Catholic Teaching on Voting for the Lesser of 2 Evils| National Catholic Register

COMMENTARY: Although Pope Benedict used the life issue as his example, it is clear that more than life in the strict sense (abortion, euthanasia) is at stake in any election.

In an in-flight interview Sept. 13, Pope Francis was recently asked about the U.S. elections and noted that both major candidates are “against life,” adding that a voter must choose between “the lesser of two evils.” Both brief comments represent a shorthand for a developed Catholic moral theology about complex moral decisions, especially when the options are imperfect, as is often the case. 

In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI articulated a clear statement of the principle of social goods, which the Church considers important both in legislation and in elections. These “common” or “social” goods are necessary for a well-ordered society and, therefore, those who govern society should govern in keeping with them. The public political character of a candidate should, therefore, be judged by the extent to which their governance history, their current policy views and objectives coincide with the common good. 

Since these are often in service of their party’s objectives, the party’s platform should also be considered. These elements belong to a prudent judgment about the merits of their candidacy and how they will likely govern. 

In his March 30, 2006, address to a group of European Parliamentarians, Pope Benedict stated that “the principal focus of [the Church’s] interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these, the following emerge clearly today:

 the protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;

 recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage;

 the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.”

Here, Pope Benedict identified the principle social goods that human beings need to flourish: life, the natural family structure, and the freedom to raise one’s children in accordance with one’s beliefs. Only then will society itself flourish in accordance with our nature and God’s plan. 

The purpose of governing is, therefore, to facilitate these common goods, not to substitute others that do not serve human flourishing. Likewise, to the extent that a candidate’s views and policies would advance these goods, they are worthy of our vote. To the extent that they would not, they are unworthy of it. 

Unfortunately, it is all too common that candidates do not hold these social goods at the center of their political views or hold them imperfectly. In such cases, as Pope Benedict noted, the voter should choose the lesser of the evils. By this, he means we should vote for the candidate who would do the least evil, in order to prevent the evil that the other candidate would do. It is this choice of the will that redeems our vote. However, in doing so, we should make clear to others, who may wonder, that our purpose was to prevent a greater evil and was not to support the evil the candidate for whom we voted might do. 

Although Pope Benedict used the life issue as his example, it is clear that more than life in the strict sense (abortion, euthanasia) is at stake in any election. As noted above, Pope Benedict identifies three goods that flow from human life. In addition to the life of the individual — without which no other rights or goods matter — there is the life of the basic cell of society (natural marriage and family) and the liberties that are necessary for individuals and families to live and flourish. Thus, when comparing candidates to determine which one has the least evil views and policy positions, all three principles must be considered.

While clearly few candidates in any election perfectly hold these human and Christian values, it is often clear that some profess contrary values against one or the other, or even all three, of these paramount goods. Some candidates hold them deeply by conviction, and they have spent political careers fighting for them. The thoroughness of those views and their past and current policies and actions are the best guide to how the candidate will govern. 

In the end, as Pope Benedict noted, the voter must choose. Both the Catechism and the moral tradition teach this. In our constitutional system, it is the people who govern, but we do not fulfill our role if we do not help elect those who will represent us well or prevent the election of candidates who will not. If we cannot choose a candidate who seeks the common good across the board, then we need to choose the one who will do the least harm. To choose otherwise is to abdicate our responsibility to vote.