Our country is posed to either vote for hell or to vote for at least more time to repair the societal rot that plagues us. Yet some, who call themselves Christian and pro-life, dare to snub the second alternative, making their egos and defective consciences into de facto idols. Enough! Below is an excellent treatise on why your vote for Donald Trump is a moral imperative, binding on pain of sin. I challenge you to read it in its entirety. If you have any objection based on logic and reason and not on some cockamany exaltation of your own conscience as the sole reason, please state in the comments section. Else, dump the insipid bravado and cast your vote for Donald Trump and the GOP ticket.
The original source is here. I reproduce it below, courtesy of Catholics for Trump.
I decided that this article was very sorely needed, as I have encountered some Traditional and Conservative Catholics who are making it a badge of honor to either not vote in the coming presidential election, or else proudly advocating throwing our votes away on third party candidates with no chance of winning.
In past years you may have heard from well meaning Traditionalist or Conservative Catholics that although we are morally prohibited from voting for a candidate who is diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching on moral issues (Kamala) we have no positive moral obligation to vote for the only man who can keep this evil out of office (Trump), because we have no moral obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils.
This advice, however well intentioned it may be, is wrong. I will explain why in detail. I also believe this election to be the most important election of our lifetimes as it may determine whether our country continues to exist as a Constitutional Republic with freedom of speech and religion as well as whether our democracy can even continue to function. It is the most important American Presidential election in history as far as rights of the Church and of Catholics are concerned.
I believe the words of Maureen Mullarkey, spoken in 2016 in response to my support of Catholics voting for Donald Trump at that time, apply equally if not moreso, today:
Jackson’s initiative is addressed specifically to Catholics because so many of us are invested in the theater of ourselves as high moral theologians. Catholics twist themselves into hangman’s knots with deliberations on the lesser of two evils. Which is the lesser, Trump or Clinton? Catholics are enjoined from choosing any evil. If Trump is as horrid as Clinton, the principle of double effect does not apply. Should not commitment to right behavior keep us home and away from the shabby compromises of the voting booth? Do we not put ourselves in moral jeopardy voting for Trump?
Oh, please! There comes a time to grant a bit of credit to Mae West: “Between two evils, I always choose the one I haven’t tried before.”
The Catholic blogosphere is sodden with Prufrockery: Do I dare to eat a peach? Do I dare descend the stair? Dare disturb the universe of my own fine preferences? It is a masturbatory game destined to finish with the election of a vile, traitorous woman greedy for power and money. A woman with a squalid history of shady dealings, evidence gone missing, and lies with calamitous consequences.
Jackson is making the point that refusing to choose is, in fact, a choice. It is a self-admiring one that permits the chooser to gaze on his own clean hands instead of on the outcome of his decision-by-default. Abstention from this election is the vain choice of moral cowards.
I hope by the end of this article that sincere and open-minded Catholics will vote on Tuesday to help save our nation from the existential evil represented by anti-Christian forces, and not end up like the poor souls the Prophet Obadiah described, when he said:
On that day you stood aloof,
the day strangers captured his wealth,
And foreigners entered his gates
and cast lots for Jerusalem,
you too were like one of them.
The Theological Principles of Voting
Principle 1: All Catholics are bound to vote in an election.
This is proved through:
(a) The Teaching of the Roman Pontiffs
Pope Leo XII (1878-1903): “And the Church approves of every one devoting his services to the common good, and doing all that he can for the defense, preservation, and prosperity of his country.”[i]
Idem: “It is fit and proper to give support to men of acknowledged worth and who pledge themselves to serve well in the Catholic cause and in no way may it be allowed to prefer to them such individuals as are hostile to religion.”[ii]
Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914): “All should remember, that when the religion or the republic is in danger, it is not licit for anyone to be idle.”[iii] Thus, failure to vote in an election would constitute this idleness, as one would not prevent the fruition of the aforesaid danger.
Idem: “Is it not the duty of every Catholic to make use of the political arms which he has in his hands to defend her, and also to compel politics to remain in their own domain, and beyond rendering what is her due, to leave the Church alone?”[iv]
Pope Pius XI (1922-1939): “Thus a Catholic will take care not to pass over his right to vote when the good of the Church or of the country requires it.”[v]
Pope Pius XII (1939-1958): “The exercise of the right to vote is an act of grave responsibility, at least when there is question involved of electing those whose office it will be to give the country its constitution and its laws, particularly those laws which affect, for example, the sanctification of feast days, marriage, family life and school …”[vi]
Idem: “Tomorrow the citizens of two great nations [Italy and France] will be crowding to the voting booths. What is the fundamental issue in these elections? The question is whether these two nations, these two Latin sister nations which have more than one thousand years of Christian history behind them, will continue to be established on the firm rock of Christianity, on the acknowledgment of a personal God, on the belief of man’s spiritual dignity and immortal destiny, or, on the contrary, will choose to place their future in the inexorable and totalitarian power of a materialist state, which acknowledges no ideals beyond this earth, no religion, and no God. One or the other of these alternatives will be verified, according as the champions of Christian civilization or its enemies are retuned at the head of the poll. The decision lies with the electors, and the responsibility, an exalted but serious one, is theirs.”[vii]
Idem: “It is strictly obligatory for whoever has the right, man or woman, to take part in the elections. He who abstains, particularly through indolence or from cowardice, thereby commits a grave sin, a mortal offense … Everyone has to vote according to the dictates of his own conscience. Now it is evident that the voice of conscience imposes on every sincere Catholic the necessity of giving his own vote to those candidates or to those lists of candidates, which offer them truly adequate guarantees for the protection of the rights of God and of souls, for the true good of individuals, of families, and of society, according to the laws of God and the Church’s moral teaching.”[viii]
Therefore, from the aforementioned texts above, we can ascertain just how crucial voting is. By voting, Catholics promote the common good. However, in order to accomplish this, Catholics are forbidden to vote for any candidate who would harm the Church. A Catholic cannot abstain from voting either, especially when the Church or the country is in endangered. To refrain from voting in this instance would constitute a grave offense, a mortal sin. Thus, all Catholics are obligated to vote, most especially in elections when the Church or the country is endangered.
