In a recent interview with Raymond Arroyo, Cardinal Raymond Burke insisted that Catholics in the U.S. have an obligation to vote in the upcoming U.S. Presidential Election as a means of defending the common good.
Where did he ever get that idea?
Social media is littered with content from Catholics, even some self-described “traditionalists,” who have little knowledge about, and evidently even less interest in, the traditional Catholic moral principles that govern the act of voting.
Following is a primer of sorts, a generic snapshot of every U.S. Presidential election in our lifetime, one that most certainly applies to the current one.
Two candidates, A and B, are running for high office. Neither one is worthy of the office sought insofar as both of their respective party platforms push forward evil agendas that a Catholic cannot support.
One of them, however, is going to prevail as no realistic third option exists.
Though both platforms are evil, the platform of Candidate A contains objectively greater evil than that of Candidate B. If elected, Candidate A will do more harm to the common good in various ways, including with respect to matters of a primarily temporal nature, e.g., economic policy, health related issues, border security, etc.
What is a Catholic to do?
The answer is simple: Vote in such way as to prevent the greater evil from prevailing.
OBJECTIONS
– A vote for either candidate is a vote for all of the evils contained in that platform, and those who do so bear responsibility for enabling them. FALSE
There is such a thing as a vote rendered not as a vote absolutely, but rather as a vote against the other candidate, a defensive measure with the intent of avoiding greater evil. A vote rendered in order to “exclude a worse candidate” is such that “citizens do not make themselves responsible” for the acts of the representative for whom they voted. (Fr. John A. McHugh, O.P., and Fr. Charles J. Callan, O.P., 1958)
– Catholics are morally obligated to abstain from voting in such cases. FALSE
In fact, “there is a grave duty of using the privilege granted to citizens of voting in public elections” insofar as “the welfare of the community and the moral, intellectual and physical good of individuals” is at stake. (ibid.)
– An obligation to vote under such circumstances never exists. FALSE
“The obligation [to vote] is, therefore, one of legal justice, arising from the fact that the common weal is everybody’s business and responsibility.” (ibid.)
– Catholics are always obligated to vote. FALSE
When a candidate runs unopposed, obviously, the obligation to vote doesn’t exist.
Of course, some will insist that, in the present case, there is virtually no difference between the candidates. On some points, that’s certainly true. On other points that have a grave impact on the common good, however, the two candidates objectively and obviously are not identical. (See quote above pertaining to legal justice.)
There are other occasions when one can reasonably refrain from exercising the right to vote, e.g., “grave inconvenience, sickness, ostracism, exile, persecution.” (ibid.)
– It is acceptable, and perhaps even necessary, for Catholics to publicly extol the virtues of the lesser evil candidate. FALSE
According to the eminent Jesuit moral theologian, August Lehmkuhl (b. 1834; d. 1918), “There must be no approbation of the unworthy man or of his program.”
This includes comments made by persons like Michael Matt who stumped for Trump in 2020 claiming “He’s entirely on our side on the life issue.”
– The election system is so entirely corrupt that no one’s vote actually matters anyway, therefore, the obligation to vote simply cannot exist. FALSE
I am deeply sympathetic to this opinion. However, according to the theologians, “the ticket platforms” and “the party principles for which [a candidate] stands have to be considered chiefly” (Callan & McHugh). The point is that we are called to vote based upon what is objectively known, not what may be.
While one can hardly be blamed for believing that the outcome is “fixed,” speculation as to future events alone does not alleviate us of the aforementioned obligation to defend the common good. The same can be said for the notion, “Polls say Candidate A is so far ahead my vote won’t matter.”
– This election is a battle of good vs evil! FALSE
This election is truly a battle between evil and greater evil. Even so, I have encountered the argument (to be charitable), “evil is evil,” as if no distinctions can be drawn.
This simply is not a Catholic thought, any more than “sin is sin,” as if venial sin can be equated with mortal sin. One cannot even say that all mortal sin is equal. For example, if I punch my neighbor in the nose and steal his car, I’ve committed mortal sin. If I stab him to death and kidnap his children, I’ve committed a far greater sin.
You get the point. Clearly, there is such a thing as the lesser evil.
Returning to Burke’s recent interview:
Man of the Council that he is, he went on to suggest that Catholics have an obligation to vote in order to, among other things, “advance the cause of religious freedom.” As regular readers of this space surely know, however, the cause of treating the one true religion as if it stands on equal footing with the many false religions is a grave offense to Christ. As such, I’m not applauding his commentary in general.
It must be acknowledged, however, that his comments regarding the obligation to protect the common good through one’s vote is firmly rooted in Catholic tradition. This much is evidenced by the writing of Lehmkuhl, Tanquerey, Prümmer, Callan, McHugh, etc., men considered to be among the Church’s most eminent pre-conciliar moral theologians. For those interested in what they teach on the matter of voting, a detailed and well-cited essay is available HERE.
Some readers will presumably prefer to remain standing firm in their personal opinion that a vote for either candidate amounts to cooperation with evil. If that’s the hill you wish to die on, fine, but let’s be clear, it’s not the moral high ground you may think it is.
