A Challenging American Election: A Faith Perspective

The deep divisions in the U.S.A. and its political parties during the 2020 Presidential election are not just about policy differences but are also differences in their perceptions about the nature of the human person as reflected in the life issues. Those same divisions are now appearing in the Catholic Church. We have “Catholics for Biden” and “Catholics for Trump” advocacy groups and differing statements from American Bishops as to what should be the priorities for making a candidate selection.

Many are “turned off” to both candidates and say they will just not vote.  All the rhetoric, innuendos, accusations, lies and noise keeps getting in the way of reasonably evaluating the truth and validity of each Presidential candidate’s positions. Therefore, I think it is important to drop back and look at the basics.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops in their document Forming Consciences for a Faithful Citizenship discusses the importance of using a well-informed conscience when making voting decisions. So, as a Catholic, that tells me that in looking at different positions I need to go back to Sacred Scripture, the Catechism, and the Magisterium for direction for my conscience. I need to look at a candidate’s record of what they have done, what they support, what they say they will do, and factor that through the lens of faith.

For me, the important general voting issues from a faith perspective are the protection of basic human rights and supporting the “public good”. Which candidate and party platform will best protect human life at every stage starting with life in the womb to natural death? There are those in the church who advocate for a “seamless garment” that all “social justice” issues from abortion to poverty, to the environment, immigration, education, racism, health care, etc. are of equal value.

Public good issues consist of national security, crime control, economic concerns such as debt, taxation, etc. With that perspective, making a voting decision would become a matter of weighing candidates and their party’s policies and “promises” on all those the issues and whichever one (in a voter’s personal opinion) has more pros should then get the voting nod. However, when viewing all that within the context of priorities suggested by our faith a different perspective emerges.

The Hinge Point: Pro and Con Arguments

In terms of the issue of the protection of human rights, the most basic right we have as citizens is the right to life. It’s not by accident that “life “is listed first on the Declaration of Independence which states that “we are endowed by our creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Without recognizing the preeminence of this first right (the right to life) there can ultimately be no recognition of any other additional rights. The entire infrastructure of human rights is placed at risk if the right to life is not protected. As a culture, if we allow the killing of children for any reason and by any means – and then actually call it a “right” (whether reproductive rights or women’s right to privacy) – we make that word irrelevant.

Various popes including St. John Paul II, to Benedict XVI to the current Francis have all stated that abortion is the most important human rights issue. There are related issues to a candidate’s views on abortion such as which candidate will best prohibit assisted suicide and euthanasia? An associated question is which candidate will protect natural marriage and the family which is the stable institution that is the springboard to bring new life and the growth of that life?  Finally, is the question of which candidate and party will best defend religious freedom, protect consciences, and the right of people to live out their faith in every aspect of society which provides a cultural context for life?

The document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship notes that Catholics should not vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil and that, as a consequence, abortion is the “preeminent” human rights concern. They acknowledge that immigration, poverty, racism, health care, etc., and all the other social justice issues are important, however, those issues are not considered as equivalent.

Whereby candidates or their respective party can have differing views on the importance and methods to deal with those other social justice issues it is a prudential judgment as to which ones are considered priorities and which policy approaches may be effective. In turn, there is room for bipartisan negotiation on approaches. Catholics can faithfully disagree on each candidate’s merits for dealing with them. However, when viewing the different policies none reach the threshold of being intrinsically evil.  In terms of abortion, there can be no prudential judgment or compromise. By itself, it is an intrinsic evil act with one single consequence – the death of an innocent human being. There are no alternative approaches or potential outcomes.

It’s the civic duty of each Catholic to investigate where the candidates and their party stand on the issues of life, family, and religious freedom. Voting decisions need to be based on the answer to those questions not on emotional responses to a candidate’s temperament, or demeanor. Unfortunately, much of the rhetoric and media focus has been on personality factors. Given this perspective, where do the Republican and Democratic candidates stand on the “preeminent” issues?

Weighing Candidates

While the election is about hundreds of candidates for local, state, and federal offices the focus has been on the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. They are the standard-bearers for their party platforms and represent the views of their fellow party members up for election. Consequently, their views and actions warrant that main focus.

Abortion

Donald Trump has consistently been on the record to cut federal spending for abortions, for keeping the Hyde amendment prohibiting tax money to pay for abortions, and for prohibiting partial-birth abortions. He applied the Mexico City Policy prohibiting foreign governments receiving US aid to use that funding for abortions and signed an executive order that requires health professionals to offer medical care and treatment for babies who survive abortion.

Joe Biden is on the record that he supports taxpayer funding for unlimited abortions through a full term, that he will codify Roe vs. Wade into federal law, that he will undo the Hyde amendment and the Mexico City Policy. In addition, he is on the record that he will charge the Justice Department to challenge state laws that require parental notification or ultrasound requirements before an abortion and is supportive of the unlimited abortion act (Women’s Health Protection Act sponsored by his running mate Kamala Harris).