(b) The Reasoning of the Theologians
Theologians hold that the duty to vote is contained within the notion of “legal justice”. Firstly, St. Thomas Aquinas (1224/5/1274) defines “justice” as, “A habit according to which someone, by a constant and perpetual will, grants to another his due.”[ix] Therefore, justice deals with one’s relation to another. However, the phrase “relation to another” can be understood in two ways.
Again, we invoke St. Thomas who writes, “Justice … orders man in comparison to another … in one way, considered to another singularly. The other way, to another in common, namely, according to that in which he serves some community, serving all men who make up the community.”[x]
Thus, there is a distinction between what we owe to one another as individuals (e.g. what Mary owes to John) and what each member owes to society. For this article, we are dealing with justice in relation to the community/society.
This sort of justice is termed by theologians as legal justice. It is defined as, “A supernatural habit through which one renders what is owed to the state in which he is a part of …”[xi] Theologians utilize this concept in their statements on the obligation of all men to vote when they are given the opportunity. But why? Legal justice has for its object the common good.[xii]
(ii) Society, The Common Good, and Voting.
The common good is what society aims for.[xiii] Thus, as members of a society, we have a duty to promote the common good. In a representative democracy, this is accomplished through the process of voting.
As voters, we elect officials who create laws. “It pertains to law”, writes St. Thomas, “to order the common good.”[xiv] Therefore, it is our job to elect officials who will create good laws, which in turn will promote the common good.
Hence, the importance of voting is evident. If one fails to vote, be it through laziness or indifference, he fails to uphold his duty in society to promote the common good. In an election wherein the Church and the common good may be harmed by a candidate, it is even more pertinent for Catholics to exercise their voting rights. Hence …
(iii) Conclusion.
According to the reasoning of the theologians, all Catholics are bound by their duty to promote the common good in society through the exercise of their vote. This is the sententia communis / common opinion held by theologians.[xv]
Principle 2: Catholics are not allowed to vote for candidates
who would be hostile to religion, the country, or the Church
This is proved through:
(a) The Teachings of the Roman Pontiffs.
In response to Question 1, we elucidated a proof by providing various teachings from past popes on the obligation of voting. However, some of the texts also added to this notion, especially in regards to whom the vote should be cast for. In some teachings, the popes explicitly condemn the idea of voting for certain candidates. We reproduce the pertinent ones below.[xvi]
Pope Leo XIII: “It is fit and proper to give support to men of acknowledged worth and who pledge themselves to serve well in the Catholic cause and in no way may it be allowed to prefer to them such individuals as are hostile to religion.”
Pope St. Pius X: “All should remember, that when the religion or the republic is in danger, it is not licit for anyone to be idle.”
Idem: “Is it not the duty of every Catholic to make use of the political arms which he has in his hands to defend her, and also to compel politics to remain in their own domain, and beyond rendering what is her due, to leave the Church alone?”
Pope Pius XI: “Thus a Catholic will take care not to pass over his right to vote when the good of the Church or of the country requires it.”
Pope Pius XII: “The exercise of the right to vote is an act of grave responsibility, at least when there is question involved of electing those whose office it will be to give the country its constitution and its laws, particularly those laws which affect, for example, the sanctification of feast days, marriage, family life and school …”
Idem: “ … Everyone has to vote according to the dictates of his own conscience. Now it is evident that the voice of conscience imposes on every sincere Catholic the necessity of giving his own vote to those candidates or to those lists of candidates, which offer them truly adequate guarantees for the protection of the rights of God and of souls, for the true good of individuals, of families, and of society, according to the laws of God and the Church’s moral teaching.”
Therefore, Catholics are not allowed to vote for candidates who would be hostile to religion, the country, or the Church
(b) Common Sense.
The notion of “hostility” can be twofold. Firstly, a candidate can “be hostile” to the Church by promoting policies that would force the members of the Church to act against their teachings. For example, if a candidate forced Catholic doctors to perform abortions, that would violate the Church’s teaching “Thou shalt not kill.” Secondly, “hostility” can be judged by the promotion of the policies themselves. Thus, if a candidate promotes the return of abortion as a Constitutional right, the arrest of pro-life protesters, the teaching of transgenderism in schools, making Knights of Columbus membership disqualifying for a federal judgeship, and having the FBI investigate Traditional Catholic Chapels as “extremist organizations,” this would entail our notion of “hostility”, as the common good would be gravely damaged.
