Q. The November 2007 USCCB statement “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility” states that issues of life such as abortion, euthanasia, genocide, torture, racism are intrinsically evil. It goes on to say, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position.” The “if” in this statement sounds like a loophole allowing voting for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil. Can you clarify, as it seems that following this guideline one could justify supporting not only pro-abortion politicians but also many of history’s tyrants as well?

A. The USCCB statement reflects the content of a note that then-head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, sent in a confidential communication to the U.S bishops in June 2004 to assist them in their discussion about Catholics in political life. The communication contained principles on worthiness for Holy Communion which addressed the situation of Catholic candidates for public office who dissent from Church doctrine by supporting legal abortion and euthanasia. It was accompanied by a note that went on to discuss the issue of voters’ responsibility. It said, using the categories of moral theology, “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 favor 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.”
As the note makes clear, a Catholic who supports a candidate who favors legal abortion and euthanasia because that Catholic also supports those grave evils becomes, as it were, an accomplice in promoting them. To use the questioner’s comparison, Catholics who supported “history’s tyrants” because they favored suppression of human rights and the denial of the dignity of every person were accomplices in tyranny. Though some tyrants, like Hitler, came to power through democratic means, they usually maintained themselves in power by force. In the past (and today as well) dictators did not allow their people to exercise a real choice, if they bothered to hold elections at all. Individual Catholics and even the Church, to safeguard its essentially spiritual mission, have had to “cooperate” with tyrannical regimes for lack of any alternative.
Although the note does not go into detail, it implies an awareness of the complexity that voters face in a multifaceted, democratic society in which they are genuine participants in determining the directions in which it will go. For example, a voter may find all the candidates so flawed that the decision comes down to the least of two or more evils. When the issues involved are as serious as abortion and euthanasia, the note reminds Catholics that a vote for a candidate who supports them needs proportionate reasons — proportionate to life itself. In “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” the bishops make this clear, “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may 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.”