Are Catholics morally required to vote?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JackVk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JackVk

Guest
To be honest, I do not want to vote in this year’s midterm elections. I’m disillusioned with the two-party lunacy. I consider myself, almost, a political nihilist. I don’t trust any party; they are all gangs, all lusting for the throne.

But is it a mortal sin to not vote? Is the Church making her children choose between one corrupt party or another? I want to not vote, out of objection.
 
The thing about democracy is that you must vote, because so few in the U. S. Actually even bother to vote, and because few take politics seriously , you end up with the party clowns you have had for decades , both sides are a waste of space,but there is no alternative ,complacency breeds contempt , get involved !
 
The duties of citizens
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (emphasis mine):

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:
 
My parents say that usually they end up voting for the guy they think will do the least damage. And that is part of voting, to minimize damage and pick the lesser of evils if there is no truly good choice. The Church can’t morally obligate us to vote on pain of mortal sin. But we are required to exercise our civic duty responsibly. If in our prudential judgement it is best to not vote at all, then we can consider our consciences clear. But I think that we need a grave reason to arrive at that conclusion.

Discuss it with a trusted priest. Your diocese should have resources for voters. I am currently doing research with the approved Catholic and conservative sources so that I can be an informed voter. In my state, candidates are given questionnaires with 10-15 issues to support or oppose. The resources do not tell us which one is better but they tell us exactly how they answered a questionnaire. Therefore an informed voter should be able to make up his own mind which candidate’s “fingerprint” adequately conforms to our own views. It is a very useful tool.
 
No.

Interestingly I used to vote regularly, until recently. I got tired of being viewed as less pariotic, less humane, less a Catholic if I not only expressed interest in any given candidate, but especially a particular party.
 
JackVk said:
To be honest, I do not want to vote in this year’s midterm elections. I’m disillusioned with the two-party lunacy. “Republicans are red, Democrats are blue, and neither of them give a s*** about you”, as it goes. I don’t even trust Libertarians; they parade themselves as “free thinkers” and “for liberty”, when they also uncritically accept anything from the mouth of Ron Paul or Penn Jilette. I consider myself, almost, a political nihilist. I don’t trust any party; they are all gangs, all lusting for the throne.

But is it a mortal sin to not vote? Is the Church making her children choose between one corrupt party or another? I want to not vote, out of objection.
Click to expand...
It’s like this. Voting is a positive moral precept (a “do this” thing, rather than a negative moral precept, a “do not do this” thing). Positive moral precepts bind according to the dictates of prudence, because we can’t all do every possible good thing 100% of the time. For instance, giving money to charity is good, but it’d be bad for me to give all my money to charity because I have other duties I have to attend to that I can’t neglect. So prudence requires me to find the right amount to give in order to satisfy this obligation. (Negative moral precepts, on the other hand, bind absolutely, because it is always possible not to do an evil thing).

So voting is a positive moral precept. You should do it, it’s morally good to do it, but it doesn’t follow you have to vote for every single race in every single election. In fact, just as there are grave reasons (such as extreme poverty) that might excuse one from the obligation to give to charity generally, I’m prepared to argue there are grave reasons present today that would excuse you from voting, ever. Namely, since your vote makes no difference, the only possible effect your voting could have would be to reconcile you to a system you experience as and understand to be (rightly, IMO) profoundly disordered.
 
Richard_White said:
The duties of citizens
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (emphasis mine):

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:
Click to expand...
👍 THIS ^^

I used to struggle to understand that, as my opinions flow, how can certain men be considered ‘appointed by God’ when their policies are against moral precept. But a couple of concepts cemented themselves for me. One is that there is NO area of our mortal existence that is outside of God’s dominion (I think its Lumen Gentium that speaks of that). So even the appointment of rulers can be used by Him for the betterment of His Kingdom.

The other is that all throughout the OT, authorities were used by God to bring Israel into submission and back to repentance. Often I think that when religious liberty is threatened by bureaucracy, our outcries, rather than militant, might be better served as acts of humble penance. Just maybe the authorities, however immoral, are truly agents of God put there to wake us up.