Principle 3: In an election between one candidate who would be hostile to religion, the country, or the Church, and another who is not hostile but holds an imperfect platform, Catholics must vote for the candidate who would do less harm.
Fr. Titus Cranny writes:
When unworthy candidates are running for office, ordinarily a citizen does not have the obligation of voting for them. Indeed he would not be permitted to vote for them if there were any reasonable way of electing a worthy man, either by organizing another party, by using the “write in” method, or by any other lawful means. On the other hand, it would be licit to vote for an unworthy man if the choice were only between or among unworthy candidates; and it might even be necessary to vote for such an unworthy candidate (if the voting were limited to such personalities) and even for one who would render harm to the Church, provided the election were only a choice from among unworthy men and the voting for the less unworthy would prevent the election of another more unworthy.[xvii]
This is certainly understandable, seeing as how a vote for a less evil candidate would prevent a more evil candidate, causing less harm. Further, it is important to note Cranny’s usage of the word “necessary”. When faced with two such candidates, by necessity, we are to vote for the less evil candidate.
However, people still may have doubts about this. Thus, we prove Principle 3 through the application of two more principles:
(a) The Principle of Double Effect.
The Principle of Double Effect is commonly attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae.[xviii] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, quoting from The New Catholic Encyclopedia, lists four conditions for applying this principle.[xix] These are:
(1) The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
(2) The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
(3) The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
(4) The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect.
Thus, in an election with two candidates we have described, voting for the candidate with the less evil platform would:
(1) Be morally good. As it would prevent a greater spread of evil.
(2) Attain the good effect through his voting of the less evil candidate.
(3) The good effect is produced through voting.
(4) Permitting less evil greater than permitting more evil. This is even more evident in an election, where the (a) Church and (b) the common good are at stake.
Thus, voting for the less evil candidate fills the requirements of the Principle of Double Effect.
(b) “Lesser of Two Evils” and the Common Opinion of the Theologians.
Further, the Catholic blogosphere, more commonly around election times hold that, when presented with two evils, one must choose the lesser of the two. In common speech, this is, obviously, known as “The Lesser of Two Evils”. Ironically, informed Catholics seem to wholly disregard this principle as mere folly. Applying this to an election, these aforesaid Catholics jeer that “voting for an evil is still evil”.
However, statements such as these are completely alien to Catholic theology. This principle is even more pertinent to the matter at hand, namely, voting. The theologians are unanimous in their acceptance of voting for a candidate who is “less evil” as a moral good in an election between two imperfect or flawed candidates. [xx]
(c) Corollary on Voting Third-Party candidates/write-ins.
It is important to note here the world “reasonable”. Certainly, if one could muster a substantial amount of a population to vote for a third party over two unworthy/harmful candidates, Catholics would be obliged to vote for that candidate. However, if the third party/write-in candidate had virtually no chance at attaining victory, the vote would be utterly pointless.
Hitherto Cardinal Amette, Archbishop of Paris, who wrote in 1921 regarding this situation. He stated:
It would be better to cast [your votes] for candidates who, although not giving complete satisfaction to all our legitimate demands, would lead us to expect from them a line of conduct useful to the country, rather than to keep your votes for others whose programs indeed may be more perfect, but whose almost certain defeat might open the door to the enemies of religion and of the social order.[xxii]
Thus, while voting a third party candidate/write-in candidate is licit in principle, when the situation arises that they would be certainly defeated, we are obliged to vote for the less evil of the two prominent candidates. Further, voting for a candidate with no chance of winning would do more harm than good. In doing so, the more evil candidate of the two prominent candidates would have an even greater chance of being elected. Thus, it would be harmful to vote for a third party/write-in candidate who lacks the chance of winning, as it would allow a greater evil to come from it.
Application of Theological Principles to the 2024 United States Presidential Election
Thus far in this article, we have enunciated three principles of Catholic theology in regards to voting. To repeat them:
(1) All Catholics are bound to vote in an election.
(2) Catholics are not allowed to vote for candidates who would be hostile to religion, the country, or the Church.
(3) In an election between one candidate who would be hostile to religion, the country, or the Church, and another who is not hostile but holds an imperfect platform, Catholics must vote for the candidate who would do less harm.
Now we are tasked with applying these principles to the election to take place on November 5, 2024 between the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and the Republican candidate President Donald J. Trump. Hence, with these principles in mind, how are we to approach this election?
Application of Principle 1: All Catholics are bound in the 2024 United States Presidential Election.
This is straightforward, and little explanation is required. We have seen numerous quotes from popes and theologians regarding the matter, who state that, under pain of mortal sin, Catholics are bound to vote in an election.
Application of Principle 2: Catholics cannot vote for Kamala Harris in the 2024 United States Presidential Election. If they do so, they sin mortally.
