My column this week is a collection of personal comments. Read it as thoughts from a brother in the faith, not as teachings from an archbishop.
Presidential campaigns typically hit full stride after Labor Day in an election year. But 2016 is a year in which two prominent Catholics – a sitting vice president, and the next vice presidential nominee of his party — both seem to publicly ignore or invent the content of their Catholic faith as they go along. And meanwhile, both candidates for the nation’s top residence, the White House, have astonishing flaws.
This is depressing and liberating at the same time. Depressing, because it’s proof of how polarized the nation has become. Liberating, because for the honest voter, it’s much easier this year to ignore the routine tribal loyalty chants of both the Democratic and Republican camps. I’ve been a registered independent for a long time and never more happily so than in this election season. Both major candidates are – what’s the right word? so problematic – that neither is clearly better than the other.
As Forbes magazine pointed out some months ago, the Republican candidate is worth roughly $4.5 billion. The Democratic candidate is worth roughly $45 million. Compare that with the average American household, which is worth about $144,000. The median U.S. income is about $56,000. Neither major candidate lives anywhere near the solar system where most Americans live, work and raise families. Nonetheless, we’re asked to trust them.
[hotblock]
That’s a big ask. One candidate — in the view of a lot of people — is an eccentric businessman of defective ethics whose bombast and buffoonery make him inconceivable as president. And the other – in the view of a lot of people – should be under criminal indictment. The fact that she’s not – again, in the view of a lot of people — proves Orwell’s Animal Farm principle that “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
So what are we to do this election cycle as Catholic voters? Note that by “Catholic,” I mean people who take their faith seriously; people who actually believe what the Catholic faith holds to be true; people who place it first in their loyalty, thoughts and actions; people who submit their lives to Jesus Christ, to Scripture and to the guidance of the community of belief we know as the Church.
Anyone else who claims the Catholic label is simply fooling himself or herself — and even more importantly, misleading others.
The American bishops offer valuable counsel in their document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (available from the USCCB), and this year especially, they ask us to pray before we vote. This is hardly new “news.” Prayer is always important. In a year when each Catholic voter must choose between deeply flawed options, prayer is essential. And prayer involves more than mumbling a Hail Mary before we pull the voting booth lever for someone we see as the lesser of two evils. Prayer is a conversation, an engagement of the soul with God. It involves listening for God’s voice and educating our consciences.
It’s absurd – in fact, it’s blasphemous – to assume that God prefers any political party in any election year. But God, by his nature, is always concerned with good and evil and the choices we make between the two. For Catholics, no political or social issue stands in isolation. But neither are all pressing issues equal in foundational importance or gravity. The right to life undergirds all other rights and all genuine social progress. It cannot be set aside or contextualized in the name of other “rights” or priorities without prostituting the whole idea of human dignity.
[hotblock2]
God created us with good brains. It follows that he will hold us accountable to think deeply and clearly, rightly ordering the factors that guide us, before we act politically. And yet modern American life, from its pervasive social media that too often resemble a mobocracy, to the relentless catechesis of consumption on our TVs, seems designed to do the opposite. It seems bent on turning us into opinionated and distracted cattle unable to gain mastery over our own appetites and thoughts. Thinking and praying require silence, and the only way we can get silence is by deciding to step back and unplug.
This year, a lot of good people will skip voting for president but vote for the “down ticket” names on their party’s ballot; or vote for a third party presidential candidate; or not vote at all; or find some mysterious calculus that will allow them to vote for one or the other of the major candidates. I don’t yet know which course I’ll personally choose. It’s a matter properly reserved for every citizen’s informed conscience.
But I do know a few of the things I’ll be reading between now and November. The list is not exclusive or comprehensive. But this year these particular titles seem especially urgent:
- Living the Gospel of Life. This 1998 pastoral letter of the U.S. bishops remains the best brief guide to American Catholic political reflection yet produced.
