Can a Catholic vote for a pro-choice candidate for public office? Yes. But don’t take my word for it. Pope Benedict XVI said so himself four years ago in response to growing controversy over the responsibilities of Catholic voters. What’s really at stake in this and other elections is not so much whether such a vote is acceptable, but what circumstances warrant it.
In 2004, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops asked Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – a high-ranking Vatican official who would become Pope Benedict the following year – to comment on the controversy. He issued the following advice :
"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
In other words, voting for a pro-choice candidate is not the same as driving someone to an abortion clinic, provided the voter’s
intent is not to promote or perpetuate the practice of abortion. It’s all about why the Catholic voter votes the way he or she does.
Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement does not elaborate on what constitutes “proportionate reasons” – what circumstances permit a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate – and not surprisingly, it’s around this particular question that the current debate has come to center. Some argue that it’s a numbers game. According to this line of thinking, the only acceptable proportionate reasons would be those that constitute direct assaults on human life, and that affect more people than are currently affected by abortion. Supporters of such reasoning might argue, for example, that only if an antiabortion candidate happened to favor something like genocide would it be appropriate to vote for that candidate’s pro-choice opponent.
But this reasoning overlooks a number of other factors we can and should consider in making any voting decision – like whether we believe the candidate has a serious chance of instituting policies that will ultimately advance Catholic values on human life, or whether the policies favored by the candidate who supports legal abortion will in the end do more to reduce and prevent actual abortions. Indeed, as the U. S. Catholic Bishops write in their official voter education document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship , voting decisions “should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.”
The Catholic Church teaches that the practice of abortion is never morally acceptable; this much is abundantly clear. That same church, however, holds that translating moral teachings into action in a democratic society is the duty of individual lay Catholics (opposed to the Church institution itself), and one that requires practical reasoning with an eye toward real results. While the bishops do issue their own public policy recommendations, they are careful to note that such statements do not carry the same authority as church moral teachings. Nor, the bishops clearly state, does the Church purport to support or oppose any candidates for public office. For Catholics, the difference between morality and politics is a bit like the distinction between theory and practice. The Church’s job is to teach right from wrong, but actually applying that teaching in real-world situations is up to us. And the right course of action is not always apparent.
At the end of the day, the bishops remind us, individual Catholic voters must use their own “prudential judgment” – or, moral common sense – when deciding which levers to pull. If after examining the facts, a Catholic truly believes that a “pro-choice” candidate will do more to promote the cause of human life than one who seeks legal prohibitions on abortion, her or she can vote for the pro-choice candidate with a clear conscience.