(1) As Vice President, Kamala Harris has been a prominent advocate for abortion rights and has criticized pro-life laws at both the state and federal levels. For example, she led campaigns to codify Roe v. Wade’s standards, promote federal abortion protections, and challenge state laws restricting abortion. She has also praised efforts to limit the operations of pro-life pregnancy centers, which provide alternatives to abortion, and was the first sitting Vice President to visit an abortion clinic
(2) As California attorney general, she also sponsored the Reproductive FACT Act, which required pro-life pregnancy centers to inform clients about state-sponsored abortion services, a mandate that was later struck down by the Supreme Court on religious freedom grounds
(3) In the Senate, Harris supported the Equality Act, which would expand protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This bill could force religious institutions to act against their beliefs, particularly regarding hiring practices and facility use. In addition, she promoted gender identity policies in schools and healthcare which conflict with Catholic doctrines on family and marriage.
(4) Harris also co-sponsored the Do No Harm Act, which would have curtailed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), limiting protections for religious organizations in cases involving gender identity or sexual orientation. This act would restrict religious freedom outside of worship contexts, potentially impacting hospitals, schools, and other religious institutions in matters like hiring and health services
(5) While serving as a U.S. Senator, Harris questioned the qualifications of judicial nominees based on their membership in the Knights of Columbus. During these hearings, Harris asked if the nominees’ association with the group, which opposes abortion and supports traditional marriage, might interfere with their judicial impartiality. Her line of questioning was criticized by some lawmakers as potentially infringing on religious freedom and led to a Senate resolution underscoring that membership in such organizations should not be grounds for disqualification from office.
(6) Kamala Harris has supported legislation that could impact doctors’ ability to refuse performing abortions based on conscience or religious beliefs. As a senator, she was a co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would have nullified state restrictions on abortion and removed various conscience protections for healthcare providers opposed to performing the procedure. This act was criticized for potentially forcing doctors, including those with religious objections, to provide abortion services against their will. Moreover, Harris supported the Do No Harm Act, which aimed to narrow religious exemptions in cases related to healthcare, thus further limiting protections for medical providers opposed to abortions for religious reason
(7) Harris has opposed the Hyde Amendment, which restricts federal funding for abortion services. She has argued for taxpayer funding of abortions. Her support for the Equality Act, which includes provisions that could affect healthcare providers’ rights to opt-out of procedures that conflict with their beliefs, aligns with her stance on reducing exemptions based on conscience claims
(8) The Biden-Harris administration has actively supported measures to protect and expand access to abortion services. For instance, the administration repealed the “Mexico City Policy,” which restricted U.S. funding for NGOs that promote or perform abortions internationally. Additionally, the Biden-Harris administration has worked to expand contraceptive access under the Affordable Care Act.
(9) The Biden-Harris Department of Education has prioritized policies related to LGBTQ+ rights in schools. These policies include guidelines for the treatment of transgender students, which could require schools to adopt practices that might conflict with their religious beliefs. Additionally, the Biden-Harris administration has increased focus on public education funding, sometimes at the expense of private and religious schools.
(10) In early 2023, the Biden-Harris FBI’s Richmond Field Office issued a memo suggesting that “radical-traditionalist Catholics” could pose a domestic terrorism risk due to alleged links to extremist ideologies. The document proposed monitoring certain Catholic communities, suggesting that undercover agents could be used to gather information.
(11) The Biden-Harris administration’s Justice Department has prosecuted pro-life activists under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. Several pro-life activists were recently convicted for organizing and participating in a blockade at an abortion clinic in Washington, D.C., and face potential prison sentences of up to 11 years each. One 75 year old pro-life woman in Massachusetts was sentenced to two years in prison. The Biden-Harris administration also sent an FBI swat team to the home of a pro-life Catholic father at six in the morning to arrest him in front of his terrified family. FACE Act prosecutions under the Biden-Harris administration target nonviolent pro-life actions while overlooking violence toward pro-life facilities.
(12) Vice President Kamala Harris has signaled openness to discussions about Supreme Court reforms, including potentially expanding the number of justices, commonly referred to as “court packing.” During the 2020 campaign, Harris expressed willingness to consider various options, stating that “everything is on the table” regarding the Supreme Court’s composition. If elected she could nominate enough pro-choice justices to overturn Dobbs and reinstate legal abortion until birth (and in some cases allowing the baby to die after birth) as Constitutional law. Her lower level judge appointments will be deciding cases against pro-lifers and will continue to sentence them to jail time for protesting abortion clinics as well as approve of and allow FBI investigations into Catholics.
(13) The Biden-Harris Administration has turned gender theory into foreign policy, requiring all diplomatic missions to push trans activism and funding “LGBTQI+” NGOs in at least 73 countries.
(14) Vice President Kamala Harris attended San Francisco Pride in 2019, where she appeared on stage with members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. The Sisters, a 501(c)3 Order of queer and trans “nuns,” is made up of performers in drag in lewd imitation of Roman Catholic nuns that intentionally mock and degrade Catholics.
(15) Vice President Kamala Harris snubbed the Al Smith dinner, a bipartisan fundraiser for Catholic charities typically attended by both major party candidates.
