In terms of their platforms for the presidential election, one party is seeking to cut aid to families and most support for Americans below the poverty line while it is simultaneously striving for more abortion restrictions.  The other party has a strong proposed program to eliminate or reduce poverty in the US and to provide assistance for families with children, but will not do anything in terms of ant-abortion legislation.  Based on the numbers, it is a fair guess that cutting aid to families will likely increase the number of abortions while increasing support for children and working poor families will cause it to fall.  So one party’s economic platform will probably increase the number of abortions if implemented while the other party’s platform will cause the abortion rate to decline if its candidate is elected to the presidency.

Unfortunately, neither party has any plan for economic aid to the developing nations that targets poverty.  As such, apart from current laws prohibiting foreign aid to be used for abortions, nothing is really being done to address the underlying issue that drives most abortions around the globe.

So where does this analysis leave Catholic voters with respect to the bishops guidance?  It would appear that it indicates that there is a case in good conscience to vote for a party that supports poverty elimination in the US as it seems to be the root cause of most abortions, even if it does not support abortion restrictions.  This is with the caveat that such voters agitate for support of more abortion restrictions as part of this party’s platform.

Abortion is an incredibly complex issue and this analysis can only touch upon certain elements of the topic.  It has not addressed the extremely difficult issues of pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother, children who will be born with terminal illnesses, debilitating diseases or handicaps, or cases of rape.  This is to say nothing of the agony and distress that many mothers must face when wrestling with the reality of the cost of a child that they cannot afford to support or terminating a pregnancy, and the emotional scars that this decision must leave.

This is also to say nothing of the economic complexities and externalities of anti-poverty and child support programs or more market or government-based platforms and positions to eliminate poverty.  There are obviously arguments to be made for and against each, but these issues are outside the scope of this article, which merely seeks to examine the possibility of following the bishops’ guidance and voting for either party.

All that can be said here is that looking at the numbers and trying to follow the bishops’ guidance, in good conscience, Catholics having weighed the issues as the bishops ask should be able to vote for either candidate while advocating vigorously for a more holistically and genuinely pro-life stance by both parties, and that in the near-term, one party’s economic platform will likely have a greater impact on reducing the number of abortions in the US than the other’s advocacy for greater abortion restrictions.

But there is something more that should not be lost in the analysis of the issue, which is the lofty vision that the bishops elucidate and that the Church has always espoused.  Going back to the starting point of the bishops’ message, they ask that Catholics seek to emulate the example of the Good Samaritan.  Christ asks that his disciples care for the poor and the marginal, be they lepers, migrants, the elderly, or the unborn, all of whom are to be one’s neighbors and to whom the follower of Christ owes a duty of love and care.  The story of Samaritan expands the definition of one’s neighbor to even hated enemies and shows that compassion, much more than religious observance, is the mark of a follower of Jesus.  It is also a call to bind wounds and to actively heal the broken, which seems to be the state of so much of the nation at this difficult time.

If these examples, and calling of the Gospel that form the bedrock of the bishops’ guidance are taken to heart, then Catholics can be part of giving real hope to the destitute and downcast in the US.  Making a real effort to alleviate poverty – caring for the widows and orphans – is a Christian missive and requirement, and one to which the bishops loudly and clearly speak.

Catholics still face difficult choices on November 5^th, but however they vote, they can do so in good conscience if they make the effort to heed the bishops’ inspired guidance and the voice of God.