Should Catholics be political moderates who do not identify with either political party? Although this column is appearing late in the current election cycle, the question it raises will continue to be important after the 2020 election regardless of its results.
According to Pew Research Center, a significant number of Catholics have swung back and forth between the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates in recent elections. A majority of Catholic voters chose the Democrat in 2012, 2008, and 2000 but the Republican in 2016 and 2004. In the last four presidential elections, the winners had the majority of Catholic voters on their side even though the winners were from different political parties. The last time the majority of Catholic voters selected the loser was in 2000.
What is true about the electorate in general appears to be true about us Catholics in particular. Just as there are swing voters, and hence “battleground” or “purple” states, there are swing Catholic voters who sometimes vote Republican and sometimes Democratic. And just as it is the swing voters and battleground states which decide presidential elections, it is the swing Catholic voters within the Catholic bloc, who are decisive and not Catholics as a whole, even though about one out of every five Americans is Catholic.
What Does It Mean to Be Moderate?
It seems to me that people want to be moderate because they want to avoid extremes. This is a good Catholic instinct because it predisposes one to be virtuous. Virtue is a habit of acting in accord with the “golden mean” or “happy medium” between the one extreme of excess and the other extreme of defect. Courage, for example, is the virtue that avoids the extremes of recklessness (an excess of courage) and cowardice (a defect of courage).
From my reading of the papal social encyclicals promulgated since Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum in 1891 and from my study of Catholic social thought in the vein of St. Thomas Aquinas, I conclude that true Catholic social and political moderation is succinctly articulated by the Catholic philosopher Josef Peiper in his essay “Justice” in his book The Four Cardinal Virtues (University of Notre Dame Press, 1966). There Pieper shows that true social justice avoids the extremes of individualism and collectivism.
The individualism which Catholics should avoid is the selfishness which does not care about others and their real rights – an “every man for himself” approach, disregard for the common good of society, disinterest in loving one’s neighbor, as in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. The collectivism to be avoided by Catholics is gross conformity imposed by the government which regulates all areas of life – no liberty, no individuality, no privacy, no personal realm, as in George Orwell’s 1984. In political and economic terms, individualism is found in extreme libertarianism and laissez-faire capitalism, while collectivism is found in Marxism and fascism. In individualism, there are only individual rights and no common good; in collectivism, there is only a common good, and no individual rights. In Catholic terms, individualism is subsidiarity without solidarity, and collectivism is solidarity without subsidiarity. Catholicism rejects all reductionisms, including individualism which reduces human existence to its individual level and collectivism which reduces human existence to its social level. Catholicism values service to society without servitude to society.
A Catholic who votes against both individualism and collectivism is being moderate in the right way. What does that mean in 2020? Our U. S. Bishops have once again issued a guide for voting. They reiterate what the Magisterium has been teaching for a while:
- The “defense of human life and dignity and the protection of the weak and vulnerable” is a higher priority than partisan loyalties.
- “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position.”
- A “voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.”
- There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
- “Abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others.”
How Should We Be Pro-Life?
One use of our votes is to vote for politicians, in favor of legalized abortion while being personally against abortion, because these politicians promote good policies that outweigh their policies in favor of legalized abortion. As someone I know said, “Don’t tell me I’m not pro-life if I vote for Biden.” Is this a Catholic way of being moderate? Or, if moderation is not in mind, is this a Catholic way to vote?
To help us decide whether we can vote for pro-abortion candidates, I ask the following sets of questions.
1a) Do we know how many babies are surgically aborted in the U. S. (there is way to count pharmaceutical abortions)? It is about 1,000,000 a year, or about 2,500 a day.
1b) Do we know the methods of abortion? Have we seen pictures, diagrams, or videos of these methods? If we found the image of George Floyd’s killing disturbing but watched it anyway, should we not also see the poisoning, suffocating, and/or cutting of babies into pieces – sometimes when they can feel pain?
1c) Do we know that the baby’s heart begins to beat 18-24 days after conception, the baby’s brain waves can be detected 6 weeks after conception, and the baby can feel pain 8 weeks after conception?
1d) How should we fill in the blank? The brutal killing of 2,500 innocent human beings made in the image of God – which also harms the mother, the father, and society – is outweighed by other issues because .