That Act would have legalized abortions for basically any reason up to birth and invalidate nearly all state and federal abortion regulations, including waiting periods, informed consent requirements, bans on partial-birth and late-term abortions, and sex-selection abortions.  Although a Catholic, his abortion policies are out of step with the faith’s position. As a consequence, several Bishops have requested he refrain from receiving communion.

His running mate, Kamala Harris not only agrees with his positions but has a very radical pro-abortion legislative record that she brings to the table. Harris has a 100% pro-abortion voting record and has defended abortions up to birth and is on the record that women should be allowed to make the decision whether or not to terminate the life of their unborn baby even if that abortion occurs just before birth. In that regard, she voted with Senate Democrats to block an anti-infanticide bill that would offer medical care and treatment for babies who survive abortion and led the Senate fight against a 20-week abortion ban. When the attorney general of California, she brought charges against the undercover journalists documenting criminal activity (such as selling fetal parts) from Planned Parenthood. Needless to say, both of the democratic candidates have 100% support from NARAL and other pro-abortion groups.

Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom

In the context of both abortion and same-sex marriage, religious liberty has emerged as one of the most important issues because of both individuals and faith-based organizations being challenged for refusing to participate in such actions that go against their faith and conscience.

Trump is on the record for agreeing with the Catholic Church that marriage should be the preserve of one man and one woman.  Trump has been on the record many times for supporting religious liberty in the “public square” during his term and has upheld the religious exemption from the Affordable Act mandates that force religious entities to provide abortifacients and contraception.

Biden is on the record for supporting same-sex marriages and along with Kamila Harris both have conducted such weddings in the past. This raises questions as to what kind of pro-family policies or the reverse anti-family policies, would be put in place if elected over such issues as parental abortion notification and authority to not allow transgender “treatments”.

In terms of religious freedom, Biden is on the record that he will bring suits against organizations who have been granted exemptions regarding the abortion/contraception mandate in Obamacare. He has stated he will reinstate Obama-era policies requiring the Little Sisters of the Poor and others to ensure access to abortifacients and birth control in violation of their religious beliefs. This has led him to be denounced by many Catholic leaders, lay and clergy alike.

The Stakes

Independent of these specific issues themselves is the implication for a Presidential authority to name federal judges.  Unfortunately, the federal judiciary has assumed massive authority to use legal decisions to make law and promote political policy. Given the candidate’s stance on the “preeminent” life, marriage, and religious freedom issues the question to be asked is what are the implications if a given candidate is elected for appointing and/or adding more judges that support their respective life positions?

In a related matter, there is the issue of anti-Catholicism. The Trump administration has never shown any anti-Catholicism, but the Biden campaign and many Democrats have and are currently demonstrating such bigotry. In a previous post, I noted that Kamala Harris, attacked a man being considered for a seat on a federal district court because he belonged to the Knights of Columbus which she considers an “extreme organization” because of the order’s stance on abortion and same-sex marriage follows the teaching of the Church.

Many Democrats have been vocal that Amy Coney Barrett should not be allowed to serve on the Supreme Court because she is Catholic and is too “religious”. They are concerned that she may express too much Catholic dogma in her decisions as Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein has noted. Taking this history into account it’s pretty clear that for many Democrats a Catholic shouldn’t be a judge.

Some Catholics believe abortion should be legal and there are those who think other issues are just as, if not more, important. Still, others oppose abortion but just can’t bring themselves to vote for Trump because of his other policies, his personality, and temperament. However, it is evident that Biden’s policies on key life issues are at odds with the teachings of the Church. Add to this his strained relationship with many priests and bishops, as well as the support he receives from anti-Catholics, and the differences between Trump and him are considerable.

Some have said that the focus on abortion places one as a “one-issue voter”. However, I would raise the question. If a pro-abortion candidate is fundamentally wrong on such a basic and preeminent human rights issue of grave consequence to the most innocent in our society, how can that candidate be trusted to make appropriate moral and prudential decisions on the other important social justice issues such as immigration, poverty, racism, health care, etc. pertaining to the common good?

Beyond the consequences for the child in the womb the support for abortion impacts the underlying “soul” of our nation that can affect other policy areas, specifically, for the Catholic Church. For example, abortion and associated issues of same-sex marriage and denial of religious freedom to practice in the “public square”, have already seen considerable state, local, and previous federal (prior to the Trump administration) government attempts to crush and neutralize Catholic schools and services (such as adoption services) that benefit society.

In conclusion, October is Respect Life Month in the Catholic Church and the 40 Days for Life Pro-life efforts, which is timely given the upcoming election and the issues raised here. The message about the evil of abortion needs to be asserted and the contrast between where political candidates stand on abortion needs to be debated, challenged, and considered. As Mother Teresa stated when she came to the United States:

The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?  America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. If a mother can kill her own child – what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me – there is nothing between.