So, yes, we must do our duty as citizens and try to put representatives of this society in place that will positively affect God’s glory. If we stand aside and quietly let evil raise to power, that worldly power will try to put us into submission. But then, maybe there is a lesson for us there too.
 
I got tired of voting for the best candidate only to have a less than adequate person win. After decades of campaigning and keeping up with politics (I was an informed voter :eek: ) I threw away my voter card and now enjoy voting day keeping my blood pressure on an even keel. I don’t care who wins, because they are all the same. Yes, I don’t wear the flag sticker anymore, or fly the cloth one either. Politicians are killing the spirit of patriotism in this country.
 
I’m one of those people who like to do a lot of things. So voting is one more thing. Still need to register, but the district I live in has a good congressman who is patriotic and helps a lot of people.
 
Is it a moral imperative to vote?
I do not believe so.

But how can we expect positive change if good people do not vote?
 
Neofight said:
No.

Interestingly I used to vote regularly, until recently. I got tired of being viewed as less pariotic, less humane, less a Catholic if I not only expressed interest in any given candidate, but especially a particular party.
Click to expand...
Interesting. what are your thoughts on the CCC quoted above.
 
Casilda said:
I don’t care who wins, because they are all the same.
Click to expand...
Do you seriously believe that a religious family man like Mitt Romney is the same as Barack Obama? Which would you rather have as a neighbor?
 
2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:
Code: 
Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. 

[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.
The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a4.htm#2240

But I do not say that one must vote in each race in an election necessarily:

catholic.com/quickquestions/can-someone-refuse-to-vote-in-an-election-for-reasons-of-conscience
 
No, we have the right to conscientiously object. Every entity needs to be scrutinized to determine if they conform to God’s laws. But the yardstick is always God’s moral code in which all nations are subject.

No one qualified, don’t vote.
 
If the elections are rigged and the vote a fraud, and voting gives cover to a corrupt regime, then not voting is the right thing to do. Are we there yet? No. But civil piety is wearing thin.
 
djames99 said:
No, we have the right to conscientiously object. Every entity needs to be scrutinized to determine if they conform to God’s laws. But the yardstick is always God’s moral code in which all nations are subject.

No one qualified, don’t vote.
Click to expand...
Nobody can pass that litmus test.
 
I disagree. In such a case, in a hypothetical assessment the good things of a person are given a good rating. If there is doubt as to what he might do, I consider if it negates everything else that is good. The reason is that there exists intrinsic wrongs. If he agrees to abortion, and there are remaining 15 positives, then he doesn’t get my vote. This is evidence that he is weak and will sell out his principles for a price.

Another thing to remember is that we are to make assessments only on evidence that is available to us. We are not to project possible scenarios for a person. That he may change for the better in a couple of months and so we mistakenly give him a point for that. This is not our place. It falls into the domain of the Holy Spirit who works at his own timetable. It may seem that the remaining 15 positives are a real loss by rejecting him, but the Holy Spirit has a plan that we don’t know. We work from information that is available to us in the present.
 
djames99 said:
I disagree. In such a case, in a hypothetical assessment the good things of a person are given a good rating. If there is doubt as to what he might do, I consider if it negates everything else that is good. The reason is that there exists intrinsic wrongs. If he agrees to abortion, and there are remaining 15 positives, then he doesn’t get my vote. This is evidence that he is weak and will sell out his principles for a price.

Another thing to remember is that we are to make assessments only on evidence that is available to us. We are not to project possible scenarios for a person. That he may change for the better in a couple of months and so we mistakenly give him a point for that. This is not our place. It falls into the domain of the Holy Spirit who works at his own timetable. It may seem that the remaining 15 positives are a real loss by rejecting him, but the Holy Spirit has a plan that we don’t know. We work from information that is available to us in the present.
Click to expand...
I agree on the whole; especially where if one does not endorse to right for his constituents to live, then no other rights matter. We must keep in mind also, that he may not be able to advocate that position if it is one that will prohibit him from claiming his political seat. In the end, the candidate’s hope for election rests on him gaining favor with voters that will secure his position for him. So if the pro-life people stay home and refuses attempt a solution to the dignity of life dilemma, the only voters left are the opposing perspective. So by refusing to advocate (or attempt to) for moral precept, we become part of the problem, not part of the solution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top