- Resurrecting the Idea of a Christian Society by R.R. Reno (Regnery) and It’s Dangerous to Believe: Religious Freedom and Its Enemies by Mary Eberstadt (HarperCollins). Both of these books are new, important, a key to understanding the current moment in our national life, and deeply engaging. They need to be discussed and shared widely.
- And finally two essays by the late, great Czech writer, Václav Havel, “Politics and Conscience” and “The Power of the Powerless.” Both are collected in Open Letters: Selected Writings, 1965-1990 (Vintage Books). Havel was not (to my knowledge) a religious believer, and he wrote as a dissident during an era of Soviet Bloc repression. But his commitment to what he called “living in the truth,” and his understanding and critique of the weaknesses in Western societies like our own – not just Marxist ones – were remarkable. They remain relevant right now, today.
The next few months will determine the next decade and more of our nation’s life. We need to be awake, we need to clear our heads of media noise, and we need to think quietly and carefully before we vote. None of us can afford to live the coming weeks on autopilot.
PREVIOUS: The Court, the House, and the elections ahead
NEXT: Some additional thoughts — and the elephant in the room
The Archbishop offers a clear Catholic perspective on the conundrum of this election. Yesterday’s Gospel helps point the way — we must seek truth before we’ll have peace. Not much truth to pass around between the major party candidates.
Thank you Archbishop Chaput. I do think we need to pray and think clearly about the upcoming 10-40 years. A lot of the future of this country sits on who will be placed into the Supreme Court vacant slots. We as Catholics are not voting for a king in this election. We need to think clearly about who will allow us to worship Our King freely as Catholics. The Church is under attack in this country. The next 4 years will demonize us more for what we believe if Hillary is our president. We are voting for survival and an opportunity to be heard for at least 4 more years.
Please add to your teadi g list a book by Sheila Liaugminas, The Non-Negotialbles:…”, a brilliant book.
It’s sad that the Archbishop doesn’t read the documents produced by the Ordinary Magisterium under Pope Francis. If he had, he would not find himself in such a quandary.
To which documents generated by Pope Francis do you refer when you say they are part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium?
Quite simply, Donald Trump does not have the temperament to be POTUS…or any experience suitable to lead the greatest nation in the world. I believe his temperament will be the deciding factor (and the current polling surely is pointing the way to a huge defeat for this entertainer on November 8). And despite certain positions counter to Catholic stances, Democrats, generally speaking, are far more supportive of the poor and social justice. Lastly, do you think Trump the egotist ever asks anyone, “What do you think?”
Nick, you ask “what do you think”, well, I think you are totally wrong, but “who am I to judge”. Just so you you know there is a difference between “judging” and “discerning”. God expects us to “discern” right from wrong, good from bad, holy from evil, etc, etc. We can do that without “judging” the person who causes us to “discern” their behavior. It is fine to condemn wrong behavior so long as we don’t also condemn the person (which no one but God can do) Also conscience is simply how one thinks, but what one thinks is “formed” by their choices, which God also expects us to discern. So one can have a good conscience or a poor conscience depending on how the person has discerned to form it. For a Catholic it should always be guided by church teaching and based on faith and reason. Faith tells us killing is wrong, reason tells us we have NO rights if we are not first given the right to exist. It is the ultimate in “social justice” to allow God’s creation in the womb to exist outside the womb. The “baby” has a soul, is created in the image of God (the same as you) and has the “right to life” above all other rights, not only by the constitution of the USA but by God’s law which states “Thou shalt not kill”. If we deny “one of God’s little ones” the right to life they won’t have a chance to even be “poor” and receive any “social justice”. I have “discerned your argument to be a truly bad one, and that you have not formed your conscience in a manner agreeable to God’s laws. It is my opinion that the Republican platform allows more “religious freedom”, provides babies with a better chance of being born, better supports the church’s definition of marriage, will fight the evil of pornography better, will better provide work, education, and dignity to the poor (not enslave them in poverty), If you compare the platforms of the two parties one could discern the Democrat platform as evil and the Republican as more socially just. But of course one has to be able to see reality, be emptied of biases, and open to truth in order to discern that. Doing the reading recommended by bishop Chapot is a good idea and would provide for development of a “good conscience”, thus allowing you to vote in a manner truly pleasing to God.