2a) For what other group of people would we tolerate killing on such a wide scale and using such savage methods?
2b) How should we fill in the blank? The daily murdering of 2,500 (put the name of the group here) by poisoning, suffocating, and/or cutting them into pieces – sometimes when they can feel pain – is outweighed by other issues because .
3) Do we realize that we are voting not only to allow the present slaughter, but also to expand it, e.g., killing babies born after a botched abortion, selling aborted babies’ body parts, etc?
4) Why should we accept the pro-abortion politician’s positions on other issues? Is he or she (a) defining terms, e.g., “justice” or “love,” in harmony with Catholic doctrine, (b) accurately describing the issue and the political opponent, and (c) going to enact policies in harmony with Catholic doctrine?
5) If voting for a pro-life politician makes us complicit in everything “unjust” done by that pro-life politician, does not voting for a pro-abortion politician make us complicit in all the pro-abortion things done by that pro-abortion politician?
6) If voting for a pro-life politician associates us with his/her supporters who promote “injustice,” does not voting for a pro-abortion politician associate us with his/her supporters, such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL, who promote the murder of unborn babies?
7) ) If we can be pro-life while supporting the pro-abortion candidate, then cannot we be “pro-social justice” while supporting the “anti-social justice” candidate? In other words, if we can be pro-life and vote for Biden, can we not be pro-social justice and vote for Trump? (Granting, for the sake of argument, that Trump is anti-social justice.)
8a) Do we realize, contrary to much of the religious education and homilies of the last fifty years, that in order to be genuinely Catholic, we must assent to all Catholic doctrine, and also, that to identify as Catholic while picking and choosing doctrines is actually to be Protestant in Catholic clothing?
8b) Can we support the pro-abortion politician while we assent to every Catholic doctrine?
For those of you born after Roe v. Wade:
9a) Why would you vote for someone who would have supported aborting you, if your mother had chosen to abort you?
9b) Should you not want all unborn babies to have the same chance to live that you have had, thereby doing unto others as you would have others do unto you?
9c) Is not legalized abortion the tyranny of the born over the unborn? Is it not born privilege?
My Answers to My Questions
As someone who grew up on the South Side of Chicago with relatives and family friends who were very involved in the Daley Machine, was Marxist in my high school and college years (literally a card-carrying member of Michael Harrington’s Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee), consciously chose to raise his family in the most diverse municipality in the state, cast his first presidential vote in 1972 for McGovern and continued to vote for Democratic presidential candidates through 1988 (for Dukakis), has studied history and current events since high school, and knows the difference between doctrine and the Magisterium’s prudential judgments and social analysis, I cannot agree that the Democratic Party now is the party that supports social justice. My own prudential judgment is that there are no morally grave reasons that justify voting for pro-abortion candidates in the Democratic Party.
This is not the Democratic Party of my parents (who were never Marxist). This is a Democratic Party that has embraced Neo-Marxism and the Sexual Revolution. I encourage everyone to compare the Democratic Party platform and the positions of Biden and Harris during the Democratic Primary with Catholic doctrine. How can a Catholic support a candidate who supports transgender rights for children? Do you really want your daughter or granddaughter to be able to get a double mastectomy when she is a minor without parental permission (or even with parental permission)?
The overarching goal of the Democratic Party, like other Marxists, is its own power. It will use democracy to destroy democracy. Study the French Revolution, especially the Reign of Terror (instructive because it was Far Leftist, although pre-Marxist), the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and the Communist Revolution in China, especially the Cultural Revolution. Learn or remember what happened in the Soviet Union (including its captive bloc of satellites), Yugoslavia, and Cambodia and what continues to happen in China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and Venezuela.
Keep in mind that Marxist elites have always made sure they enjoyed great wealth while equally distributing misery to everyone else. Have you noticed how many billionaires and wealthy celebrities support the Democratic Party? Do you want the entire country to become like New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco while the elites supporting the Democratic Party live in their mansions and gated communities?
Marxist elites have also been extremely good at convincing well-intentioned people that the elites have a monopoly on justice; all the while, those same elites consider well-intentioned people to be “useful idiots” or “useful innocents.” It is wishful thinking to believe that the Democratic Party will embrace pro-life voters any more than it embraced Dan Lipinski.
Another prudential judgment of mine is that not voting or voting for a third party are bad options. Not to vote for Republicans is to make it easier for Democrats to be elected.