The list could certainly go on and on, but suffice it to say that Kamala Harris is the exact opposite of a pro-Catholic candidate. Voting for her would be mortally sinful.
With the application of Principles 1 and 2, we now proceed to our conclusion with the application of Principle 3.
IV. Conclusion
Application of Principle 3: All Catholics are bound to vote for Donald J. Trump in this 2024 United States Presidential Election.
(1) Kept his word and appointed three pro-life justices to the United States Supreme Court who overturned Roe v. Wade as unconstitutional. This was an epic event that Catholics in the pro-life movement had been fighting for since 1972 and that many thought would never become a reality. The Dobbs case in 2022 allowed every state the freedom to restrict abortion up to the point of banning it completely if it so desired. It finally ended the barbaric “Constitutional right” to an abortion. All but one previous “pro-life” Republican President since Nixon had failed to nominate 100% pro-life justices which would have ended Roe much earlier.
(a) Justice Harry Blackmun – Appointed by President Richard Nixon in 1970, Blackmun authored the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, which established a constitutional right to abortion.
(b) John Paul Stevens – Nominated by President Gerald Ford in 1975, Stevens consistently supported abortion rights throughout his time on the Court. He voted to uphold Roe v. Wade in cases like Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which reaffirmed the core principles of Roe while allowing for some state restrictions.
(c) Sandra Day O’Connor – Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, O’Connor became known for her “undue burden” standard in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision which upheld the fundamental right to abortion established in Roe.
(d) Anthony Kennedy – Nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1988, Kennedy co-authored the plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which preserved the essential holding of Roe. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), he sided with the Court’s liberal justices to strike down restrictive Texas abortion laws.
(e) Justice David Souter – Nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, Souter aligned with the Court’s liberal wing on abortion issues. He joined O’Connor and Kennedy in the Casey decision, supporting the right to abortion. Souter remained a reliable supporter of Roe throughout his tenure on the Court.
(2) President Trump has expressed his desire to repeal the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including religious institutions, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. The amendment restricts free speech for religious leaders and churches, effectively silencing them on political matters. This is why you don’t see Catholic priests or Bishops in the US explicitly telling congregations which candidate to vote for by name. Unfortunately only Congress has the power to repeal the Amendment. However, in 2017, Trump signed an executive order instructing the Treasury Department not to penalize religious organizations for engaging in political speech.
(3) President Trump expanded religious exemptions under federal law, particularly through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This included updates to guidance that favored religious employers, allowing them to discriminate against employees on religious grounds in some situations.
(4) President Trump worked to support faith-based organizations receiving federal funding, easing requirements that mandated secular alternatives for services provided by religious organizations, such as food banks and job training programs.
(5) President Trump frequently touted religious liberty as a fundamental right. He emphasized the protection of religious expression in schools and the workplace and sought to roll back overreach by previous administrations in regulating religious entities.
(6) President Trump has stated his intent to enact policies that make it easier for religious organizations to operate without fear of federal interference and to strengthen protections against discrimination based on religious beliefs in various aspects of public life.
(7) President Trump has suggested tax deductions for families with newborns to further encourage childbearing
(8) President Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services created a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division and advocated for stronger enforcement of legal protections for Americans with religious and moral objections to certain health care services.
(9) President Trump established the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative to advise the White House on faith-based concerns and find ways to partner with faith-based organizations.
(10) In 2018, President Trump became the first president to address the March for Life rally and declared January 20, 2019 the National Sanctity of Human Life Day.
(11) President Trump has received the endorsement of numerous faith leaders and religious organizations in the 2024, including CatholicVote.
(12) President Trump will keep men out of women’s sports, ban Taxpayer funding for sex change surgeries, and stop Taxpayer-funded Schools from promoting gender transition, reverse the Biden-Harris administration’s radical rewrite of Title IX Education Regulations, and restore protections for women and girls.
(13) President Trump respects the Right of every American to follow his or her deeply held Beliefs. To protect Religious Liberty, President Trump supports a new Federal Task Force on Fighting Anti-Christian Bias that will investigate all forms of illegal discrimination, harassment, and persecution against Christians in America.
(14) President Trump will champion the First Amendment Right to Pray and Read the Bible in school, and stand up to those who violate the Religious Freedoms of American students.
(15) President Trump will will reinstate the 1776 Commission, promote Fair and Patriotic Civics Education, and veto efforts to nationalize Civics Education. He will support schools that teach America’s Founding Principles and Western Civilization.
(16) President Trump will ensure children are taught fundamentals like Reading, History, Science, and Math, not leftwing propaganda. He will defund schools that engage in inappropriate political indoctrination of our children, including Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Gender Indoctrination, using Federal Taxpayer Dollars.
(17) President Trump has pledged to parents who homeschool their kids that he will eliminate taxes on up to $10,000 a year per child on all costs associated with their children’s education. “I will also work to ensure that every homeschool family is entitled to full access to the benefits available to non-homeschool students, including participating in athletic programs, clubs, after-school activities, educational trips, and more.”
Catholic Nevertrump Objections & Refutations
1.) Even with this track record, some Catholics point to President Trump’s personal belief in exceptions to abortion bans in the cases of rape and incest as a reason not to vote for him. Obviously, Catholic teaching is that it is wrong to kill the unborn baby no matter what the circumstances of conception were. However, there are two reasons this objection fails.