Separation of church and state does not prohibit a religious person from having a political view. It’s focus was on prohibiting the country from establishing its own state religion as was the case in Great Britain. Political views based on our Christian beliefs will make our country better and is something we should strive for.
I totally disagree with the Archbishop’s view on this all important election. Hillary Clinton has voted against the catholic church throughout her long history in politics. She will undoubtedly appoint pro-abortion judges and continue the removal of all references to God everywhere in our society. She arrogantly and blatantly lies to anyone who questions her ethics and previous actions, such as her failure to protect our ambassador and soldiers in Benghazi. If you take your religion seriously there is no possible argument you can make for Clinton. On the other hand Trump is not a perfect candidate but he is being relentlessly beat up by the liberal media. On issues that really matter he is much better than clinton, his judges will be pro-life, his economic plan will create jobs and he will re-boot the school voucher program that helps poor minority kids. The democrats despise the voucher program because it takes money away from their beloved teachers union and use the excuse that vouchers will benefit catholic schools as a major reason they oppose them. These are just a few reasons why you can’t be a politically correct tool for the media. Be careful Archbishop, the liberal media will use your words and try to convince catholics that Trump is bad because he is not politically correct. Don’t be a pawn for the anti-christian liberal media! Trump’s not perfect but he is not blatantly anti christian like hillary and today’s democrat party!! The so-called separation of church and state doesn’t mean catholic leaders should sit back like cowards and allow the liberal media to dictate how we vote!
Your implication that the good Archbishop is being used by the Left is insulting. There are many good Catholics who have already come to the same conclusions as he outlines after careful research, prayer, deep thought, and more prayer.
Neither candidate is worthy of my vote.
I’m debating between veteranspartyofamerica.org and veteranspartyofamerica.org – but I am certain to vote 3rd party, because that is where good change will originate. The D’s and the R’s have given us evil after evil. Voting for the lesser evil still gets you evil. Don’t get played by the the duopoly! Vote 3rd party.
Timothy Allen questions whether the Archbishop has read anything the Pope has written on the subject of voting in conformity with Catholic principles, so as to inform his own opinion. But Mr. Allen makes no specific suggestions in this regard and, frankly, nothing comes to mind. However, the Pope has been crystal clear that the abomination of abortion, the product of a “throw-away society” can never be accepted.
When Mr. Allen states that the Archbishop contributes to division, one is put in mind of Sunday’s gospel, when our Lord announced that He did not come to plant peace, “but division”. And that families of 5 would be divided 3 to 2. Seems the Archbishop is being criticized for being Christlike.
If Mr. Allen is upset that the Archbishop reminds us , among other things, of immutable Catholic teachings, then let Mr. Allen be upset that the Archbishop reminds us of immutable Catholic teachings. Catholics worthy of the name can endure such hardships.
I believe that this nation simply has to turn back to God. The USCCB should gather at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception and at a Mass formally consecrate and/or rededicate the United States to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary – nothing short of a formal declaration will do. We as Catholics must formally and outwardly declare our sovereign Lord as king and his mother as our queen mother.
Our democracy provides that a person is not a criminal unless indicted and given a trial by jury. Calling her a criminal is false. Now if the archbishop wants to incriminate Director Comey, the Atty General, the former director of the CIA and a whole host of others, then we’d have a story. It’s best to stay out of politics, as we have a separation of church and state which should remain that way.
“Our democracy provides that a person is not a criminal unless indicted and given a trial by jury. Calling her a criminal is false.”
Being ‘should be under criminal indictment’ and being a criminal is not the same thing, precisely because of the presumption of innocence. Also, the presumption of innocence is only legally proscribed to the government. Individuals are under not legal obligation to presume innocence. We Catholics, in spirit of Christian charity, presume innocence. But that is not an impediment to saying someone who was not indicted of a crime should have been.