The Neo-Marxist “mainstream media” is not trustworthy. To know what is happening and what should be done, I suggest sources like The Heritage Foundation, National Review, CatholicVote, Jewish World Review, Catholic News Agency, Prager University, the Ruth Institute, The Daily Wire, The Catholic Thing, or the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, while enjoying The Babylon Bee.
Are you seeking greater unity and less divisiveness? “In essential things, unity; in non-essential things, liberty; in all things, charity” is the way. Reason and Natural Law, especially as understood by Thomistic philosophy and completed by all Catholic doctrine, show us what is essential and how to be truly charitable.
20 thoughts on “Should Catholics Be Political Moderates?”
It’s a very serious sin to eat meat or even fish for almost a quarter of the population on
earth . This makes you complicit if you do so, in so far as you are directed by their beliefs
to refrain from such behavior. Should I get Melania’s coat ” I really don’t care. Do you?”
to see if it fits your ‘life’ philosophy.
While I have decided to vote for Trump this year (I voted for the Solidarity Party candidate in 2016), I have to conclude that Trump is an unusual Republican in his pro-life actions. I tried to find out if three Republicans running for legislative office in my district were pro-life or not. I could not find a reference to abortion on their web sites, and when I completed the inquiry forms on the web sites or sent emails to ask if they were pro-life or not, not one of the three has responded after a week. They will not be getting my vote, and I don’t care what Democrat is running against them. I’ll write in a candidate before I throw away my vote on Republicans who are indifferent to abortion. Trump earned my vote over the last four years, and that’s why he’s getting it– Republicans who don’t earn my vote won’t get it just because they bear the label “Republican.”
So don’t vote for Trump.
But nothing you say makes voting for democrats not a sin. I began with this title in 2007 and almost no one agreed, but now, clergy are shepherding (at last count about 14 publicly contradicting your implicit ‘vote democrat death dealers’ message)- See: https://the-american-catholic.com/2020/09/10/democrat-vote-mortal-sin-the-message/.
You cannot vote for Hitler instead of Stalin or Mao because you believe Stalin will commit more murders and Mao exponentially more.
Guy, Texas
The fly in the ointment comes with your myopic belief that Trump and his moral choices are not in themselves intrinsically evil. His stance on the reality of Covid 19 is condemning many to death as sure as any abortionist’s scalpel. His denial of what is contributing to the destruction of life on our planet and the death of many is no less evil the Roe vs Wade. Intrinsically evil is a relative term that, if applied to life and the living, encompasses this amoral administration and its disordered acts aimed at all of humanity. As for Marxism, the original intent was not for a totalitarian system any more than our biology supports an errant gene that transforms a healthy body into a cancerous and terminal condition. As with each, the evil inherent in wanting everyone to be equal can be excised just as readily as the gene splicing that will someday rid our bodies of abnormal genetic markers. No one with a shred of reason can deny that Trump has a very serious psychological disorder bereft of moral objectives and his acts are inherently immoral. Anyone who votes your choice on this one issue agenda is just as guilty as those whom you portray as serious sinners. Your points one through nine can be applied to a legion of acts and conditions that affect life. On a lighter note, did anyone ever remark on how much you look like Dr. Anthony Fauci.
“As for Marxism . . . the evil inherent in wanting everyone to be equal can be excised . . .”
I am not sure what you mean here. Just looking at the quote I posted from your comment though, NO, it can’t be excised. It’s completely evil and there is no redemption possible. Moreover, it leads to the inability to value anything in the world at all and that leads to the inability to produce anything that anyone needs. So NO, there is nothing redeemable in any aspect of Marxism.
Marty, I think you and I have sparred before but your premise that somehow free markets and our participation in them is “individualistic” vs our participation in the State via voting or other State instrument is “communal” is a false dichotomy. The power of the market is that it beautifully melds our individual participation into an communal expression of true preferences. By acting in the market I’m adding my voice to a chorus of millions of others also doing the same thing and honestly professing my preferences IN ACTION – putting resources received from the sweat of my brow into a given enterprise that I deem worthy. I’m not just putting forth a potentially empty word (voting) when I go out and participate in the market. By buying and selling I am demonstrating my preference in the most concrete way possible. And by doing that, markets, when they are free, express society’s preferences most clearly. Now you may not like those preferences, but the market is a mirror and nothing more. And it’s up to you and me and all of us to change people’s preferences through discourse and dialog not through forcage by the State apparatus.
