Catholic Social Teaching and Your Vote, Part II

In the first part of this two-part Catholic voting guide, I laid out the principles of Catholic social teaching (CST) and the application of CST to issues that relate to the pro-life movement. In this continuation, we will do the same with other pressing issues of our time: immigration, healthcare, the environment, and religious liberty.

Immigration and National Security

Immigration is one of the most complicated and emotionally charged issues faced by the United States today. Public discussion is dominated by two extremes: those who would favor open borders and those who would see overly burdensome restrictions on immigration and inhumane penalties for illegal immigration.

The Church teaches that governments have two responsibilities (USCCB). The first is to secure national borders, enforce the nation’s laws, and protect its citizens. The second is to welcome immigrants seeking means to support their family, flee persecution, or better their lives. Both responsibilities subserve the principle of solidarity. Supporters tout open borders as the merciful position, while opponents are unjustly labeled as xenophobic. A government cannot fully perform its duty to its citizenry with a policy of open borders. This policy’s consequences are increased crime (including radical Islamic terrorism), increasing scarcity of resources for all, including food, housing, employment, and healthcare, and growth of the welfare state.

The dilution of national culture and identity is likewise problematic, as we see in Europe under open border policies. Popes Benedict XVI and St. John Paul II supported cultural stability and national identity as justified by the common good.

Immigration and Human Dignity

The opposite position whereby a nation would severely curtail immigration also violates the principles of CST. Governments must welcome the foreigner searching for a better life for their family or attempting to escape persecution. The obligation is even greater for wealthier nations (CCC 2241) such as the United States.

It is useful to take a couple of practical examples of recent immigration issues to demonstrate the proper way to discern the right actions. In 2018 and 2019, the day’s top headlines were concerned with the caravans of Central American migrant workers making their way to Mexico and the United States on foot. The polarization of the nation on how to deal with this humanitarian crisis was intense. There seemed to be, as often occurs, a different set of facts on both sides. My concern here is not to check the information, but rather illustrate the absurdity of both extreme positions and how neither extreme serve Christ or His Church.

On the one hand, freely allowing thousands of immigrants to cross the border would have made it difficult or impossible to ensure that everyone would have access to the material and spiritual goods necessary to achieve their goal of a better life. The influx of people would have negatively affected those already living in the United States. The burden placed on local communities’ infrastructure and available resources would have been too much to bear, and any solutions must involve the federal government. This burden violates the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity as communities would be unable to welcome and serve the poor’s needs in a deeply personal way, preserving human dignity.

The recent ICE raids across the country are an example of the other extreme. In my home state of Mississippi and others, illegal immigrants and their families were rounded up and taken from their workplaces during the day while their children were in school.

While legal, this action is unquestionably immoral. The immigrants affected had jobs, children, belonged to churches, and had assimilated peacefully into their local communities. Their children came home to the empty homes of their detained parents. These actions undermine human dignity and the sanctity of the family. Catholics must vocalize their opposition against unjust policies and practices that lead to the persecution of minorities and separation of families, loss of human dignity, or the principle of solidarity.

Healthcare

The principle of common good argues for universal access to healthcare. Simply stated, a society with means may not deny healthcare access for any individual or group of human beings. Like many other life necessities, healthcare is now a commodity to be bought and sold, often ignoring solidarity with the least fortunate in society. Healthcare reform has been a front-burner issue in the United States for the last thirty years and every effort at reform has thus far failed. The discussion is dominated by each side’s extreme fringes, while common-sense solutions are ignored by those who would have their cake and eat it too.

There are benefits to the current model in the United States, which is privatizing healthcare with social safety nets for those without means to purchase healthcare services. This model’s advantage over a centralized delivery model is better care driven by incentives for the private market to advance technology and the practice of medicine. Centralization will expand bureaucracy and costs while removing healthcare decisions from providers, families, and patients.

One must look no further than Europe, where government policy and not the patient or family determines the decision to treat. Recently, in England, the government prohibited a family from seeking life-saving treatment for their son (BBC). As an American parent, can you imagine not being given the freedom to remove your child from a hospital that will not treat him to find someone who will?

As a Catholic voter, you must be on the lookout for government regulations that would erode religious liberty. Governments must preserve the right of providers to practice medicine according to their conscious and prevent taxpayers and employers from the obligation to pay for inherently evil services such as contraception, abortion, infanticide, artificial conception, and medically assisted suicide must be preserved. Additionally, it is immoral to impede the rights of patients and families to seek care.

The Environment

Care for and stewardship of the environment is a responsibility of all Catholics (CCC 2402). Misuse of the environment, including abuse by wealthier nations, undermines the peace of creation and is contrary to what it means to be human. Whatever is created by God belongs to all, and leaders are called to protect the present and future resources for all peoples.

While Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si is one of the most comprehensive statements on the environment, popes have been speaking about environmental stewardship for decades. However, it is crucial to balance care for the environment for future generations with the needs of the current population. Alternatives to fossil fuels must be pursued, but the transition to alternative energy forms should safeguard the families’ livelihoods that depend on the fossil fuel industry for jobs. Voters should be vigilant against broad global agreements on environmental reform that would undermine the American people’s right to self-governance.

Religious Liberty

I want to close with the topic of religious liberty. Religious liberty can be considered a standalone issue, but it is part of almost every other issue considered. In the current political climate that propagates moral relativism, the Catholic faithful are seeing the first signs of persecution. We see our free speech suppressed and the sanctity of our Sacraments violated. In Canada and Europe, people are being imprisoned for “hate speech” currently protected by the United States Constitution.

Satan’s works are manifesting as the Blessed Mother warned the visionaries of Fatima. She warned that the final battle between God and Satan would be over the family. Our culture is an affront to God’s creation where the truth of marriage, family, and gender identity are twisted into a demonic form and forced upon people with the threat of persecution, including loss of livelihood, education, and reputation.

Chicago’s Francis Cardinal George said, “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.” It is the lay and ordained faithful’s sacred responsibility to resist and actively fight against the perversions of God’s Holy Word. To do so, we must gather in the public square and witness the (big T) Truth. Then and only then can we realize the last part of Cardinal George’s statement, “His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the Church has done so often in human history.”