Could it be that FBI Director Comey and Attorney Loretta Lynch fear for their lives? Comey confirmed the violations when interrogated by Trey Gowdy. Loretta Lynch’s meeting with Bill Clinton. Likely went beyond small talk of Clinton’s grand babies. I’m concerned about Supreme Court Justice John Roberts who swore to uphold the Constitution and interpret the law, yet took the questionable “opportunity” to rewrite the law, the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare, not once but twice!
Let’s be clear: The Church REJECTS the concept of separation of Church and state. The bottom line is that the Church expects Her God-given authority to be upheld, supported, and promoted by the state. The state has no competence and no authority of its own over matters of religion and may not unilaterally interfere with its exercise. Therefore, where the state does not advance–and is indeed hostile to–the mission of the Church, religious freedom must be upheld vis-a-vis the state. This state of affairs does not exclude the Church from the public square.
Thank you Archbishop Chaput for your moral clarity and courage – morally confused times such as ours call for moral CLARITY, not AMBIGUITY.
If you think there isn’t a significant enough distinction between Clinton and Trump to make a decision, you are either ill-informed or are waiting for Jesus to run.
Cannot believe that the leader of the Church in which I was raised would equate Trump’s proven buffoonery to the belief people have about Clinton, despite proven otherwise. So we are to compare fact to mere thought??
Thank you Archbishop Chaput for a very insightful and thought provoking analysis.
As a “serious” Catholic I do have to respectfully take issue with your conclusion that neither candidate is clearly better than the other. In the eyes of God and per Catholic teaching there is no moral equivalency between an intrinsic evil and a sin. Yes it is true that Mr. Trump like all of us is sinful. Mrs. Clinton on the other hand is not only sinful, she is intrinsically evil by her words and deeds, including her militant and obstinate advocacy for abortion.
To choose intrinsic evil is always morally wrong and to imply that it can be justified under certain circumstances is a falsehood. This includes personal conscience choices which in the end can never supersede God.
Given the clear and present danger of a Hilary Clinton administration to the Church, and to countless thousands of innocent unborn souls, it is hard to understand why the Church continues to remain so unclear on how Catholics should be voting in the upcoming election. It is a moral tragedy in the making.
If there was ever a time for the Church to take a firm and unyielding stand for God and be a Moral Beacon, the time is now. The Church should make clear in new easy to read and clear voting guidelines and communiqués how Catholics are morally bound to vote in the upcoming presidential election:
1. Disqualification – No Catholic can vote for Hilary Clinton because of her positions on abortion an intrinsic evil and violation of God’s Law and Church Teaching
2. Vote – for Donald Trump or third party candidates based on preference
3. Abstain – no candidate qualifies
So, with all this good material, where is the message lost on the Catholic voter:
1. Make it bluntly clear – you must prioritize and one candidate promises more abortion deaths the other has promised to honor pro-life. Not hard to understand this one.
2. If Catholics do not listen to the pastor, forget them. If the pastor refuses to speak clearly on the issue of life 1st, life always is the issue. He needs to repent if he refuses to preach it!
I am a sister in faith and I find it hard to believe that a Shepard of Jesus would put Trump and Clinton in the same category. One spews hatred every time he opens his mouth and the other has worked as best she could within the political system to bring some relief to families in need. To me there is a very clear choice.
Hi Marie,. I’m sorry to say that your comment is wide of the mark. Some evils are greater than others. Some moral issues involve intrinsic evil such as abortion or euthanasia. Some moral issues involve exercising prudence in deciding on the best approach, such as how and who should care for the poor.
Trump would not have been my first choice but at least he is solid — and his Supreme Court nominees would be solid — on the intrinsic evils. Clinton is not, by any stretch of the imagination. To say that Trump spews hatred every time he opens his mouth is simply not true and you know that.
I rely on traditional moral analysis and solid Catholic moral theology. Do I agree with the Archbishop’s analysis? I think he has confused things and should have been less ambiguous.