Marxism is a generic term of mine for a blend of radical socialism and communism.
Take the one idea that workers should be able to eventually own the factories that employ them – by paying back the assets it took to construct. The present system allows someone with an idea – how much is an idea worth ? – to take advantage – should skin color be advantageous ? – of people who are disadvantaged and at their mercy.
Do you believe that someone should be able to make enough money to buy a senator, a judicial ruling, a block of housing i.e.: to destroy, so as to build on another idea without rectifying the damage caused by the idea and advantage ?
The true preferences on one individual (corporations are now considered people) to radically infringe on those without preferences is not justice, which by the way, can literally be purchased through the courts by people with money as opposed to those who work to supply the very people seeking to undermine them. Discourse and dialog are intangible methods that are worthless when confronted by greed, profits and power. I guess the bottom line is that there should be expressed limits on how wealthy an individual or corporation may become. Money is power and power corrupts. Raw capitalism, as you seem to imply, is not the benign and ultimate source of wealth for all; so easily observed by second and third world countries that suffer to support it.
Hey Marty,
Once again, I understand. And agree. However, ambulances are called. Help is available. Not so if it’s some backstreet affair.
Ida, this is where our actions become paralyzed by evil. The thought becomes, if we can’t fix the whole problem, why even start? Once the right to life of the child is recognized as inviolable then we move on to the next set of issues that raises. So we expand the pregnancy centers (voluntarily created) that many will need. But more importantly we focus on creating strong families who can avoid unwanted pregnancies by not having them in the first place. But we cannot fail to protect the children because we can’t solve every single problem that will be encountered after that.
Thanks, Dave. Without a word limit, I would have more strongly emphasized that a Catholic should never be blindly loyal to any political party, candidate, or news source. I would have also added that there is much to dislike in the personalities of both Trump and Biden. We need to be focused on what politicians DO, not what they say or how they say it. The ideal is honest, articulate, gracious politicians who do the right thing.
Pingback: the 2020 election: catholic news central | ROMAN CATHOLIC TODAY
Marty-Many thanks. Well done, well said. You put flesh on the bones of “well-formed catholic conscience.” If it is “well-formed” it knows everything you state above. And knowing that, the conclusion is inevitable-which yet another bishop came out this week and stated clearly (in addition to about 14 priests, pastors and bishops previously) , as a true shepherd and not a hireling clerical homosexualist in flowing robes: It is a mortal sin for a catholic with a well-formed conscience to vote for Biden, Harris, and other democrats. You might as well put that photo of 62,000,000 dead babies on this site, delete the name Catholic Stand, and rename it “God’s Beloved Little Ones.” Guy, Texas
I do wish I had made more explicit that I tried to provide a doctrine-based critique of ideologies (Neo-Marxism and the Sexual Revolution) and the flawed social analysis that support them. I was not impugning the motives of those swayed by Democratic Party elites.
You might as well put that big photo saying “TRUMP” on the top of the site, in place of “Catholic Stand”. It will more accurately describe what this site has become.
The author doesn’t say a word about Trump, nor does he praise Republicans. There is much to criticize about the current Democrats which have nothing to do with the party of JFK. I am a small “L” libertarian and think this article is very balanced.
Some laudatory pieces about Trump have been posted here recently. That, and the big photo, is enough.
Can you name any issue where this site has said that Republicans are going against Catholic teaching?
That would have been inaccurate and misleading since the obvious point was to articulate enduring Catholic principles and how best to apply them regardless of who the individual candidate is. Those principles won’t change, irrespective of who is running for office.
In other words, “No”.
It’s proper to criticize Democrats but not Republicans. Got it.
I do understand. And agree, mostly.
I only want to point out one thing. Abortions won’t cease if banned. It will only drive it underground, having women seek backstreet abortions done in unsafe conditions. With terrible results for the woman.
Most people don’t know how unsafe abortion “clinics” are, Ida. In Ohio (and how many other states?), the abortionist does not have to be a doctor and, if he or she is a doctor, does not have to have hospital privileges. Ambulances are often called to the abortion “clinic” in my town.