|
Is it morally
obligatory to vote?
From the
February 2007 issue of The Angelus
It is certainly
true that the modernists consider democracy, and the right to vote, as
sacrosanct, an immediate consequence of human dignity, directly
connected with their humanistic religion.
Reacting against
this, knowing as we do how much the electoral system is unjust,
realizing how much modern democracy is based upon the false liberal
principle of human freedom, which rejects all objective divine and
moral law, being aware of the narrow margin of choice between the
candidates, and also having the impression (though mistaken) that one
man’s vote will not make a real difference in such a secular, ungodly
system – we might easily conclude that one is not obliged to vote at
all.
Yet the Church’s
teaching on the subject is by no means new. Without approving the
modern system of democracy and its false principle of the sovereignty
of the people, the Church nevertheless binds us to contribute towards
the common good of society, by an obligation of legal justice. This
principle is expressed well by Pope Pius XII in his April 20, 1946,
discourse to Italian Catholic Action:
The people are
called on to take an always larger part in the public life of the
nation. This participation brings with it grave responsibilities.
Hence the necessity for the faithful to have clear, solid, precise
knowledge of their duties in the moral and religious domain with
respect to their exercise of their civil rights, and in particular of
the right to vote.
In fact, Pope
Pius XII had clearly explained that it is precisely on account of the
anti-Catholic and secular spirit that surrounds Catholics that they
have the duty to defend the Church by the correct exercise of their
right to vote. It is to prevent a greater evil. He had stated on March
16, 1946, to the parish priests of Rome:
The exercise of
the right to vote is an act of grave moral responsibility, at least
with respect to the electing of those who are called to give to a
country its constitution and its laws, and in particular those that
affect the sanctification of holy days of obligation, marriage, the
family, schools and the just and equitable regulation of many social
questions. It is the Church’s duty to explain to the faithful the
moral duties that flow from this electoral right.
Pope Pius XII
was even more explicit two years later, again when speaking to the
parish priests of Rome. He explained that in the precise circumstances
of the time it was an obligation under pain of mortal sin for all the
faithful, both men and women, to use their right to vote, since the
common good depended upon all Catholics voting wisely.
Here is the text
of March 10, 1948:
In the present
circumstances, it is a strict obligation for all those who have the
right to vote, men and women, to take part in the elections. Whoever
abstains from doing so, in particular by indolence or weakness,
commits a sin grave in itself, a mortal fault. Each one must follow
the dictate of his own conscience. However, it is obvious that the
voice of conscience imposes on every Catholic to give his vote to the
candidates who offer truly sufficient guarantees for the protection of
the rights of God and of souls, for the true good of individuals,
families and of society, according to the love of God and Catholic
moral teaching.
This application
of the Church’s social teaching to the particular situation of the
time is in accord with the teaching of the moral theologians, who
speak of the grave sin of omission for those who simply neglect to
elect good, Catholic representatives, and of the duty of doing all in
our power of encouraging suitable laymen to work towards using the
electoral system to obtain worthy lawmakers.
But how far we
are removed from this situation. Clearly, we are no longer in the
circumstance of having to choose between Catholic and non-Catholic,
morally upright and liberal representatives. All the alternatives are
liberal, the deception and the manipulation of the public by the media
is rampant. In practice, it generally comes down to the question of
whether or not it is permissible to vote for an unworthy candidate (e.g.,
a candidate who only approves abortion in cases of rape or incest),
for he would at least (we suppose) be the lesser evil. In such a case,
there can be no obligation to vote, for all the reasons mentioned by
Pope Pius XII that could oblige, no longer apply. Nevertheless, it is
still permissible to vote in such a case, provided that one can be
sure that there truly is a lesser evil, and that there is a grave
reason to do so (e.g., to avoid abortion on demand, or
promotion of unnatural methods of birth control), and one has the good
intention of providing for the good of society as best one can. This
is called material cooperation. However, it can never be obligatory.
Consequently, in
the rare case where there are informed Catholic candidates who
publicly support the teaching of the Church, there is a strict moral
obligation to vote, under pain of mortal sin. Where there is a clear
gain possible from the correct use of a vote for some other candidate,
it can be recommended or counseled. However, when there is no clear
advantage it would be better to abstain, so as not to contribute even
to a material participation.
Can a Catholic
vote for a candidate who condones initiatives not in accord with the
moral law?
Originally
published in August 2007 issue of The Angelus
The Catholic
Church does not tell Catholics to avoid all involvement in politics
simply because there is injustice, greed, ambition, just to mention
some of the evils involved. The Church teaches us that all our
involvement in politics ought to be motivated, inspired, and directed
by the Church’s social teachings, and in particular by the Social
Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Voting, as well as involvement in
political campaigns, must have as its ultimate motive these higher,
supernatural principles, that the law of God, the Ten Commandments,
and the rights of the one true Church be acknowledged publicly in
society.
Manifestly, we
are presently very far removed from achieving these aims. It does not
mean that we should do nothing. It does mean, however, that whatever
we do will necessarily involve the toleration of many evils, which we
in no way desire or will. However, it can be permissible to tolerate
the lesser of two evils for a proportionate reason, and such
toleration can be for the common good, precisely because it is the
lesser of two evils. Thus it is possible to vote or even campaign for
a candidate whose platform contains evils with which we do not agree.
Everything depends upon a hierarchy of the most important values and
issues taking priority over lesser ones.
For a Catholic,
there can be no doubt that the issues that take the highest priority
must be the moral issues, and not personal or economic issues. The
whole continuation of society as we know it depends upon this, and
those who deny the most basic principles of the natural order are
bringing about an unheard of perversion. Consequently, it is
permissible and prudent to vote on the one single issue of proscribing
abortion, or forbidding same-sex marriages, or putting an end to
euthanasia, or freedom of the Catholic Church to run educational
institutions. All of these issues are of the utmost importance.
Consequently, it would be permissible and prudent to vote for a
candidate who promotes an unjust war, on the basis of one or other of
these issues. Consequently, it is likewise permissible to vote for a
candidate who is known to be a Freemason, although Freemasonry is an
evil society condemned by the Church and opposed to the Catholic
Church, if he maintains an important principle of the natural law such
as the evil of abortion.
Lesser issues
are also of moral importance, such as the justice or injustice of a
particular war, or the paying of a just wage to employees, maintaining
the right to private property by limiting government intervention, and
so on. All other things being equal, one could vote on the basis of
such issues. However, it would be wrong to vote for a candidate who
has a correct position on one of these issues, but a perverse and
wrong position on a more important issue.
Consequently, it
would be manifestly immoral and sinful to vote for a candidate who
pretends to be Catholic, but who in fact is pro-abortion, pro-gay, or
pro-euthanasia.
Voting in local
and national elections can only be considered a moral obligation when
the candidates propose a solidly Catholic, non-liberal platform that
truly promotes the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not
obligatory to vote for a lesser evil, but simply prudent and
permissible. However, it would certainly be obligatory to use the
democratic process in place in the unlikely event that it could be
used to introduce Catholic candidates who do not accept the propaganda
of modern liberal democracy. |