Wow. It is because of Catholics like this that 59 million babies have been murdered in the United States. Catholics who block out all information about the criminals in public office who have kept the mass murder going, so they can pretend that these criminals “care about the poor” and other such propaganda. Wow.
You should consider Hillary Clinton’s verbal on TV threat that all the churches better change their ways because she’ll see women’s rights (abortion) and her views will win. Not since Henry VIII of England pronounce such antagonism to the Church, and yet, Bishop, you can’t make up your mind? Shame on you and every Catholic that would consider voting for a woman that lies to American citizens about the true state of world affairs, ISIS and hides her negotiations, takes bribes from foreign countries and flaunts our country’s laws. God help us.
Thank you, Archbishop Chaput,, for this thought provoking and insightful reflection! I was already reading Mary Eberstadt’s book and will be getting Reno’s book ASAP.
Let me see if I understand this right. The Democrat party stands for unlimited abortion, homosexual marriage, contraception, the destruction of the 2nd amendment, attempting to force the Catholic Church to expound secular perversions,etc. and neither is clearly better than the other.
To vote for a Democrat is almost always objectively mortal sin as it currently stands. At this point I cannot think of any current Democrat that would be an exception.
A couple of G.K. Chesterton quotes:
“There are many ways to fall but only one way to stand.”
“I want a church that moves the world not one that moves with it.”
“Don’t be so open-minded that your brains fall out.”
And how about this quote from Pope Francis, “Who am I to judge?”
AMEN.
As a pro-life catholic I am again troubled by many politically motivated voters who use our church and Life issues as a backdrop to vote for either candidate. It hurts life’s message. I take my faith very seriously, I read the Gospels and already as required reading read Havel’s Power of the Powerless.
My concern is how political pundits who waste no time attacking the Catholic Church’s stance on Immigration, the Plight of the Poor, and in-tack families will again pick and chose their form of Catholicism to promote their candidate, and not Life. Your Excellency, I fear this message does just that.
Well said George.
George, I agree with your premise. I think the concern for some (not those who quote Francis’ “Who am I to judge?” as though the Pope meant “Never use judgement.”) is whether candidate Trump will maintain Republican values regarding life, marriage and freedom. I myself am willing to vote for the devil I don’t know – because following through on promises of court appointees is expected by those who help elect him – as opposed to the devil I do know, the pro-abortion, anti-marriage, power-hungry candidate and party on the left (not to offend the well-intentioned liberal who only sees the humanitarian efforts of the left.).
Pope Francis’s comment, “who am I to judge?”, referred specifically to the example of a person who repents, renounces sin, and sincerely seeks God. Show us a presidential candidate or a candidate for any office who repents, renounces, and seeks; and the Holy Father’s admonition will rightly apply. Otherwise, his words must not be taken from their proper context. I agree with Mr. Kadlec’s comments and enjoyed his Chesterton quotes very much.
The “Who am I to Judge” comment has been rediculously used for too many topics. “Judging” is not the same as “discerning”, God wants us to discern what is good from what is bad, what is evil from what is holy, what is right from what is wrong, etc, etc. We can do this without “judging” the “person” that causes us to “discern” their behavior. Calling out the behavior for what it is, is simply informing about the truth and is not condemning the person, but rather their behavior. That said, the behavior (and platform) of the Democrat party as a whole (as stated above) has been bad, evil, and wrong for decades. God holds us “responsible” for the results of our vote, or for inaction there of. For example if we vote for a person we know will provide unrestricted abortion, aid in the destruction of traditional marriage, lessen or destroy religious freedom etc. God will “judge” us as responsible for not properly “discerning”. Our choices in this life are the choices we make for where we end up in eternity, Vote, but vote wisely.
Your article expresses what so many of us Catholics feel. One candidate offends our sensibilities as Christians, the other we deem untrustworthy. Where does one go from there? I will reluctantly vote from conscience but in the meantime, I pray to God for His guidance for the national conscience.
Presidents come and go. In the long run it is who is appointed to the Supreme Court for life and steers the real national conscience. This should be a part of anyone’s calculus when pulling the presidential lever.