(a) The objection is irrelevant. Thanks to President Trump’s justices overturning Roe v Wade, it is now irrelevant what President Trump’s personal opinions are on abortion laws. Each state has the right to completely ban abortion from conception until birth if it so desires and Catholics are free to support elected representatives in each state to make that a reality if they so desire. In fact, this is where all pro-life efforts should be focused right now.
(b) The objection is disingenuous. The same people objecting to President Trump’s support of exceptions had no problem voting for Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and some even voted for President in Trump in 2016 and 2020. Every one of these candidates personally believed in the exact same exceptions to abortion law as President Trump.
2.) Others object to the fact that President Trump seems content to leave the decision for abortion restrictions to the states and his unwillingness to sign a national abortion ban as reasons not to vote for him. There are four reasons this objection fails.
(a) First, Trump has never said he would veto a national ban if it got to his desk. As CBS news reported:
…when asked by debate moderator Linsey Davis whether he’d veto a ban, he responded, “I won’t have to,” but did not say he would veto a ban if it were passed by Congress.
Davis tried again: “But if I could just get a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ because your running mate, JD Vance, has said that you would veto if it did come to your desk.”
Trump again declined to say whether he’d veto a national ban, responding, “I didn’t discuss it with JD, in all fairness.”
(b) Second, every GOP presidential nominee since Roe v Wade has been in favor of overturning Roe v Wade, which President Trump finally did. The repeal of Roe v. Wade means states are no longer bound to recognize abortion as a Constitutional right and can restrict it or ban it however they see fit. No GOP presidential nominee in history has ever proposed a national legislative abortion ban. Yet the same people using this as an excuse not to vote for Trump voted for other GOP presidential nominees with no qualms of conscience.
(c) Third, Traditional Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was the most conservative justice in history. He also thought the abortion issue was an issue for the states under the Constitution. In his dissent in Planned Parenthood v Casey, he wrote:
…by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.
We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.
Are there any Catholics opposed to Trump on this basis who would have refused to vote to confirm Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court because his abortion views were so morally abhorrent? Especially if the alternative they would install by voting against him was Ruth Bader Ginsberg? Of course not. This argument is thus, absurd.
(d) Fourth, this objection is completely unrealistic. As a practical matter, a national abortion ban is completely off the table and only exists in our wildest fantasy. National opinion has swung hard in the pro-choice direction after Dobbs as evidenced by the Democrats unusually strong showing in 2022 when the party who holds the presidency typically loses seats. Data indicated that abortion was a top issue among Democrats and even influenced some independents who disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision. In a YouGov poll taken on October 31, 2024, Kamala polled a whopping 18 points higher than Trump on the abortion issue. The only issue she polled higher on compared to Trump was LGBTQ rights. Kamala has been campaigning almost exclusively on abortion rights as she knows that is a big motivator to get her demographics to the polls. Trump proposing a hopeless complete national abortion ban in this climate, which would not have a prayer to pass Congress anyway, would have been political suicide and energized Kamala’s base even more.
3.) Still others object to a more recent proposal President Trump has made that the government or private health insurance cover the cost for couples to obtain fertility treatments including IVF. Obviously, IVF is against Catholic teaching as it involves conception outside the marital act as well as the creation of embryos that are often frozen or disposed of. President Trump sees it as “pro-family” assisting otherwise infertile couples to have children. There are two reasons this objection fails as a reason not to vote for him.
(a) First, this proposal will almost certainly not happen if Trump is elected. The federal government currently lacks the authority to directly require private insurers to cover specific medical treatments unless through federal legislation. Catholics could petition their congressmen to vote no to any such proposal. For public insurance like Medicaid, covering IVF would be difficult due to budgetary constraints and differing state policies. Regardless, if the legislation requiring coverage for IVF somehow passed, President Trump recently told EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo that exceptions for religious organizations and employers who claim that IVF violates their religious freedom would be a “good idea.” In addition, health insurers would resist mandates for IVF coverage, citing high costs and increased premiums for members.
(b) Second, many health insurance plans already cover things opposed to Catholic moral teaching such as contraception, sterilization procedures, such as tubal ligation and vasectomies, abortions, IVF, and sex-change procedures and operations. If these objectors are consistent, they could not morally vote for any candidate who doesn’t oppose these items being covered by private or public health insurance. Yet no presidential nominee has ever called for the end to such coverage.
The False Premises of the Catholic Nevertrumps
First, the logic of their arguments would only make sense if we lived in a Catholic society or Catholic confessional state where we have the luxury as Catholic voters to vote for the most perfect Catholic candidate among many, or to simply not vote because no matter who wins they will more or less uphold Catholic principles. Or that we have the luxury to vote for third party or unpopular candidates who we think are the best in order to slowly help build their vote count for the future knowing that our nation will be run by good-enough Catholics in the meantime.
