Progressives as a whole aren’t thought of as particularly interested in religious beliefs, which often appear dogmatic, steadfastly traditional, and outdated. Active religious piety and fervent, full-throated obedience is much more the bread and butter of the right-wing, evangelical Republican base. But it is worth noting that as far as Catholic demographics are concerned, they have turned out to be roughly split between both parties, voting in similar patterns to the electorate as a whole. So persuading undecided Catholics is part of the electoral college math of most campaigns.
Catholics make up about 25% of the electorate, and since the 1960s, are the biggest swing vote. Like it or not, religious candidates or campaigns or not, Catholic votes matter.
While specific Catholic terms and practices might seem esoteric or a bit like inside baseball to the non-Catholic, it is worth pointing out that since 2005 the Supreme Court has been majority Catholic. Currently, there are 22 Catholic senators, 141 Catholic Congressional Representatives, and a Catholic has been nominated in every presidential election since 1960, with the exception of Mike Dukakis in 1988, or when a Southerner led the ticket.
Since the 1980s, the Catholic vote, in large part, saw the following shifts. First, it shifted away from being predominantly Democratic, as they first were won over by Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Second, Republicans tended to hold sway over the white Catholic vote and Democrats held the growing Latino Catholic vote.
But nationally, what the public typically saw was a discussion of abortion as the litmus test of a candidate’s or campaign’s Catholicism. For a time, “I’m personally against abortion, but believe in upholding its legality” was the standard response. Whether that is currently sufficient depends on whether you are, or are not, part of a more nuanced world that believes more complex things such as that better access to reproductive care actually decreases abortions, or that “pro-life” also means pro-environment, anti-death penalty, anti-poverty, etc.
Under George W. Bush, the pro-life/pro-choice rhetoric became talk about religious liberty. (For some real inside baseball, this was partly because, in a post-9/11 world, Catholics had to reexamine how to treat people of other faiths while maintaining their core identity. It was also because during these years the church transitioned from Pope John Paull II, now St. Pope John Paul II, to Pope Benedict XVI—now Pope Emeritus, and Pope Francis.) In everyday terms, the Catholic Church is still caught in a tug-of-war between how conservative/traditional or progressive/modern it is going to be today. How much continuity and discontinuity is there between its past, present, and future. That’s why you can have outlandishly high praise for the Trump administration for its religious liberty funding of Catholic schools, but also have the condemnation of its immigration policies.
For the outsider or pollster, the question is: “How will the Catholics vote?” If you are part of a campaign you might ask, “Who are the persuadable Catholics?” and “How do I get them to choose my candidate?”
For one who is Catholic, we hear: “How should Catholics vote?” Or we are given some form of “Catholics should vote for X because ...” “Since Catholics cannot do this they must …” “If you vote for X, then you are …”
So let’s clear a few things up
Catholics see voting as an important civic duty calling for active participation. Surprise! Conservative and progressive Catholics are for democracy. We also are for freedom of conscience, which is not just some frilly religious language. It means what you think it means. Everyone should be free to vote, not told who to vote for, or coerced or shamed into voting for. Anyone doing those types of things is actually threatening your vote and should be treated as a threat. Anyone obstructing your ability to think for yourself and make your own choice (albeit a choice you will ultimately be held responsible for) is trying to replace your freedom with their own judgment. That is not what free exercise of conscience has ever meant.
(I know that there is a tension here between individual religious freedom of conscience and collective membership and the political weaponization of deciding who is a true believer. For a discussion of this issue, I suggest reading this National Catholic Reporter article).
Having said that, Catholics do have a way of talking about how to vote. That is, they do have a moral/religious way of talking about voting. In essence, it asks the question “How do I make a good decision out of imperfect choices?” And the simple answer is to use prudential judgment.
Faithful Citizenship and prudential judgment
In its guide to Catholics for voting, fully entitled Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States, there are two paragraphs upon which all other Catholic political dialogue in this country either simplifies or disregards in the zeal to “form consciences.”