In contrast to this Utopian fantasy world, we live in an increasingly hostile secular state where our liberties and rights as practicing Catholics are quickly and frighteningly being curtailed. We are literally fighting for our own survival. In such a situation we are like drowning men looking for any piece of driftwood to hold onto to keep from going under. Pro-life peaceful protesters exercising their first amendment rights are being thrown in jail and having SWAT teams sent to their houses, the FBI is infiltrating Traditional Catholic chapels which are considered extremist gatherings, Catholics are being told they are unworthy of being judges for belonging to the Knights of Columbus, and proposals are being made to throw Catholic doctors in prison for not performing abortions.
This reality, the actual reality of the United States of America in 2024, is not one where we have the moral luxury to sit back and passively allow pure evil to take over the nation for another four years because we don’t think their only opposition, which is vastly more friendly to our cause, is quite up to par with our standards. It would be like a drowning man choosing to drown if he is not rescued by a yacht instead of a fishing boat. Except in this case it is worse, which brings me to the next flawed premise.
The second flawed premise is that the Catholic Nevertrump ideology is at its heart, inward looking and selfish. The entire focus is about me and what the proper and best moral choice that I can make for my own conscience’s sake. This ideology tends to look at things in a vacuum where I am presented with two choices on paper and if neither lives up to my moral standards I have the right to select neither.
This navel gazing and scrupulosity filled misguided moral analysis completely misses the point that there are most dire consequences that this decision has not just on me, but on hundreds of millions of my fellow countrymen who stand to be consumed by an oppressive and irreversible and corrupt anti-Catholic machine. This is not some sort of morality exam in a university ethics class, it has real life and very serious consequences.
The True Catholic Teaching
The true Catholic teaching regarding a political situation such as ours has never been so narrow minded, myopic, self-centered, and self-defeating. The Church has never mandated us to be so completely unreasonable and cowardly in failing to preserve our own rights and those of the Church within increasingly hostile secular democracies.
In fact we have a perfect example in 1948 Italy. As Fr. Cranny says, “But even more important… were [the elections] of 1948 in Italy when the Communists, bolder than before, openly vowed to gain control of the government and threatened to harm the Church.” In 1948, there was a significant threat of a communist takeover in Italy, and Pope Pius XII took an active role in opposing it. In the aftermath of World War II, Italy was politically polarized, with the Italian Communist Party (PCI) gaining considerable influence and forming a coalition with the Socialist Party. Together, they posed a serious challenge to Italy’s Christian Democrats in the upcoming parliamentary elections. This was concerning to the Vatican, as the PCI was allied with the Soviet Union and advocated for policies that were antithetical to Catholic teachings and the Church’s influence in Italy.
Now who were the Christian Democrats? Were they all perfect Catholic candidates? No. In fact, the Christian Democrats were involved in the establishment of laws regarding divorce and family rights that contradicted Catholic teaching. The reason is that the party was tasked with governing a secular state, which meant they sometimes had to support policies that were not strictly Catholic in nature in order to be elected. Nevertrumps would gasp in horror at this notion, but this was simply the pragmatic political reality of the time and this is the point the Nevertrumps continually fail to grasp. All politics in secular states is pragmatic! That is the nature of the game. If your party never wins elections, you could have the most pristine Catholic moral platform in the world and it won’t mean a thing or help preserve the Church, Catholics, the country, or the common good whatsoever. So outside of a Catholic monarchy, which we don’t live in, we can never expect such unrealistic perfection in government.
Instead of this self-defeating, navel gazing, perfectionism, Pope Pius XII already gave us a sterling example of what to do in such a situation. Faced with the reality of a Communist takeover of Italy in the 1948 elections, Pope Pius XII commanded Italian Catholics to vote for the only imperfect opponent candidates (the Christian Democrats) who had a chance to beat the Communists in order to save the Italian people from the devastating consequences of failing to vote or voting for hopeless pie in the sky third party candidates. This is the Catholic moral obligation: to preserve and protect as much in your society and country that is ordered towards the truth as you can. And just as that could only be accomplished by voting for the imperfect Christian Democrats in Italy in 1948, it can only be accomplished in the United States in 2024 by voting for President Trump.
The Moral Consequences of Failing to Stop a Kamala Victory
Who can deny that the parade of horribles that Kamala Harris has enacted and will enact are evil decisions and laws? Who can deny that all Catholic voters have a specific duty to stop the foreseen harm that would follow? Who then, could deny that failing to vote to stop this candidate from inflicting these evils on society would be a grave fault and a cooperation with evil? And who can deny that the only way to effectively stop Kamala Harris from winning is to vote for the only candidate who has a chance of defeating her?
As Cardinal Costa of Florence once said in 1951:
Even township elections can cause enormous damage to our institutions. To realize the importance of this it is enough to observe that whoever abstains from voting, or who votes for individuals who oppose Christian faith and morals, automatically makes himself responsible for all the damages that come after that to souls and to consciences. He thus makes himself guilty of a sin much greater than missing Mass on Sunday or not making the Easter Duty. The latter are individual sins, whereas a badly given vote or a neglected vote is a social sin which damages – and oh how gravely it damages – the community, the countryside and the very state itself. [xxiv]
And as Pope Pius XII said in 1947:
Consequently, there is a heavy responsibility on everyone, man or woman, who has the right to vote, especially when the interests of religion are at stake; abstention in this case is in itself, it should be thoroughly understood, a grave and a fatal sin of omission.