The two relevant paragraphs are paragraphs 34 and 35, which I have placed below.
34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. 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.* In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, 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.
*my emphasis
In simple everyday terms, paragraph 34 expresses the “Thou shalt not ...” instances. This is often read flatly by differing sides as, “I cannot vote for an abortion candidate.” (Or a racist one.) But I prefer to emphasize a) the complete list of intrinsic evils together and b) my emphasis is on the phrase “if the voter’s intent is to support that position.”
Thus, “Thou shalt not ...” isn’t a declarative statement, but a conditional one. “It is not morally permissible to vote for a candidate who supports an immoral position if your intent is to support that immoral position.”
35. 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. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
Paragraph 35 rightly points out that for the most part, elections are not a clear choice over one single issue between two candidates. Rather, even if there are only two candidates, there are many competing issues. It is really a matter of, “How do I make a good decision among imperfect choices?”
The answer in paragraph 35 is “Thou shall vote … for a candidate despite whatever immoral/imperfect positions exist because there are other morally serious (not merely partisan) reasons.” So typically abortion is countered with the death penalty or women’s rights, gay marriage with the treatment of immigrant families or foster care, etc.
An article in today’s Religious News Services explained how Catholic teachings fall on either side of the two-party political system.
They are much too liberal for Republicans on capital punishment, as well as economic, health care, welfare, immigration and foreign policy. They are much too conservative for Democrats on abortion, birth control and gay marriage.
—Trump or Biden? What’s a Catholic voter to do?
Despite this moral calculus, there isn’t a preordained answer sheet to which a Catholic can go and have their ballot validated and graded. We don’t go into the ballot box in order to determine whether we should go to the confessional later. (Though people may feel that way or be made to feel that way.)
Again, to be clear: It is permissible to vote for Candidate X, despite his/her position (which is immoral), if my intention is not to support that position, but to uphold another position or positions which are also gravely moral.
Example: I’m not voting for this candidate because I want to promote more abortions, but because voting for this candidate will bring about better environmental and worker conditions.
So what now? What should I do with this information?
I want to be very practical here.
1. If you read or hear someone speaking proscriptively about what Catholics “ought to do” as if it is externally already a given and not something that each Catholic must decide freely on their own, see if they are familiar with prudential judgment, or specifically the paragraphs I mentioned above from the Faithful Citizenship document.
Despite aphorisms like “What Would Jesus Do” or “What Does the Bible Say,” I have never seen any voting ballots appear in any edition of any Bible I have read. If they have, please have them cite chapter and verse.
2. Understand that prudential judgment and the kind of discernment it entails is not unlike the kind of conversations door-knocking canvassers encounter when they speak with an unaffiliated or undecided voter.
You could simply tell them or persuade them how they should vote by getting them to see your reasons and hoping that they will adopt your judgment and come to the same conclusion. But, in an ideal world, you would probably instead want to understand what issues are of concern for that particular voter and assist them in trying to organize those issues to make good decisions from an imperfect list.
3. Keep in mind many people have made up their minds or will make up their minds without going through a discernment process. This could be blind party loyalty (or strict religious adherence). It could be a genuine lack of time to do so or laziness on their part.
4. Realize that this political process is supposed to be a peaceful means by which we seek good governance for the common good and not simply a means of labeling winners who take all and losers who are vanquished.
We emerge with a leader for the entire country, not just the winners. And this process is but one step forward that is accountable and amenable to more discernment and additional change (and additional elections) in the future.
Yes, that sounds optimistic without four previous years to deserve it. But I believe helping people to make informed, good decisions from the imperfect is something Catholics and non-Catholics (political canvassers, stay-at-home postcard writers, Facebook commenters) do and may do more often than we realize.
5. Most important: Make sure you have your plan to vote. After all, the most important voting decision in the next election is yours.
If you would like to read an example of prudential judgment in the presidential election click here for an article and link to Faith In Public Life’s Open Letter.