On the contrary, to exercise, and exercise well, one’s right to vote is to work effectively for the true good of the people, as loyal defenders of the cause of God and of the Church. [xxv]
THEREFORE, from what has been enunciated and described in this article, following the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs and the theologians, coalescing into theological principles, Catholics have a moral duty to vote for President Donald J. Trump in the 2024 United States Presidential Election. [xxvi]
Endnotes:
[i] De Libertate Humana; Cranny, 56. Translations of papal documents are Cranny’s, unless noted otherwise.
[ii] Sapientiae Christianae; Cranny, ibid. Italics are our emphasis. N.B. the phrase “idem” is a Latin intensive pronoun meaning “the same”. Thus, “idem” here refers to the same author, namely Pope Leo XIII. Also, the abbreviation “ibid.” comes from the Latin “ibidem”, which in English means “the same place”.
[iii] Inter Catholicos; cf. Cranny, 57. Our emphasis and translation.
[iv] Notre charge apostolique; Cranny, ibid.
[v] Firmissimam Constantiam; Cranny, 58. Our emphasis.
[vi] Cranny, ibid. Cranny cites the journal The Catholic Mind, 44:1001 (May 1946), 301 for this. This quote from Pius XII was a speech given to the pastors and preachers who came to Rome during Lent, warning them about the upcoming Italian election.
[vii] Ancora una volta; Cranny, 59. Our emphasis.
[viii] Discorso di sua santità Pio XII ai parroci e ai quaresimalisti di Roma; Cranny 60-61.
[ix] Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 58, a. 1, co. “[I]ustitia est habitus secundum quem aliquis constanti et perpetua voluntate ius suum unicuique tribuit.”; cf. Cranny, 78. Our translation. “Summa Theologiae” hereafter abbreviated ST. N.B. the word “habit” can be a bit confusing for those with no philosophical or theological experience. It is not understood as “habit” of smoking. Bernard Wuellner, in his Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy, defines habit as, “A permanent quality according to which a subject is well or badly disposed in regard to either its being or its operations.” Thus, habit here means “disposition”.
[x] ST II-II, q. 58, a. 5, co. “Iustitia … ordinat hominem in comparatione ad alium … [u]no modo, ad alium singulariter consideratum. Alio modo, ad alium in communi, secundum scilicet quod ille qui servit alicui communitati servit omnibus hominibus qui sub communitate illa continentur.”; cf. Cranny, ibid. Our translation.
[xi] Waffelaert, De Iustitia. “Iustitia legalis seu generalis est … habitus supernaturalis per quem unusquisque reddit quod debitum est rei publicae cuius ipse pars est …”; cf. Cranny, 77. Our translation.
[xii] Cf. Cranny, 79; cf. ST, II-II, q. 58, a. 5, co.
[xiii] Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Sententia libri Politicorum, Iib. I, lect. 1, n.3. “[The political society] is the connector of the most principal good between all human goods: it aims for the common good …”. “[Communitas politica] est coniectatrix principalissimi boni inter omnia bona humana: intendit enim bonum commune …” N.B. it is outside the scope of this work to discuss what exactly the common good is. For a brief discussion of Aquinas’s notion, click here.
[xiv] ST, II-II, q. 58, a. 5, co. “Et quia ad legem pertinet ordinare in bonum commune …”; cf. Cranny, 79. Our translation.
[xv] See Cranny, 77-90 for a more detailed account of this. He states blantatly, “Most moralists hold that voting is of obligation.” The unanimity is pertinent. One does not need every single theologian to hold this position to be true. Hence the axiom in Catholic theology: “Concordm omnium theologorum sententiam in rebus fidei aut morum reiicere, si non est haeresis, est tamen haeresi proximum.” “To reject the common opinion of all theologians in things of faith or morals, if it is not heresy, it is proximate to heresy.” See also Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, found in Denziger-Schonmetzer #1684.
[xvi] For the sake of brevity, we will note reproduce the same citations for each text. Please refer to the above endnotes to locate the specific document. The emphases will also remain.
[xvii] 93-94. Our emphasis.
[xviii] Cf. II-II, q. 64, a.7, co.
[xix] Found here.
[xx] Cranny cites the following: Lehmkuhl, Tanquerey, Prümmer, Ubach, Merkelbach, Iorio, Piscetta-Gennaro, Sabetti-Barett, and Genicot. See 94-95.
[xxi] See footnote 19.
[xxii] Cranny, 63-64.
[xxiii] Douay Catholic Catechism of 1649, q. 925 and q. 926.
[xxiii] Summa Theologiae Moralis, Tomus Secundus, Tractatus De Virtute Cardinali Justitiae, Tertia Pars, Sectio A, De Justitia Commutativa, n. 316
[xxiv] New York Herald Tribune, May 15, 1951, 5.
[xxv] Allocution to the Congress of the International Union of Catholic Women’s Leagues, Rome, Italy, September 11, 1947.
You are 100% correct...Fr. David Nix is also in full agreement. Unfortunately, some trads just don't get it.
ReplyDelete